Artificial intelligence is showing promise in tropical cyclone forecasting, with AI-powered models matching or even exceeding the accuracy of traditional physics-based models, particularly in track predictions. With hurricanes and typhoons poised to become more destructive with climate change, these advancements are crucial in enhancing early warning systems and improving disaster preparedness and response strategies.

—

When Severe Tropical Storm Wutip hit Southeast Asia early last month, AI forecasting models outperformed traditional computer models in predicting the storm’s path.

The Hong Kong Observatory, which for some time has been relying on both physics-based and AI-powered forecasting models, said that both Fuxi, an AI model developed by Fudan University, and the Artificial Intelligence Forecasting System (AIFS) by the UK-based European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF), estimated that Wutip would take a more westerly path. The prediction was ultimately closer to the storm’s actual track than that of two numerical weather prediction models.

AI forecasting models are improving quickly, having repeatedly shown to be at least “as accurate as, and often more accurate” than, their physics-based counterparts.

AIFS predictions outperformed conventional models’ predictions by up to 20% during an 18-month testing period. When ECMWF rolled it out in February, it described it as a “milestone” poised to “transform weather science and predictions.”

Private companies like Google and Microsoft have also entered the competition, with notable achievements. Last month, Google DeepMind and Google Research unveiled Weather Lab, an interactive website showcasing the AI models the company has been working on. Users can navigate the intutitive interface, comparing AI and physics-based forecasts of dozens of named storms from the past four years.

The company claims that in tests for 2023–24 storms in the North Atlantic and East Pacific, its 5-day track forecasts were about 85 miles (about 136 kilometers) closer to actual tracks than ECMWF’s Ensemble (ENS) – which is widely regarded as the best and most reliable weather forecasting model currently in existence.

Kate Musgrave, a Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere, which evaluated Google’s AI model, said it had “comparable or greater skill than the best operational models for track and intensity.”

Indeed, when Category 4 Hurricane Helene hit the Florida Big Bend region last September, bringing catastrophic inland flooding, extreme winds, deadly storm surge, and numerous tornadoes that claimed 250 lives, Google’s experimental model correctly estimated both its path and wind intensity. ENS’s path prediction was also fairly accurate, though the physics-based model forecasted wind speeds shy of a Category 1 hurricane.

While promising, this level of accuracy is not always a given.

As WFLA’s Chief Meteorologist and Climate Specialist Jeff Berardelli points out, intensity forecasting is much harder than track forecasting, even for AI models. And Google’s forecast of last year’s Hurricane Milton is a compelling case in point.

While Google AI model’s path predictions were just miles off from the storms’ actual paths, its intensity forecast was significantly off track. The model predicted a hurricane that would fall short of reaching even a Category 2, despite Milton ultimately escalating to a devastating Category 5 storm – becoming the most intense to hit the Gulf of Mexico since Hurricane Rita in 2005.

What happened with Milton is something known as rapid intensification. Only two days passed between the time it formed in the Gulf of Mexico and the time it reached Category 5 hurricane on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Wind Scale, the most widely recognized risk assessment method for hurricanes. Never had a hurricane intensified to quickly before, according to NASA.

Rapid intensification poses a significant threat due to the potential for increased wind speed and storm surge, as well as the reduced time available for authorities to issue warnings, endangering coastal communities.

Nearly 80% of major hurricanes (category 3-5) undergo rapid intensification, making it extremely challenging for hurricane models, AI models or otherwise, to accurately forecast their intensity. 

A 2023 study suggested that the fastest-strengthening Atlantic tropical storms between 2001 and 2020 – including billion-dollar hurricanes Sandy (2012), Harvey (2017), Ida (2021), and Ian (2022) – intensified on average almost 29% more quickly as human-made greenhouse gas emissions have warmed the planet and oceans. The number of storms going from Category 1 or weaker to Category 3 or stronger in 36 hours has doubled in the same period. 

Researchers from the Institute of Oceanology at the Chinese Academy of Sciences have developed an AI model that combines satellite, atmospheric and oceanic data to forecast the rapid intensification of tropical cyclones, also known as hurricanes and typhoons. Tested on data from the tropical cyclone periods in the Northwest Pacific between 2020 and 2021, the model achieved accuracy of 92.3% – a 12% improvement compared to existing AI methods. It also reduced false alarm rates by three times to just 8.9%, according to a paper published in January.

While the findings show “promising potential for practical applications,” testing on a larger sample is still needed, considering that tropical cyclone characteristics vary significantly across ocean basins, the study concluded.

You might also like: What Are Tropical Cyclones? Hurricanes and Typhoons, And Their Link to Climate Change, Explained

Faster and More Energy Efficient

“You will never have 100% accuracy of the weather; that’s simply impossible. Our atmosphere is chaotic, our Earth system is chaotic,” said Florian Pappenberger, Deputy Director-General and Director of Forecasts and Services at ECMWF. But while still uncertain, AI-generated forecast is “far more accurate, better than in the past,” he added. “That allows people to make better decisions, to plan better. I find this exciting.”

AI models are not only promising accurate forecasts, but are also doing so much faster and with significantly less energy. At a time when human-made global warming is bringing about a new era of bigger, deadlier typhoons, this becomes indespensible.

ECMWF’s AIFS can predict the track of tropical cyclones 12 hours further ahead, and requires approximately 1,000 times less energy than their physics-based counterparts to do so. Google’s AI model requires about a minute to complete a 15-day forecast of a cyclone’s formation, track, intensity, size and shape, something that numerical weather prediction methods need several hours for.

This is because traditional models’ predictions are based on complex equations on a global grid that necessitate substantial computational power and advanced supercomputers, with each run often taking several hours to complete. Contrastingly, AI models use neural networks to quickly analyze patterns in historical data, skipping the need for solving complex physics equations.

Recognizing that “the pace of weather modeling innovation is increasing,” NOAA’s National Hurricane Center earlier this month announced it is teaming up with Google to improve tropical cyclone forecast and “maximize the benefits” of AI innovation in the sector.

As promising and powerful as they are, AI models “continue to depend on the historical and real-time availability of atmospheric analysis datasets produced by physical modelling centres, and the continued quality and coverage of the Earth’s observing system,” said Tom Andersson, a Research Engineer at Google DeepMind.

“This is a powerful new tool in the toolbox, but no single model is perfect. It will remain key that human forecasters evaluate a wide range of both ML and physics-based predictions when issuing public warnings for cyclone threats.”

Featured image: NOAA Satellites/Flickr.

The post Tropical Cyclone Forecasting Is Getting More Challenging. Can AI Offer Solutions? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Between 1962 and 1971, the US military sprayed millions of gallons of Agent Orange, a herbicide containing the toxic contaminant dioxin, to defoliate the forests of South Vietnam and expose Vietcong forces. Many described the military operation as ecocide. But 50 years on, ecocide remains controversial in international law, and only limited jurisdictions have criminalized it. 

—

Ecocide refers to the act of deliberately harming the environment. The term was debated in specific international law circles between the 1970s and 1990s, and re-entered international discourse when Scottish barrister and environmental lobbyist Polly Higgins submitted a proposal in 2019 to amend the Rome Statute to include ecocide as a crime.

The Rome Statute is the international treaty and foundation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It creates a legal framework for prosecuting individuals for international crimes. Following Higgin’s submission to the ICC, the Maldives and Vanuatu requested all parties to the Rome Statute to make an amendment to criminalize ecocide. 

Ecocide in International Law

Today, international law does not specifically ban ecocide. 

The closest restriction to an “ecocide provision” that currently exists in international law is Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute. The article states that “Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause…widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”. This is qualified by a statement that it should be known that the damage caused to the environment “would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated”. 

The provision sets an incredibly high threshold that is extremely difficult to establish. As such, no cases have been prosecuted in the ICC based on the article since its insertion in 1998. 

Which Countries Criminalize Ecocide?

Despite being described as “radical” by some commentators, ecocide laws have been implemented into the domestic laws of several countries in the past three decades. 

In 1990, Vietnam became the first nation to adopt ecocide into its criminal law framework. Article 342 of Vietnam’s Penal Code provided that “those who, in peace or war time, commit…acts of ecocide or destroying the natural environment, shall be sentenced to between ten years and twenty years of imprisonment, life imprisonment or capital punishment.” However, the country has since removed the ecocide provision in its latest version of the Penal Code, nonetheless retaining prohibitions against illegal forest destruction (article 189).  

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, several former Soviet republics incorporated ecocide into their criminal codes. In the Criminal Code of the Kyrgyz Republic, following article 373 concerning genocide, article 374 prohibits “massive destruction of the animal or plant kingdoms, contamination of the atmosphere or water resources, and also commission of other actions capable of causing an ecological catastrophe.” Many of the former Soviet republics mirror each other with similar provisions. 

The most recent example of implementing a domestic ecocide law is Belgium, which in 2024 became the first European nation to adopt ecocide into their Penal Code.

The table below summarizes all the jurisdictions that previously or currently have ecocide laws in effect. It should be noted that all of them have some form of mens rea (intention or knowledge) requirement. In other words, it must be established that the perpetrator intended to or knowingly or recklessly committed the crime. Such a crime contrasts with a strict liability crime, which has no such requirement. For the former Soviet republics, it is a general principle that even if intent is not specifically mentioned in the article itself, the crime is presumed to require mens rea unless explicitly stated otherwise.

Challenges in Prosecuting Ecocide and Potential Solutions

Expanding ecocide out of a military context

Under the current international law framework, an ecocide-like action is only illegal if it is known that the damage caused to the environment “would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” (Article 8(2)(b)(iv) of the Rome Statute).

In 2016, the Office of the ICC Prosecutor stated that they would prioritize environmental crimes that resulted in environmental destruction and natural resource exploitation, though as mentioned above, no such cases have been prosecuted in the ICC to date.

In 2024, the Office of the ICC Prosecutor released a policy document outlining strategies to prosecute environmental crime through other provisions such as Article 7(1)(d), which criminalizes deportation or forcible transfer of population. This means that destroying homes or polluting the environment, which forces communities out of their homes, could be an environmental crime and potentially an act of ecocide that breaches this provision. 

The ICC Prosecutor’s desperate efforts to overcome the limited protection for the environment in Article 8(2)(b)(iv) demonstrates that there is an urgent need for reform. A new environmental crime and ecocide provision should extend beyond wartime contexts, with no exemptions allowed for military or economic gain.

Should Intent Be Removed From Ecocide? 

Many commentators, including Higgins herself, have argued that ecocide should not be a law of intent but rather a strict liability crime. Proving intent has been viewed by many as a barrier to the successful prosecution of ecocide. 

During early debates over inserting a crime of environmental destruction into the Rome Statute’s draft, Austria and other countries opposed an intent requirement, as perpetrators usually act with a profit motive. On that basis, Austria argued it is difficult to establish intent if the primary subjective intent is not environmental destruction. 

However, an intent requirement does not have to be conceptualized in such a way. A mens rea requirement can be determined objectively, based on the external behavior of the perpetrator and can even be a standard of “recklessness” – such as in the Belgian Penal Code. A correctly formulated intention requirement will not render the crime of ecocide unenforceable, even against corporate actors. There are extensive studies demonstrating that corporations are regularly prosecuted for intent-based crimes such as fraud or cartel conduct – consequently facing enforcement actions and criminal sanctions or being forced to settle. Moreover, in order for a potential ecocide law to remain faithful to its original concept, a mens rea requirement is arguably necessary. In response to the Vietnam War, Galston forcefully protested the United States by condemning ecocide – the “wilful and permanent destruction” of the environment. Galstons’ use of the term ecocide was powerful because of its connection to genocide. If ecocide was merely a strict liability crime, the crime may be more easily enforced but at the cost of losing its gravity and meaning.

Ecocide should not be considered an all-encompassing term for environmental crime. Instead, it has long been, and should continue to be considered, a sub-category of environmental crime. 

Countries that currently incorporate ecocide law generally mandate some form of mens rea requirement. Moreover, ecocide is distinguished in all countries from other environmental crimes of strict liability, such as breaching air or water pollution standards in Poland and Russia. Ecocide is also heavily punished in domestic law frameworks, with penalties attaching to the crime often ranging between eight and 20 years imprisonment. 

If ecocide is to be the most heinous example of environmental crime, then its legal threshold should be set accordingly. An intent threshold is necessary if ecocide is to be conceptualized in such a way. 

More on the topic: Explainer: What Is Environmental Crime?

What if Intent Is Not Removed? 

A solution to ecocide being too narrow is to broaden other environmental rights. For example, in Ecuador – albeit not being an ecocide law – there are constitutionally recognised rights for nature itself. 

Article 71 of the Ecuadorian Constitution provides that “Nature, or Pacha Mama, where life is reproduced and occurs, has the right to integral respect for its existence and for the maintenance and regeneration of its life cycles, structure, functions and evolutionary processes.”

Article 71 calls on public authorities to enforce the rights of nature, such as the right for nature to be restored under Article 72. As it is not a penal provision, if the environment is harmed through irresponsible deforestation or pesticide use – even if intent and therefore ecocide cannot be proved – the constitution still demands that nature be restored to its original state. 

Insofar as the law operates as a holistic and restorative mechanism, legal rights for nature itself may be more effective than punitive action against bad actors.

Ecocentrism

International environmental law, through the Rome Statute, prohibits a certain form of ecocide in the context of war and crimes against humanity. Beyond this, a number of countries have taken the initiative to criminalize ecocide in their domestic law frameworks. 

Ecocide is a mechanism that should be used to protect ecosystems and communities that depend on them from deliberate acts of wilful destruction. However, such legal frameworks remain largely anthropocentric – they prioritize human interests over the environment. To create a more balanced and effective system, this approach should be complemented by ecocentric principles. Granting legal rights to nature itself –as championed by Ecuador in its constitution – offers a more holistic path to environmental protection. Such a paradigm shift can help ensure the preservation of natural systems not just for human benefit, but for their own intrinsic value.

Featured image: Ivan Radic/Flickr.

The post Explainer: What Is Ecocide and How Is It Treated in International and Domestic Law? appeared first on Earth.Org.

In the face of the “existential threat posed by climate change,” the new visa offers Tuvalu citizens a pathway to permanent residency in Australia. Since mid-June, more than a third of Tuvalu’s population has registered for an online ballot to obtain the world-first climate visa.

—

More than 1,000 Tuvalu nationals have entered the ballot to apply for an Australian visa since it opened earlier this month. When accounting for family members – including applicants’ spouses and children – the total surpassed 4,000. For an island that is home to some 10,000 people, the number is rather impressive.

Earth.Org looks at how the visa works and why it has gained so much traction in so little time.

How Does the Visa Work?

The Pacific Engagement Visa (PEV) – Treaty stream (Tuvalu) was created as part of a bilateral treaty between Australia and Tuvalu encompassing three crucial aspects: climate cooperation, mobility, and security.

The pathway to permanent residency is open to all Tuvalu citizens above 18 years of age, as long as they have not obtained their Tuvaluan citizenship through an investment to Tuvalu and are not citizens of New Zealand. While not specifically a climate visa, New Zealand also offers citizens of Tuvalu and three other Pacific Island nations a pathway to permanent residency through a ballot system.

Only up to 280 Tuvaluans will be granted the visa every year, which allows them to work, study or live in Australia. A job offer, contrary to other visa schemes for Pacific citizens, is not required.

To obtain it, applicants must first register to an online ballot, which opened on June 16 and will close on July 18. The random selection period will open on July 25 and conclude in January 2026.

World-First Climate Visa

While the visa itself does not mention climate change, the bilateral treaty Australia and Tuvalu that led to it does. Signed in late 2023, the Australia-Tuvalu Falepili Union treaty aims to protect the two countries’ shared interests in security, prosperity and stability “in the face of the existential threat posed by climate change.”

Recognizing climate change as Tuvalu’s “greatest national security concern,” Australia committed to providing assistance to the small nation in case of natural disasters and support for adaptation. Meanwhile, the mobility component of the treaty introduced a special pathway for Tuvaluans to live, study and work in Australia permanently and access benefits granted to permanent residents of the country, including public education and health services.

When announcing the treaty in 2023, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said it came in response to a request by Tuvalu “to safeguard the future of [its] people, identity and culture”.

“That is why we are assisting on adaptation, but we are also providing the security that these guarantees represent for the people of Tuvalu, who want to preserve their culture, want to preserve their very nation going forward as well,” Albanese said at the time.

Lying just 5 meters (16 feet) above sea levels, experts have warned that up to 90% of the archipelago could be underwater by 2100. But the small nation, home to nearly 11,000 people, is also facing other climate-related threats, including water scarcity, loss of crucial ecosystems and escalating extreme weather events, which are leading financial instability and huge cultural losses.

Over the past 50 years, nearly 1,500 disasters in the South-West Pacific have caused 66,951 deaths and over US$185 billion in economic losses, according to the World Meteorological Organization.

Despite contributing only 0.02% of global emissions, the region’s 14 Small Island Developing States, including Tuvalu, are particularly at risk from climate hazards. Sea levels in the region have risen nearly twice as fast as the global average, and sea surface temperatures have increased three times faster since the 1980s. In 2019, modellings by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology found that droughts and climate change-induced floods in the region have already increased in frequency by 30%, and are projected to increase by 90% in the first half of this century and 130% in the latter half.

More on the topic: Tuvalu’s Sinking Reality: How Climate Change Is Threatening the Small Island Nation

Other Pathways

A separate pathway to obtain permanent residency in Australia for Pacific and Timor-Leste nationals is the Pacific Engagement Visa. Citizens of the 10 participating countries who are aged between 18 and 45, as well as their partners and children, can apply for one of 3,000 visas available each year, also trough an online ballot. As permanent residents, visa holders will get access to Australia’s universal health care system Medicare, public schools, child care subsidies and family tax benefits.

In 2024, the program allocated 100 visas to Tuvalu nationals.

It also allocated 1,515 visas for Papua New Guinea nationals, 300 each for Fiji, Timor-Leste and Tonga nationals, 150 each for Solomon Islands, Nauru and Vanuatu, 24 for Federated States of Micronesia and 11 for Palau nationals.

Race Against Time

The rush for Australia’s new climate visa is emblematic of the existential threat faced by dozens of nations worldwide.

The growing threats of climate change are poised to reshape the world map, permanently altering borders, cultures and geopolitics. Unless the world acts now, the disappearance of Tuvalu will serve as a prelude to large-scale loss and suffering around the world.

Featured image: UNDP Pacific Office in Fiji via Flickr.

The post Explainer: What You Need to Know About Australia’s World-First Climate Visa for Tuvalu Citizens appeared first on Earth.Org.

15-minute cities are increasing in popularity, but they are not without controversy. What design considerations should authorities apply to maximize sustainability and practicality?

—

The 15-minute city concept is an idea where all residents can walk, bike, or use public transport to reach everyday destinations in no more than 15 minutes. Supporters say developing these options in urban areas could improve people’s health, reduce emissions, and increase community engagement. However, implementing them requires careful planning and ongoing collaboration, especially since individuals often find cities difficult to live in without driving or settling for long bus rides.

This article explores what urban planners should do to overcome these obstacles and how concerned citizens can support them.

Pros and Cons of Existing Destinations

Some urban planners believe the best approach is to build 15-minute cities from scratch. Although that would overcome many obstacles stemming from infrastructure-related shortcomings, it is not always a viable option.

A more accessible solution may be to find locations with obvious potential that still have unworkable downsides. Then, planners can identify characteristics that make cities more or less suitable for the 15-minute urban design concept.

Envisioning the World’s Largest 15-Minute City

David Staley, a professor at the Ohio State University, has detailed his dream of turning the capital Columbus into the world’s largest 15-minute city. Staley is not in an influential city-planning role, but his insights could inspire designers to consider many proposed recommendations and apply them to real-life projects.

For example, he suggested creating neighbourhood microschools containing a maximum of 125 students and locating them along the city’s Capital Line – a dedicated path for bicyclists and pedestrians.

Staley also points out that he can bike to the nearest grocery store in about 20 minutes, but the route has almost no protected lanes, and more than half the trip lacks footpaths. These two examples highlight how planners must work to make it easier and safer for people to reach their destinations without cars.

According to him, microhubs are an essential element of the 15-minute city vision. Describing them as featuring managed outdoor areas, retail outlets, schools and offices, Staley suggested making them central to each neighbourhood and prioritizing areas where residents have little or no access to fresh, nutritious food.

Staley acknowledged that Columbus would need to update its zoning laws to permit mixed-use spaces and that success requires extensive resources and a willingness to overcome resistance. Whether challenging or not, examining the factors that contribute to or pose challenges to a future 15-minute city can inspire planners to find feasible solutions.

Design for Accessibility

One of the problems with the 15-minute city is that it assumes people can walk, ride bikes or use public transport to reach their destinations. Reducing car dependence should cause cleaner air and associated health benefits, which is vital considering 7 million people die from air pollution-linked conditions annually. However, some of these options are not always feasible for people with disabilities. Even with adequate public transportation infrastructure, established policies may make using it prohibitively inconvenient.

In some cities, users must book trips in advance and cannot merely turn up at their desired station or stop. It is also all too easy to find examples of those with disabilities who asked for assistance through the proper channels and did not receive it. These outcomes cause considerable stress and disappointment, especially when these failures mean those affected are late to time-sensitive appointments or cannot attend.

Designers can look at examples of 15-minute cities and see how well – or poorly – they work for people with disabilities. An important thing to remember is these individuals are already prevalent in society, and someone can become disabled at any time. Sometimes, ageing causes that result, or disability occurs due to accidents. These realities mean city planners should think ahead and realize better accessibility benefits everyone.

Footpaths in Barcelona

In one case, three researchers in the Spanish city of Barcelona looked at the condition of footpaths, recognizing that when this infrastructure is highly functional and safe, people can use it with mobility aids without worrying that they might trip. 

The trio created a flexible framework that examines the suitability of footpath networks against the limitations of those with moderate mobility constraints. They found that while Barcelona is a pedestrian-friendly city, it does not meet the 15-minute city concept because it does not provide adequate service to those using the footpaths.

Specifically, the framework scores were insufficient in slope, width and pedestrian hazard levels. Addressing these shortcomings would mean creating new locations for essential services and amenities – such as food shops, pharmacies and social-welfare branches – and improving access to existing ones.

Incorporating Sustainable Aspects

Some especially ambitious design teams aspire to build 15-minute cities by revitalizing unused locations. Such is the case in Athens, Greece, where teams are working on an extensive urban regeneration project with a 15-minute city component.

The Ellinikon is a pioneering effort to turn the former site of Athens International Airport into a 15-minute city with shops, workplaces, residents, and cultural activities within a 2-million-square-metre park. The first completed segment surrounds three of the former airport’s historic, listed hangars. It features rain gardens for stormwater management, a conscious use of natural materials, and repurposed surfaces that became benches and paths.

The developers will eventually turn this part of the project into Europe’s largest coastal park, featuring over 31,000 trees representing 86 species and more than one million Mediterranean plants. Additionally, the Ellinikon’s first major landmark is the Riviera Tower, built with a climate-conscious, future-proof design with an advanced biophilic exterior and sustainably designed interiors. These thoughtful considerations show how designers can stay mindful of the planet while working with preexisting site aspects and finding the best ways to create beautiful, enjoyable environments for residents and visitors.

Bringing Amenities Closer to the People

Some opponents of the 15-minute concept worry that these locations could exacerbate community division and inequality if planners do not make them accessible to low-income groups. Although that is one potential downside, these options would likely become more affordable to those who can afford the average cost of living there by allowing them to eliminate once-essential expenses.

In 2022, drivers in the US paying average rates for car insurance had to spend nearly $180 monthly to keep their coverage. Although much of the U.S. is notoriously very car-centric, European residents often have much different experiences, even in smaller cities. Paths for walking and biking are well-maintained, and people can frequently walk or take public transport to virtually every location.

Pedestrian-Friendly Paris

Efforts to turn the French capital of Paris into a 15-minute city show some inspiring and creative approaches to shorten the distances between amenities and those using them. In an article promoting his book, Carlos Moreno – who coined the titular term in 2015 – mentioned some of the strategies that have made the City of Lights more pedestrian-friendly and sustainable.

One was to redevelop places like offices that were only used part of the time into multiuse spaces. A former administrative building now contains a covered market, a preschool, an art gallery and a gym, among other attractions, allowing residents to satisfy many of their needs at a single location.

Additionally, the city now has 200 mini parks created by repurposing spaces to improve access. Residents can now access public school playgrounds on weekends, too.

Supporting the 15-Minute City

Although a 15-minute city is not a cure-all, these examples show it could address many of the issues characterizing modern cities while improving sustainability and people’s well-being. Starting conversations is a good first step, and designers should work around residents’ concerns to make their projects as accessible and equitable as possible.

Residents should remain aware of and attend meetings or other public events about 15-minute cities and give feedback about proposals. Supporting adjacent improvements like public transport expansions and footpath improvements also gets them closer to more convenient ideals, even though it may take years to reach them.

Featured image: Nerea Martí Sesarino/Unsplash.

The post 15-Minute Cities: Designing Urban Spaces for Sustainability and Well-Being appeared first on Earth.Org.

In a move that redefines the European Union’s approach to climate policy, the European Commission planned major rollbacks of the European Green Deal rules with legislative proposals aimed at simplifying some key sustainability directives. The Omnibus Simplification Package significantly narrows the scope of sustainability reporting and due diligence obligations, watering down the bloc’s corporate accountability legislation. 

—

The European Union (EU) has long positioned itself as the forefront of global climate action. Their flagship initiative, the European Green Deal, aimed at achieving climate neutrality by 2050, fostering a sustainable and circular economy, and ensuring a just transition to all sectors of society.

To operationalize these ambitious climate neutrality targets, the Commission introduced three key regulations: the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), which requires companies to disclose detailed information about their environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts, aiming at improving transparency and guiding sustainable investment decisions; the EU Taxonomy Regulation, a classification system that defines which economic activities are environmentally sustainable, designed to channel investments toward genuine green projects, and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), aiming to foster sustainable and responsible corporate behaviour in companies’ operations and global value chains.

These regulations are a major component of the successful implementation of the Green Deal’s goals, as they provide the main regulatory framework under which companies and EU member states are supposed to operate. They also serve to improve transparency on sustainability reporting and help guide sustainable investment, promoting sustainable economic practices and holding businesses accountable.

Cutting the Red Tape

In February, the European Commission presented the Omnibus Simplification Package, signaling a significant shift in the bloc’s approach to climate change. It is part of a strategy to make Europe more competitive in a precarious geopolitical environment, particularly according to the fear that Europe’s economy is stagnating and lagging behind that of the US and China.

The main argument supporting the advancement of the Omnibus was that reporting and due diligence reduce competitiveness because of the associated compliant expenses. Lowering these expenses through simplification, European lawmakers argued, would increase competitiveness and promote better business across Europe.

However, the rhetoric of simplification hides a de facto retreat from sustainability commitments. At the heart of the Omnibus package are several changes that target the key sustainability regulations that underpin the European Green Deal.

Reducing Corporate Accountability and Transparency 

The Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, which compels companies to ensure that human rights and environmental standards are upheld not only within their own operations but throughout their global supply chains, is the legislation that suffers the most under the simplification proposal.

Under the narrowing of obligations stipulated in the Omnibus, companies are required to conduct due diligence only on their direct business partners (e.g. immediate suppliers or contractors). This does not include small suppliers, as companies with fewer than 500 employees are exempt from due diligence requests, unless explicitly linked to known violations. In other words, companies would no longer be required to investigate environmental or human rights malpractices of indirect supplies (e.g. raw material producers) or smallholder supplies. 

The most severe violations, such as deforestation, forced labour, or environmental degradation, however, typically take place in these lower tiers of the supply chain, for example at mining sites or plantations, and this change could severely undermine the EU’s ability to prevent and stop abuses.

The CSDDD also required companies to terminate business relationships as a last resort if severe abuses cannot be mitigated. The Omnibus eliminates this obligation, allowing firms to continue partnerships as long as they claim to be ‘’addressing the issue.’’

You might also like: The Environmental Impact of Illegal Mining in Latin America 

Reducing Scope and Reporting

The Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive is also on the chopping block. While originally requiring over 50,000 European companies to report detailed information about their environmental, social and governance (ESG) impacts, under the Omnibus simplification, only companies with more than 1,000 employees and a net turnover above €50 million (US$55.9 million) are subject to mandatory reporting. 

The move effectively excludes some 80% of European companies from sustainability reporting, which will now be unaccountable for their sustainability practices. It also reduces the transparency necessary for green investments and informed consumer behavior.

Delayed Implementation

On top of reducing the breadth of reporting and due diligence requirements, the Omnibus also proposes delays in the implementation of the CSRD and CSDDD regulations by two years to 2028. 

These delays effectively grant companies more time to sidestep their sustainability obligations, potentially contributing to the perpetuation of harmful practices. Human rights abuses, forced labor, or environmental destruction, for instance, could go unchecked for years without the necessary oversight and transparency.

Backlash

As sweeping as the European Commission’s Omnibus simplifications were in scaling back sustainability regulations, so, too, has been the backlash they provoked. A broad and diverse coalition of stakeholders, including political parties, trade unions, environmental and human rights NGOs, and advocates for corporate transparency, have vocally opposed the proposal.

Over 360 environmental and human rights organizations have called on the European Union and EU national governments to suspend the Omnibus deregulation proposal.

Among the most vocal critics has been a coalition of climate and human rights NGOs, including ClientEarth, Friends of the Earth Europe, the European Environmental Bureau, and Corporate Europe Observatory. These organizations presented a formal complaint to the European Ombudsman, accusing the Commission of undermining sustainability progress with the Omnibus simplifications – particularly through failure to properly gather evidence and conduct impact assessments, closed-door consultations, lack of transparency, and heavy, unrestrained industry lobbying.

Some troubling details of procedural violations have emerged. Only about 15% of companies invited to consultations were small and medium enterprises (SMEs), even though they make up 99% of EU businesses and were supposed to be a major focus on the simplification agenda. Most of the companies consulted came from just five European countries – Germany, France, Italy, Spain and the Netherlands – plus the UK and US, raising concerns about geographic bias. 

Perhaps most strikingly, the Commission proposed and adopted these significant sustainability law revisions in less than four months, an unusual speed for a legislation of this scope. Furthermore, the interservice consultation period, typically a 10-working-day window given to the relevant Commission departments to comment on the proposal – was held over just 24 hours over the weekend, violating the Commission’s own procedural rules.

Political Divide in Parliament

The debate over the adoption of the Omnibus in the European Parliament has also been marked by sharp political divisions, reflecting broader ideological differences on deregulation, sustainability, and the pace of legislative change. 

The center-right European People’s Party (EPP), currently holding the parliamentary majority, is pushing for urgent adoption and significant administrative simplification, aiming to reduce burdens on businesses, especially SMEs. The party pushed to fast-track the package, and although they emphasize that simplification should not entail total deregulation, they are considering alliances with more right-leaning groups to secure a quick passage.

The alliance could constitute a severe threat to European sustainability goals. The far-right in the European Parliament, the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR) and other fringe groups – who in the past have called to put an end to the European Green Deal altogether – have argued that the package does not go far enough in deregulation. They have called for even more dismantling of existing sustainability and social directives, viewing current regulations as a major barrier for competitiveness. 

The EPP collaboration with far-right groups in order to pass legislation risks breaking the centrist coalition that gave Commission President Ursula von der Leyen her mandate. The Omnibus serves as a major test on whether the EPP will keep working with its centrist allies or pursue its agenda with right-wing support, potentially destabilising the EU’s political balance.

Center-left and left parties have largely been skeptical of the Omnibus package. While open to some simplification, the center-left Socialists & Democrats (S&D), the second-largest group in the European Parliament are wary of using the package as a pretext for deregulation or to weaken social and environmental standards. They oppose any collaboration with the far right and insist that simplification must not come at the expense of protections for people and the environment.

Other left wing groups were even harsher in their opposition to the Omnibus package. The European Greens have strongly opposed the package in its current form, viewing it as “deregulation under the guise of reducing bureaucracy’’ that threatens the EU’s ecological transition and penalizes companies already committed to sustainability. The Omnibus risks rolling back climate and social objectives and ruining decades of corporate accountability.

The Left group has also criticized the proposal, accusing the Commission of putting private interests and short-term business growth over climate and human rights obligations. They have called the Omnibus package ‘’a race to the bottom.’’

What’s Next?

The Omnibus Package risks setting a dangerous precedent beyond the immediate impact on sustainability regulation. This decision appears to be business driven, prioritizing private interests and short-term economic concerns over long-term social benefits. This sudden wave of deregulation seems to undermine the values of the European Union itself, creating uncertainty and contradicting EU’s commitments to social and environmental goals. 

With core sustainability regulations on the line, the outcome of this legislative battle will not only shape the immediate future of EU climate policy, but may also define the Union’s credibility as a global leader on environmental and human rights issues.

This shift has not happened in a vacuum. The deregulatory drive behind the Omnibus proposal has been significantly influenced by intense corporate lobbying, particularly from industry groups seeking to limit reporting obligations and reduce compliance costs. Corporate lobbying has been a long standing issue in the European institution; still, reports from Friends of the Earth Europe and Corporate Europe Observatory have detailed how business lobbyists, especially representing large multinationals, have successfully pushed to weaken and delay sustainability directives with exceptional speed and efficacy, gaining privileged access to the Commission’s scrutiny process and limited consultation with SMEs and civil society.

Surely, geopolitical instabilities – most notably the war in Ukraine and the tense relations with Donald Trump’s America – have fueled a narrative of urgency around competitiveness. Energy insecurity, inflation, and supply chain disruptions have amplified calls from certain political factions to strip back regulatory frameworks in the name of economic resilience. While legitimate concerns about overburdening businesses exist, there is a growing fear that these pressures are being used to justify a broader retreat from environmental and social responsibility.

As debates and negotiations in Brussels continue to unfold, the stakes are high. The decisions made now could either cement a deregulatory precedent that weakens the EU’s climate and human rights architecture – or mark a turning point where legislators recommit to the principles of the European Green Deal. It is essential that centrist and progressive forces in Parliament resist pressure from far-right and ultra-liberal factions pushing for deeper rollbacks, and instead work together to defend the integrity of the EU’s sustainability agenda.

There is still time for the EU to change course and reaffirm its climate leadership. A future-proof Europe must not sacrifice environmental and social protections for perceived short-term gains. As global challenges mount, the EU’s strength lies not in abandoning its values, but in upholding them with consistency and courage. The Omnibus is a test of the bloc’s political will to stay true to its commitments to people, planet, and future generations.

The post Explainer: Is the EU Backtracking on Its Climate Pledges? The Implications of the European Omnibus Simplification Package appeared first on Earth.Org.

At November’s COP30 climate conference in Belém, Brazil, gender will be a major focus topic. But why should action on climate change, which affects every person on the planet, require a specific action plan related to gender?

—

“Of all of the big problems, the biggest is the assumption that climate change is not a gender issue,” Mwanahamisi Singano, Director of Policy, Women’s Environment & Development Organization (WeDo), told Earth.Org. “Women have direct dependency on nature, so the changing environment impacts them.” 

According to Singano, women often lack access to climate change information, finance, adaptive abilities and capacities, as well as alternative means of livelihood. “When they are impacted, women are not as mobile as men. When the rain doesn’t fall, the father can migrate to the city and find a day wage job, but women with a family can’t easily do that. They are the first ones to suffer a shortage of food from a changing environment and changing patterns,” she said. 

A review of the UN Sustainable Development Goals found that by 2050, climate change may push up to 158 million more women and girls into extreme poverty (US$2.15 per day), 16 million more than men and boys. At the same time, WeDo found that women are often only thought of as victims, even though they have a great deal to offer as solution providers. 

As the Women and Gender Constituency Co-focal Point, Singano is on the frontlines of the interaction between climate change and gender. At COP30, to be held this November in Belém, Brazil, gender will be one of the major topics on the agenda. In particular, a decision is expected at this year’s conference on a new Gender Action Plan.

Since 2011, and shortly before COP17, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has recognized the Women and Gender Group as an official interest group in the COP process. The roots of the Gender Action Plan stretch back to COP20, which took place in 2014 in Lima, Peru. There, the first Lima work program on gender, later known as the LWPG, was established, aiming “to advance gender balance and integrate gender considerations … so as to achieve gender responsive climate policy and action.” The LWPG was long-term and open-ended, rather than a concrete list of specific actions. 

At subsequent meetings, the plan was extended and enhanced with thematic days, but no agreement was achieved. Finally, at last year’s COP29, the parties decided to develop an entirely new Gender Action Plan, aiming to be adopted at COP30. “There will be a big decision coming out at COP in Belém on the Gender Action Plan,” explained Singano. “It has to translate the work program, create concrete milestones, say who has to do what, and what the party or secretariat has to do to advance gender.”

Priority areas for the new Gender Action Plan include capacity building, knowledge management and communication, gender balance, participation and women’s leadership, coherence, gender-responsive implementation and means of implementation, and monitoring and reporting. In particular, the plan is expected to address advancing access to finance and gender – including funding for the plan itself – and closing the gap in gender-specific climate data. 

However, a number of important milestones need to be reached before a decision can be made on the plan in Belém. 

The window for all of the parties – the signatories of the Paris Climate Agreement – to make submissions related to the new gender action plan ended on March 31, 2025, and a summary of these submissions is expected to be published in mid May. Following this, the development of the new plan will begin in earnest at one of the intermediate negotiation sessions that happen in between COP events, known as the Subsidiary Body sessions. An important round of negotiations on the plan will take place at the Subsidiary Body session in June 2025 in Bonn, Germany, reviewing the design, structure and content of the plan. 

Gender is also an important aspect of another focus area for COP30 – the so-called “Just Transition”, the commitment introduced in 2023 to ensuring that no one is left behind or pushed behind in the transition to low-carbon and environmentally sustainable economies and societies. 

In line with the Just Transition approach, individual countries have included gender topics in their long-term low-emission development strategies; a recent analysis by the World Resources Institute showed that 25% of these strategies had a gender equity chapter described in detail. In a statement, Brazil’s Minister of Women Cida Goncalves said, “More than a result for COP30, Brasil’s real legacy at this summit will be the inclusion of a gender perspective and women’s rights as a foundation for addressing the climate crisis and promoting a just transition.” 

Solutions in these plans should include a gender lens in order to be effective, according to Singano. “A classical example is that most of the land is owned by men, and women can’t invest in land that is not theirs. So if we are going to subsidize irrigation equipment, it’s unlikely that women will take the opportunity. Or when we are doing training in the evening, you find that during these times women don’t come because they are busy doing household work.”

The role of women in creating solutions is highlighted in the climate solution awards, held annually by Women Engage for a Common Future and presented during the COP sessions. For example, in one case from Senegal, women had been generating income by smoking fish with mangrove charcoal. When the government banned mangrove harvesting, the women created a mangrove conservation that would keep the mangroves healthy while retaining their income generation activities. 

The role of culture and gender in climate change is also under consideration for the upcoming Gender Action Plan. In a seminar in April, Rosilena Lindo, Advisor and Former Secretary of Energy of the Government of Panama, referenced a local capacity building process with Indigenous women aiming to ensure they had access to renewable electricity as well as resources to start their own companies. However, “As they were used to not being the head of the family, this started disputes among families and communities.”

Lindo explained: “When you start to intervene in a community, you can’t do it by isolating one person in the family. You have to provide psychosocial support and new opportunities, depending on their traditions. The top down approaches always contribute to that loss of culture and traditional practices.”

Featured image: Karen Toro/Climate Visuals Countdown.

The post Explainer: Why Gender Will Be High on the Agenda at COP30 appeared first on Earth.Org.

As climate impacts intensify, environmental groups have criticized the shipping sector’s global emissions agreement reached last week as “too little, too late.”

—

In our highly globalized world, we have grown accustomed to receiving goods from the other side of the world in a matter of days without giving much thought to how they arrive on our doorstep. The shipping industry and its fleet of cargo ships is key to this global supply chain, with over a million vessels in circulation today. But this convenience comes at a cost: shipping is responsible for roughly 3% of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. 

A meeting of an International Maritime Organization (IMO) committee in London last week could have turned the tide for the shipping industry. A deal was reached, but it failed to meet expectations from climate-vulnerable nations and environmental advocates. Crucially, what was poised to become the world’s first carbon levy on all industry emissions ultimately failed to materialize. 

The Carbon Levy that Wasn’t

One of the most anticipated measures discussed in London was a requirement for merchant ships to pay a charge based on their greenhouse gas emissions. Climate vulnerable countries, including Pacific Island nations, lobbied for a $150 per tonne levy, which research suggested would help minimize the economic impact of decarbonizing the shipping industry. 

Key fossil fuel nations including Saudi Arabia and Russia always opposed the proposal, while the US walked out of the talks entirely, threatening reciprocal measures should such a “blatantly unfair measure go forward.” 

Governments set a lower emissions-intensity reduction target of 4% in 2028, which will rise to 30% in 2035. They also set a stricter target that will rise from 17% in 2028 to 43% in 2035. 

Under the new scheme, starting from 2028, ships are required to reduce their emissions intensity by switching to cleaner fuels. Failure to meet the targets will result in a penalty.

Ship owners who miss the lower, easier-to-reach emissions target have the option to buy so-called “remedial units” for $380 per metric ton on every extra ton of carbon dioxide (CO2) equivalent they emit above a fixed emissions threshold. 

Alternatively, ship owners can purchase “surplus” units from ships that have significantly reduced their emissions below the target levels, or can use their own surplus units from previous years where they overachieved in emission reductions.

Failure to meet the stricter emissions target will result in a lower fee of $100 a ton.

The money will be collected in a newly established Net-Zero Fund, which will support decarbonization efforts, helping workers through the transition and offsetting cost increases in developing economies. 

Still, hopes that the IMO deal could generate billions of dollars to fund broader climate mitigation and adaptation measures were dashed. The fund is restricted to the shipping industry, leaving many frustrated not only with the substance of the deal but also with the negotiation process, which lacked meaningful inclusion.

In protest, Pacific Island nations abstained from the final vote. Explaining their position, Tuvalu’s transport minister Simon Kofe stated that the deal “won’t get us on a pathway to the 1.5°C temperature limit.”

“They asked us to settle for less, while we are the ones losing the most. We will not negotiate away our future,” Kofe said.

In its latest climate strategy, the shipping sector has committed to achieving net-zero GHG emissions by or around 2050. 

Fueling the Future

IMO members last week also agreed on thresholds for what qualifies as “zero or near-zero” fuels. However, critics argue that the final deal fails to provide the policy clarity and financial incentives needed to drive investment in truly clean alternatives like green hydrogen and ammonia. 

Instead, the deal risks promoting first-generation biofuels, which, while cheaper, have been widely criticized for their negative social and environmental impacts.

These fuels can result in higher GHG emissions than fossil fuels, largely due to the carbon released when forests are cleared for crop production. The expansion of biofuel crops has been linked to biodiversity loss, land conflicts, labor exploitation, and violations of indigenous rights in countries like Brazil, Indonesia and Tanzania.

If widely adopted, biofuel-powered ships could release an additional 270 million tonnes of GHG emissions by 2030, making it worse than business as usual. 

While electrolyzed fuels from renewable sources, like e-hydrogen and e-ammonia, offer a more sustainable path, their commercial deployment has not reached the scale required for industry-wide adoption. Without strong financial backing and clear regulatory support, these cleaner options risk being sidelined in favor of cheaper, more polluting alternatives. 

The current framework fails to deliver the revenue or ambition required to secure a just and equitable transition, leaving the shipping sector at risk of locking in high-emission fuels for another decade.

According to Faïg Abbasov, Shipping Programme Director at the European Federation for Transport and Environment, “[w]ithout better incentives for sustainable e-fuels from green hydrogen, it is impossible to decarbonize this heavy polluting industry. The ball is now in the court of individual countries to implement national policies to open a life-line to green e-fuels”.

Efficiency First: A Near-Term Opportunity

While scaling up clean fuels will take time, improving ship efficiency offers an immediate and cost-effective path to lower emissions. An effective option is slow steaming – reducing the speed of ships so they operate below full engine power and emit fewer GHGs. Estimates show that a 10% reduction in speed can lead to a 27% reduction in emissions. 

Although slower speeds reduce overall shipping capacity and may require an increase in the number of ships in circulation, this also presents an opportunity to invest in new ships designed to run on cleaner fuels like e-hydrogen.

Slow steaming is already in use and has been adopted by major shipping companies like Maersk. The world’s largest shipping container company has been successfully slow steaming since 2007, decreasing engine loads by 35% without issue. The result: lower fuel consumption, reduced emissions, and cost savings on maintenance and operations.

The Bottom Line

The IMO’s deal marks a step toward decarbonizing international shipping – but it is not the historic leap many had hoped for. The sector is now set to have mandatory targets and financial penalties, albeit without the robust pricing signals, fuel definitions, and funding scale needed to catalyze a full-scale energy transition.

For some, the lack of ambition makes the deal more symbolic than impactful. “This week’s outcome misses even IMO’s baseline – leaving the 2030 decarbonization target dead in the water, with potential disastrous long-term impacts for people and the planet”, said Anaïs Rios, Shipping Policy Officer at Seas At Risk. 

With emissions from shipping projected to rise to 10% by 2050 without further intervention, future negotiations will be critical to set the industry back on a pathway to net zero.a

The post High Stakes, Low Ambition: A Look Into IMO’s Fragile Shipping Deal appeared first on Earth.Org.

Losing bees means more than just having fewer flowers in our gardens – it will result in a chain reaction felt through entire ecosystems and food chains, including our own. Responsible for a third of global food production, bees are essential for life as we know it. So, what would it mean for us – and the world around us – if they disappeared? 

—

Scientists have been sounding the alarm on pollinator loss for decades, highlighting their importance and the urgent need for us to reverse their decline. You may have noticed that your garden has gotten quieter, with fewer fluttering wings from butterflies or the hum from buzzing bees. Well, that is simply because there are fewer of them around. 

Since 1987, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC) has reported that pollinator numbers have decreased by almost 25%. As we continue to create a world suited for our needs, bees are losing vital habitats they rely on for food and nesting. Lush meadows are replaced with fields upon fields of single crops. Green spaces are traded for steel and concrete. Our wild, messy, species-rich gardens become neat, mown lawns. Slowly, but surely, bees are being squeezed out of the world they have been part of for millions of years. Understanding the impact of their decline is crucial to fully grasping how important bees are and what their loss means for the world around us. 

Nature’s Tiny Farmers

Bees – specifically honeybees – are widely considered the most efficient and effective pollinators. These bumbling, fuzzy creatures grace our green spaces when the sun shines, minding their business and working hard to feed their hives. Beautifully described as “humble-bees” by Charles Darwin, these insects are an integral part of nature, a welcome sight to many flowers for pollination and reproduction.

To many, bees are simply seen as honey makers, providing us with delicious, sugary goodness that we enjoy in all sorts of food and drink. What we fail to appreciate daily is just how much impact bees have on all of our food through the pollination of crops. 

Bees are indeed a fundamental part of our food chain. As they dance from flower to flower, bees transfer pollen to fertilize plants so they can produce seeds and fruit. This not only provides us with hundreds of varieties of fruit and vegetables but it also supports the entire food web, sustaining countless species that rely on these plants for survival. In addition, these plants then go on to feed livestock, which ultimately become meat for our consumption, too. Every element of the food we eat daily has been influenced, in some way, by these tiny creatures.

Because bees play a crucial role in our food cycle, they spend much of their time in farmlands. But over the past 50 years, these landscapes have become increasingly dangerous to them. Imagine trying to do your job while toxic chemicals fill the air you breathe and coat the food you eat. If you manage to survive that, you still have to dodge industrial machinery – spinning blades, massive wheels, and heavy equipment barreling toward you. And after all that effort, when you finally return home, you might find it gone, cleared away, leaving you displaced, starving, and vulnerable.

Now, this may seem extreme, but for many bee species, it is a reality. The demand for fast-growing, long-lasting, and visually flawless food has led to increased use of herbicides and pesticides. While these chemicals meet our needs in the short-term, they are eliminating bees, one of the most essential links in our food system. 

More on the topic: How Climate Change Is Threatening Honey Bees and Other Endangered Bee Species

How Bee Loss Reshapes The World

The decline of bees threatens entire ecosystems, and without them, the world around us would look very different. So, what exactly are the long-term effects of losing these vital creatures?

Disrupted Food Production

Bee loss poses a very real threat to agricultural production all over the world. In Europe, around 80% of wildflower and crop species depend entirely on bee pollination for fertilisation. While most cereal crops rely on wind for pollination, 90% of the crops consumed worldwide are pollinated by bees, including most fruit and vegetables. Without them, we would have to find other, more labor intensive, less efficient ways to pollinate our crops. Some techniques include hand pollination (which is incredibly time-consuming) and drone pollination (very expensive). No human alternative can compare to the effectiveness and specialty that bees possess when it comes to pollination. In short, we cannot do their job at the same scale or speed.

A threat to food production means a threat to food security. Fewer crops mean food shortages, leading to higher food prices. And we are already seeing the impact of this in some parts of the world. In California, for example, beekeepers noticed a significant reduction in bee numbers from June 2024 to February 2025. They reported an average loss of 60%, a shortage of up to 500,000 hives that were crucial in almond pollination.

The lack of crucial pollination from bees would mean fewer varieties of fruit and vegetables, which would not only affect our diet but that of livestock, too. This ultimately means disruption to the meat and dairy industry.

Loss of Biodiversity 

Less variety in plant species affects us as well as whole ecosystems and the species that depend on them. Bee loss threatens the number and diversity of many plant species, which would struggle to reproduce without the work of bees to pollinate them. Species like wild orchids, which are widely declining, rely exclusively on bee pollination.

As with any loss of biodiversity, there is always a chain reaction felt in the wider environment. It is a vicious cycle: fewer flowering plants mean less bees, but fewer bees mean less flowers. Fewer plants mean less forage and shelter for a range of herbivores, and less herbivores means the secondary consumers that eat them would go without. This leads to more competition and less food within the entire food chain.

Aside from directly impacting biodiversity, pollinators like bees contribute significantly to the functioning of ecosystems, way beyond just the food chain. Their work helps support natural habitats, promote genetic diversity, and maintain the structure of ecosystems.

The most obvious loss in bee decline is plants, and although we have explored what this means for food production and wildlife, we have yet to look at what fewer plants actually means for ecosystem balance and human health.

Plants are vital for all life on earth. Firstly, they help create organic matter, which is essential for soil health and fertility. Healthy soils mean more moisture retention and more support for microbial communities (like fungi and bacteria). Their root systems bind soil together, improving structural integrity and reducing the risk of erosion. They also regulate water by improving infiltration and reducing surface runoff, which leads to flooding. Losing bees would also mean losing the many ecosystem benefits that plants provide. 

Economic Impact

It may not be the first thing we consider when looking at how bees impact us, but these little insects contribute significantly to the global economy. Although it is difficult to put an exact price on the work bees do, it is estimated that up to US$577 billion of our global food production is dependent on them. The honey market alone was valued at $8.5 billion in 2022.

The farming sector would be the first to suffer the loss of bees, as fewer bees mean less crop yield. A study on the loss in apple orchards found that a lack of bumblebees led to a loss of half the fruit production. This, in turn, meant farmers saw a 42% decrease in profits.

What is often overlooked is how much it would cost us to do the job bees do. Pollination is a free, natural process. But if we did not have bees to do the job, we would soon see that this seemingly costless process would, in fact, cost us a lot. 

To put this into perspective, bees contribute almost 700 million pounds (US$905 million) annually to the UK economy. Employing people to do the job bees do would cost the country at least £1.8 billion. This figure does not include the machinery, research or training required to complete the work, either. And this is assuming we work at the same pace and efficiency that bees do, which is highly unlikely.

Now, let’s imagine we pollinated plants ourselves – what would the cost breakdown look like? 

We could first start by trying to hand pollinate, manually transferring pollen by collecting it from one plant and gently brushing it onto another. Not only is this hugely labour intensive but also costly. Using our case study on apple orchards from earlier, this process would cost between $5,000-7,000 per hectare to pollinate. With roughly 153,375 hectares of apple orchards across the US, that racks up to around $880 million annually.

What about we try pollen dusting instead? It is a similar process to hand pollination, except we get machines to do the work instead. Not only does this mean less labour, but the cost is only about $250 per hectare, a much nicer number than before. Unfortunately, trees do not like it. This method is much more inconsistent than bees and can be patchy in its coverage. The work is less precise, and the pollen quality is worse than that of natural pollinators. All of this results in about a 70% decrease in apple yields. If this wasn’t bad enough, the $250 figure quoted did not even include the cost of the skilled people needed to operate the machinery, the machinery itself or its maintenance. 

Studies have shown that the cost of artificial pollination is almost 10% higher than the cost of bee pollination services. Ultimately, we cannot reproduce their work to the same quality or efficiency to produce the same revenue.

You might also like: Bees Are Not Declining Everywhere: A Global Perspective on Population Trends

Could Other Pollinators Fill the Gap?

Bees are not the only pollinators. Butterflies and beetles are also responsible for helping plants reproduce, but their contribution is not quite like that of bees. If bees were to disappear, this would put significant pressure on these species to fill their role. If these species cannot adapt and compensate, whole ecosystems will collapse. In a world with less bees, we would have to rely on these other pollinators – but is this scenario even realistic?

Bees are purposeful pollinators, because their hives’ health and offspring depend entirely on the collected pollen for food. This means they transfer considerably more pollen on a daily basis than other pollinators. Studies have shown that non-bee insects only account for 38% of crop pollination, showing just how much bees alone contribute. 

Let’s take butterflies as an example. They are common visitors to wildflowers and are part of the pollinator community. Unlike the pollen-collecting hairs on bees legs, their long, thin legs mean they are simply built less efficiently for the role. Because of this, they contribute to less than 5% of crop pollination. 

Moths are another fairly common insect pollinator. While also having the smooth-textured legs that butterflies possess, they are also mostly nocturnal, meaning they do not pollinate crops that often require daytime pollination services. 

If other insect species are not suitable, what about birds, or bats? Species like the hummingbird pollinate tubular flowers using their long tongues to grab the pollen. Unfortunately, these species are mostly limited to tropical regions and do not visit many commercial crops. This means that bird pollination contributes to less than 5% of flowering species worldwide. Bats are also specialists, in that they only pollinate a small subset of plants and, like moths, are nocturnal. They are even less suitable to fill the role of bees, only being responsible for less than 1% of global food pollination. 

A Crisis We Must Avert

Simply put, the disappearance of bees would be devastating – from a biological, societal and economic standpoint. If we lose bees, we lose far more than honey; our crops, ecosystems and food systems all depend on their pollination. There is no species on earth, including us, that can do their job. We cannot afford to ignore their decline, and protecting them is crucial. It is a responsibility that requires immediate action, for the health of our planet and future generations.

Featured image: Umberto Salvagnin/Flickr.

The post What Happens to Ecosystems When Bees Disappear? appeared first on Earth.Org.

Climate change is unleashing a financial storm that is transforming the insurance industry in unprecedented ways. As wildfires rage, hurricanes intensify, and floods threaten low-lying communities, insurers are grappling with rising costs and unpredictable risks. From soaring premiums to “insurance deserts,” the impact is far-reaching. 

—

2024 marked a pivotal moment in the escalating financial toll of climate change, with global insured losses from natural disasters reaching US$140 billion, the third most expensive year on record. This trend underscores the profound impact of climate-related events on the insurance industry, which is grappling with how to balance profitability with the imperative to provide coverage in increasingly vulnerable regions. The recent wildfires in Los Angeles, which have already driven insurance loss estimates to between $30 and $40 billion in early 2025, highlight the growing financial burden on insurers. 

Earth.Org examines the transformative impact of climate change on the insurance market, focusing on recent events and trends.

The Rising Cost of Climate Disasters

Climate change is manifesting through more frequent and severe weather events such as wildfires, hurricanes, and floods. These disasters are not only devastating communities but also straining the insurance sector. For instance, 2024 was marked by significant insured losses, with severe convective storms (SCS) accounting for 41% of global insured losses, totaling $64 billion. The economic cost of weather and climate events in 2024 was estimated at $402 billion, with insurers covering about $151 billion of that total.

The frequency and severity of these events are driving up insurance claims, leading to significant financial strain on the industry. In the US, the number of billion-dollar weather and climate disasters has continued to rise, with 27 such events in 2024 alone. This trend is expected to continue as climate change intensifies, further complicating risk assessment and management for insurers.

Insurers’ Response

In response to escalating climate risks, the insurance industry is undergoing significant adjustments.

Insurers are raising premiums to reflect the increased risk of climate-related events. This is particularly evident in regions prone to natural disasters, where premiums are expected to rise substantially. Stricter underwriting practices are being implemented to manage exposure to high-risk areas, often resulting in reduced coverage or outright denial of policies. Notable examples include major insurers limiting their presence in high-risk regions such as California, creating “insurance deserts” where coverage becomes scarce or unaffordable.

Reinsurance companies play a crucial role in managing the financial risks associated with climate-related disasters. They are adapting by developing new catastrophe modeling systems and innovative insurance products. Global reinsurers are increasingly focused on sustainability initiatives and green investments to mitigate climate risks. For instance, Swiss Re has launched a climate resilience program aimed at supporting communities in developing climate-resilient infrastructure.

Withdrawal From High-Risk Areas

The trend of insurers withdrawing from high-risk areas is becoming more pronounced. In California, for example, several major insurers have significantly reduced their presence or stopped issuing new policies due to the increasing risk of wildfires. The impact of rising insurance costs and policy exclusions is profound for homeowners, businesses, and communities who, as premiums increase and coverage decreases, are left with unaffordable insurance options.

This has led to a surge in demand for government-backed insurance programs like the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which provides critical coverage for flood-prone areas in the US. However, these programs often have limited capacity and may not provide comprehensive coverage, leaving customers unprotected and policyholders vulnerable to financial shocks from climate-related events. 

In Canada, for example, insurers paid out a record-breaking $7.7 billion for extreme weather claims in 2024, including for flooding, wildfires, and hailstorms. This has led to warnings of higher premiums in 2025, adding to already inflated levels endured over the past decade. The reliance on government-backed insurance programs is becoming more common, as private insurance becomes less accessible in high-risk areas.

This situation exacerbates economic vulnerability, particularly in regions already struggling with climate-related stressors.

Regulatory and Market Interventions

Governments and regulators are responding to climate crisis with various interventions. such as new laws and public insurance programs. For example, the U.S. National Flood Insurance Program provides coverage for flood-prone areas, while the UK’s Financial Conduct Authority has introduced anti-greenwashing rules to enhance climate risk management. New laws and public insurance programs are being established to address the growing protection gap, which stood at 60% in 2024 globally. These initiatives aim to ensure that vulnerable populations have access to some form of insurance coverage.

Advances in climate risk modeling are enabling insurers to better assess and manage risks. This includes the development of parametric insurance and catastrophe bonds, which provide payouts based on predefined climate-related triggers rather than actual damage. Innovation in insurance products is crucial for maintaining insurability in vulnerable regions and promoting resilience. For instance, insurers are encouraged to rethink their approach to climate scenario analysis, incorporating tipping points into their models to better predict climate-related risks.

The Future of Insurance in a Warming World

As climate change continues to reshape the insurance landscape, the industry must evolve to remain sustainable. Experts predict that insurers will need to adopt more sophisticated risk management strategies, leveraging technology and data analytics to better predict and mitigate climate risks. There is a growing emphasis on sustainability and green investments within the insurance sector, which could play a critical role in reducing systemic climate risks.

The balance between profitability and providing coverage in climate-vulnerable regions will require innovative solutions and regulatory support. Advancements in artificial intelligence and climate mitigation strategies are expected to play a pivotal role in reshaping the industry, enabling more precise risk assessments and adaptive insurance products. But without proper management of climate risks, the insurance industry is vulnerable to underestimated claims that could lead to its collapse.

Featured image: David Fine/FEMA.

The post Financial Storm: How Escalating Climate Events Are Reshaping the Insurance Market appeared first on Earth.Org.

As the Trump administration withdraws the US from key discussions about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s upcoming global climate assessment, Earth.Org looks at the UN body’s mission and history, and how its work has shaped global climate policy in the last three decades.

—

Since Eunice Newton Foote recognized carbon dioxide’s heat-capturing effect in 1856, climate science has come a long way. Not only do we now fully understand what is causing our planet to heat up – we also know how to stop it, and have all the instruments to do so. We owe most of this knowledge to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, a UN body founded in 1988 to advance scientific knowledge about human-made climate change.

But on the heels of the hottest year in history, the comeback of a climate denier at the White House is threatening to slow down progress and compromise future global efforts to curb climate change.

As the US pulls out of this week’s IPCC meeting in Hangzhou, China, Earth.Org looks at the UN body’s mission and contribution to advancing understanding of climate change around the world – and how recent developments could impact its future.

What Is the IPCC?

Founded in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is the climate science arm of the United Nations.

Through comprehensive scientific assessments published every five to seven years, the group informs policymakers on the crisis and its potential future risks, and puts forward adaptation and mitigation recommendations. 

But the IPCC does not conduct its own research – rather, its job is to gather experts from various fields, who then study the thousands of scientific papers on climate science published each year and summarize them into comprehensive reports. Once completed, the reports are thoroughly reviewed in plenary sessions by UN member states, who need to unanimously approve and adopt them. 

During plenary sessions, which take place at least once a year, the hundreds of attendees from relevant ministries, agencies, and research institutions from both member countries and observer organizations also decide on the IPCC’s budget and work programme as well as the scope and outline of its upcoming reports.

Working Groups and Task Force

Three Working Groups are responsible for putting together IPCC reports, with each of them analyzing a different aspect of the climate crisis: Working Group I (The Physical Science Basis), Working Group II (Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability) and Working Group III (Mitigation of Climate Change). 

There is also a Task Force on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, whose main objective is to develop and refine a methodology for the calculation of and reporting of national greenhouse gas emissions and removals. 

The Working Groups and Task Force handle the preparation of reports and select and manage the experts working on them as authors. 

The panel does not tell governments what to do, but rather assesses possible solutions. Their conclusions are not predictions of the future but rather projections based on different warming scenarios. 

IPCC Reports

Over 8,000 experts have volunteered their time to the IPCC assessment cycles – six completed to date – putting together 36 “comprehensive and balanced” reports on various climate-related topics.

Each assessment cycle concludes with the publishing of an Assessment Report, covering the state of scientific, technical, and socio-economic knowledge on climate change, its impacts and future risks, and strategies to mitigate them or slow them down. They come in four parts – a contribution from each of the three IPCC Working Groups, plus a Synthesis Report, which includes a Summary for Policymakers.  

In what some scientists termed “the bleakest warning yet,” the IPCC’s most recent assessment report found that the window to secure a liveable future is closing, and that “[t]he magnitude and rate of climate change and associated risks depend strongly on near-term mitigation and adaptation actions.”

More on the topic: 8 Key Findings from the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report

The IPCC also produced 14 Special Reports on topics agreed to by its member governments, ranging from the impact of aviation and land-use change to carbon dioxide capture and storage, renewable energy, and managing the risks of extreme weather events. These are also integrated into the Synthesis Report of the assessment cycle in which they were carried out.

As part of the seventh assessment cycle, which formally began in July 2023, the UN body is working on a special report on climate change and cities, the outline of which was agreed last year.

The IPCC’s contribution to global climate change understanding is further enhanced by six Methodology Reports, which provide practical guidelines for the preparation of greenhouse gas inventories. These are lists of sources and their associated emissions, and are used both by scientists to develop atmospheric models and by policymakers to assist in the development of emissions reduction strategies and policies.

Across the scientific community, the IPCC’s work is broadly viewed as the most comprehensive and reliable assessment of the climate crisis, undergoing “more scrutiny than any other documents in the history of science.” The group was awarded the Nobel Piece Prize in 2007 “for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change.”

Is Global Climate Action at a Crossroads?

Trump’s decision to pull out the US – the world’s second-largest emitter of planet-warming greenhouse gases – from IPCC matters has sparked outrage and concern among the scientific community.

Johan Rockström, an internationally acclaimed Earth scientist and Director of Germany’s Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, said the move was “another irresponsible self-destructive US behaviour” that “will damage US science and society.” A few weeks earlier, Trump signed an executive order to withdraw the US from the Paris Agreement, the most significant global climate deal to date, and blocked financial contributions to the UN’s climate body – the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – and the Green Climate Fund.

“If Trump were to revoke the US funding, there would likely be shortfalls and that would impact the ability to convene expert meetings and conduct assessments,” said Delta Merner from the Union of Concerned Scientists. The IPCC is funded by very few member states, and the US is among the biggest contributors. The UN body received nearly $1.45 million from the Biden administration in 2024 – more than a quarter of the $5.3-million budget.

This week’s talks in China aim to flesh out plans for the upcoming IPCC report and discuss whether it can be produced in time to inform a key 2028 UN “stocktake” of the global response to a warming planet. At the time of writing, the three-part report is scheduled for completion and release in late 2029. The US’s absence at the table will cast a shadow.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said the Paris agreement “can survive” without the US, but warned that the country’s exit could leave the process “crippled.” But the same could be said for other international efforts to curb the climate crisis.

“Defunding the IPCC doesn’t just weaken global climate action potential – but it also leaves the US less prepared for a climate risk that directly threatens communities, the economy and national security here,” said Merner.

Featured image: Mark Speight/IPCC via Flickr.

The post Explainer: What Is the IPCC? appeared first on Earth.Org.