
31 May 2018
Pakistan’s 'shocking' spring heat drives up water use, health risks
"Temperatures we used to record in June and July are now being recorded in March," Pakistan's weather agency says.
"Temperatures we used to record in June and July are now being recorded in March," Pakistan's weather agency says.
Scientists say global carbon emissions must drop sharply starting now to avoid dangerous temperature rise, but fossil fuel use continues to surge.
In short:
Key quote:
“The remaining carbon budgets are declining rapidly and the main reason is the world’s failure to curb global CO₂ emissions.”
— Prof Joeri Rogelj, Imperial College London
Why this matters:
Passing the 1.5C warming threshold marks a tipping point that accelerates heatwaves, floods, fires, crop failures, and sea-level rise. Each fraction of a degree worsens global conditions, especially for the poorest communities least responsible for emissions. The ocean is absorbing much of this excess heat, expanding in volume and disrupting marine ecosystems that feed millions. Rising seas already displace people and damage infrastructure, but future warming threatens far worse: catastrophic inland migration, freshwater loss, and collapsing food chains. The pace of change — faster than models predicted — makes it harder for societies and natural systems to adapt. Meanwhile, fossil fuel use climbs, undercutting promises to transition to cleaner energy.
Read more: Earth is now expected to cross 1.5°C warming by 2027, WMO warns
In short:
Key quote:
“The remaining carbon budgets are declining rapidly and the main reason is the world’s failure to curb global CO₂ emissions.”
— Prof Joeri Rogelj, Imperial College London
Why this matters:
Passing the 1.5C warming threshold marks a tipping point that accelerates heatwaves, floods, fires, crop failures, and sea-level rise. Each fraction of a degree worsens global conditions, especially for the poorest communities least responsible for emissions. The ocean is absorbing much of this excess heat, expanding in volume and disrupting marine ecosystems that feed millions. Rising seas already displace people and damage infrastructure, but future warming threatens far worse: catastrophic inland migration, freshwater loss, and collapsing food chains. The pace of change — faster than models predicted — makes it harder for societies and natural systems to adapt. Meanwhile, fossil fuel use climbs, undercutting promises to transition to cleaner energy.
Read more: Earth is now expected to cross 1.5°C warming by 2027, WMO warns
Humanity’s most productive farmlands, including those in the U.S. Midwest, are likely to face sharp declines in food output due to climate change, threatening calorie availability worldwide.
In short:
Key quote:
“Looking at that 3 degrees centigrade warmer [than the year 2000] future corresponds to about a 13 percent loss in daily recommended per capita caloric consumption. That’s like everyone giving up breakfast … about 360 calories for each person, for each day.”
— Andrew Hultgren, agriculture researcher at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign
Why this matters:
Climate change is coming for the world’s food. And it’s not poor soil or weak farming practices that are most at risk, but the very breadbaskets that feed the world. With global crop exports concentrated in a few regions, disruptions in places like the U.S. Midwest or Ukraine ripple out to consumers and communities everywhere. Higher temperatures and erratic rainfall can stunt growth, shrink harvests, and alter nutritional content. Food production already contributes a third of the planet’s greenhouse gases, and rising prices hit the poor hardest. The same fields that gave the world cheap calories may now become a battleground in the climate crisis.
Related EHN coverage: Climate change will continue to widen gaps in food security, new study finds
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed plans to move forward on storing nuclear waste at private sites in Texas and New Mexico, reversing a lower court’s decision that had blocked the effort.
In short:
Key quote:
“Congress has repeatedly failed to secure a permanent location for disposing of nuclear waste, and now the federal government is trying to force de-facto permanent storage facilities onto New Mexico and Texas. It is a dangerous and irresponsible approach.”
— Michelle Lujan Grisham, governor of New Mexico
Why this matters:
The U.S. has accumulated more than 90,000 metric tons of spent nuclear fuel, some of it dating back to the 1980s, sitting at reactor sites across the country. Without a permanent disposal site like the long-stalled Yucca Mountain project in Nevada, pressure grows to find alternatives. But placing temporary facilities in largely rural, lower-income areas raises deep concerns about environmental justice and long-term public health risks. These materials remain radioactive for thousands of years, and even "temporary" sites could become permanent by default if national politics continue to stall permanent solutions.
Read more: Texas eyes nuclear energy to meet industrial power demands despite local water worries
New York lawmakers ended their legislative session without voting on a widely watched bill that would have made large companies financially responsible for packaging waste.
In short:
Why this matters:
Plastic waste is a growing environmental and public health threat, especially in states like New York that serve as major distribution hubs. Most single-use packaging ends up in landfills or as litter, where it breaks down into microplastics that contaminate water, soil, and the air we breathe. These particles have been found in human blood and lungs, raising concerns about long-term health effects. Meanwhile, the fossil fuels used to produce plastic continue to drive climate change. Extended producer responsibility laws shift the financial burden of managing waste away from taxpayers and onto the corporations that create it. Without such measures, states struggle to fund recycling infrastructure or curb the flood of plastic into communities, waterways, and ecosystems.
Read more:
State governments with close coal industry ties are moving to take over coal ash regulation from the federal government, raising concerns that toxic waste will be left with little oversight for years to come.
In short:
Key quote:
“The Trump administration is a four-year term, and managing coal ash is going to be decades into the future. This is a long-term issue that requires federal oversight for the duration; it’s absolutely critical the federal government keep that ability.”
— Ben Inskeep, program director, Citizens Action Coalition
Why this matters:
Coal ash is one of the largest sources of industrial waste in the U.S., and it contains hazardous substances like arsenic, mercury, and lead. When stored in unlined ponds — as is common in states like Indiana — it can seep into groundwater and contaminate drinking supplies. Many of the worst sites are located near low-income or rural communities that have limited access to clean water and face greater barriers to holding polluters accountable. Allowing states with weak environmental records to self-regulate coal ash increases the risk that toxic waste will go unmonitored and unremedied for decades.
Learn more: EPA plans to ease coal ash rules as industry pushes to cut costs
The Trump administration has proposed reopening vast sections of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to oil development, including long-protected areas around Teshekpuk Lake.
In short:
Key quote:
“This is another step in the Trump administration’s reckless effort to sell out our most valuable national public lands to the oil industry in the midst of the climate crisis.”
— Matt Jackson, senior manager for Alaska at The Wilderness Society
Why this matters:
The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska covers a sprawling swath of Arctic tundra home to migratory birds, caribou herds, and Indigenous communities who rely on the land for subsistence. Opening up more than seven million additional acres to oil drilling threatens fragile ecosystems that have been shielded for decades. Teshekpuk Lake, in particular, is a biological hotspot critical for nesting waterfowl and calving caribou. Removing long-standing protections not only increases risks of habitat destruction and oil spills but also accelerates climate change in one of the planet’s fastest-warming regions. As the administration moves to revive fossil fuel extraction, scientists warn that Arctic development could lock in decades of carbon emissions and jeopardize traditional ways of life in Alaska’s remote communities.
Learn more: Trump officials court support in Alaska for drilling and massive gas pipeline plan
Generative AI systems like chatbots require vastly different amounts of energy to run, with the largest models emitting significantly more carbon despite offering limited gains in accuracy, new research shows.
In short:
Key quote:
“We don’t always need the biggest, most heavily trained model, to answer simple questions. Smaller models are also capable of doing specific things well.”
— Maximilian Dauner, Ph.D. student, Munich University of Applied Sciences and lead author of the study
Why this matters:
AI systems are expanding rapidly, with tools like chatbots embedded in everything from classrooms to corporate offices. But the energy required to train and operate these models — especially the largest ones — is not trivial. Each user query adds to the growing electricity demands of data centers, which are often powered by fossil fuels. As AI usage scales, the emissions generated could hinder efforts to reduce global carbon output. And because performance gains taper off with larger models, the environmental cost may not always be justified. Understanding the energy and carbon footprint behind everyday AI interactions is essential as society weighs the convenience of intelligent systems against the climate crisis.
Related: Elon Musk’s AI chatbot downplays climate risks, boosting fringe views
One facility has emitted cancer-causing chemicals into waterways at levels up to 520% higher than legal limits.
“They're terrorizing these scientists because they want to keep them silent.”
"The reality is, we are not exposed to one chemical at a time.”
A new report assesses the administration’s progress and makes new recommendations
“We cannot stand by and allow this to happen. We need to hold this administration accountable.”
“The chemical black box” that blankets wildfire-impacted areas is increasingly under scrutiny.