Latest news with #ClimateWire
Vox
2 days ago
- Science
- Vox
We're producing more food than ever before — but not for long
is a correspondent at Vox writing about climate change, energy policy, and science. He is also a regular contributor to the radio program Science Friday. Prior to Vox, he was a reporter for ClimateWire at E&E News. An aerial view shows floodwaters covering farm fields and a rural road near Poplar Bluff, Missouri. In April, thunderstorms, heavy rains, high winds, and tornadoes plagued the regions for several days causing widespread humanity is producing more food than ever, but that harvest is concentrated in just a handful of breadbaskets. More than one-third of the world's wheat and barley exports come from Ukraine and Russia, for example. Some of these highly productive farmlands, including major crop-growing regions in the United States, are on track to see the sharpest drops in harvests due to climate change. That's bad news not just for farmers, but also for everyone who eats — especially as it becomes harder and more expensive to feed a more crowded, hungrier world, according to a new study published in the journal Nature. Under a moderate greenhouse gas emissions scenario, six key staple crops will see an 11.2 percent decline by the end of the century compared to a world without warming, even as farmers try to adapt. And the largest drops aren't occurring in the poorer, more marginal farmlands, but in places that are already major food producers. These are regions like the US Midwest that have been blessed with good soil and ideal weather for raising staples like maize and soy. Today, Explained Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day, compiled by news editor Sean Collins. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. But when that weather is less than ideal, it can drastically reduce agricultural productivity. Extreme weather has already begun to eat into harvests this year: Flooding has destroyed rice in Tajikistan, cucumbers in Spain, and bananas in Australia. Severe storms in the US this spring caused millions of dollars in damages to crops. In past years, severe heat has led to big declines in blueberries, olives, and grapes. And as the climate changes, rising average temperatures and changing rainfall patterns are poised to diminish yields, while weather events like droughts and floods reaching greater extremes could wipe out harvests more often. 'It's not a mystery that climate change will affect our food production,' said Andrew Hultgren, an agriculture researcher at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. 'That's the most weather exposed sector in the economy.' The question is whether these adaptations can continue to keep pace with warming. To figure this out, Hultgren and his team looked at crop and weather data from 54 countries around the world dating back to the 1940s. They specifically looked at how farmers have adapted to changes in the climate that have already occurred, focusing on maize, wheat, rice, cassava, sorghum, and soybean. Combined, these crops provide two-thirds of humanity's calories. In the Nature paper, Hultgren and his team reported that in general, adaptation can slow some crop losses due to climate change, but not all of them. And the decrease in our food production could be devastating: For every degree Celsius of warming, global food production is likely to decline by 120 calories per person per day. That's even taking into account how climate change can make growing seasons longer and how more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can encourage plant growth. In the moderate greenhouse gas emissions scenario — leading to between 2 and 3 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100 — rising incomes and adaptations would only offset one-third of crop losses around the world. '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,' Hultgren said. 'That's like everyone giving up breakfast … about 360 calories for each person, for each day.' The researchers also mapped out where the biggest crop declines — and increases — are likely to occur as the climate warms. As the world's most productive farmlands get hit hard, cooler countries like Russia and Canada are on track for larger harvests. The map below shows in red where crop yields are poised to shrink and in blue where they may expand: Some of the biggest crop-growing regions in the world are likely to experience the largest declines in yield as the climate changes. Nature The results complicate the assumption that poor countries will directly bear the largest losses in food production due to climate change. The wealthy, large-scale food-growers may see the biggest dropoffs, according to the study. However, poor countries will still be affected since many crops are internationally traded commodities, and the biggest producers are exporters. A smaller harvest means higher food prices around the world. Less wealthy regions are also facing their own crop declines from disasters and climate change, though at smaller scales. All the while, the global population is rising, albeit much more slowly than in the past. It's a recipe for more food insecurity for more people. Rice is an exception to this trend. Its overall yields are actually likely to increase in a warmer world: Rice is a versatile crop and unlike the other staples, it benefits from higher nighttime temperatures. 'Rice turns out to be the most flexibly adapted crop and largely through adaptations protected from large losses under even a high warming future,' Hultgren said. That's a boon for regions like South and Southeast Asia. Related This is how much meat and dairy hurt the climate Decreasing the available calories isn't the only way climate change is altering food, however. The nutrition content can change with shifts in rainfall and temperature too, though Hultgren and his colleagues didn't account for this in their study. Scientists have previously documented how higher levels of carbon dioxide can cause crops like rice to have lower levels of iron, zinc, and B vitamins. So the food we will be eating in the future may be more scarce and less nutritious as well. And while climate change can impair our food supply, the way we make food in turn harms the climate. About one-third of humanity's greenhouse gas emissions stem from food production, just under half of that from meat and dairy. That's why food production has to be a major front in how we adapt to climate change, and reduce rising temperatures overall.
Vox
4 days ago
- Science
- Vox
Why we're barely keeping track of this growing climate problem
is a correspondent at Vox writing about climate change, energy policy, and science. He is also a regular contributor to the radio program Science Friday. Prior to Vox, he was a reporter for ClimateWire at E&E News. Odorless and colorless, methane is a gas that is easy to miss — but it's one of the most important contributors to global warming. It can trap up to 84 times as much heat as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, though it breaks down much faster. Measured over 100 years, its warming effect is about 30 times that of an equivalent amount of carbon dioxide. That means that over the course of decades, it takes smaller amounts of methane than carbon dioxide to heat up the planet to the same level. Nearly a third of the increase in global average temperatures since the Industrial Revolution is due to methane, and about two-thirds of those methane emissions comes from human activity like energy production and cattle farming. It's one of the biggest and fastest ways that human beings are warming the Earth. But the flip side of that math is that cutting methane emissions is one of the most effective ways to limit climate change. In 2021, more than 100 countries including the United States committed to reducing their methane pollution by at least 30 percent below 2020 levels by 2030. But some of the largest methane emitters like Russia and China still haven't signed on, and according to a new report from the International Energy Agency, global methane emissions from energy production are still rising. Yet the tracking of exactly how much methane is reaching the atmosphere isn't as precise as it is for carbon dioxide. 'Little or no measurement-based data is used to report methane emissions in most parts of the world,' according to the IEA. 'This is a major issue because measured emissions tend to be higher than reported emissions.' It's also hard to trace methane to specific sources — whether from natural sources like swamps, or from human activities like fossil fuel extraction, farming, or deforestation. Related The mystery of methane gone missing Researchers are gaining a better understanding of where methane is coming from, surveilling potential sources from the ground, from the sky, and from space. It turns out a lot of methane is coming from underappreciated sources, including coal mines and small oil and gas production facilities. The report also notes that while there are plenty of low-cost tools available to halt much of this methane from reaching the atmosphere, they're largely going unused. The United States, the world's third largest methane-emitting country, has seen its methane emissions slowly decline over the past 30 years. However, the Trump administration is pushing for more fossil fuel development while rolling back some of the best bang-for-buck programs for mitigating climate change, which will likely lead to even more methane reaching the atmosphere if left unchecked. Where is all this methane coming from? Methane is the dominant component of natural gas, which provides more than a third of US energy. It's also found in oil formations. During the drilling process, it can escape wells and pipelines, but it can also leak as it's transported and at the power plants and furnaces where it's consumed. The oil and gas industry says that methane is a salable product, so they have a built-in incentive to track it, capture it, and limit its leaks. But oil developers often flare methane, meaning burn it off, because it's not cost-effective to contain it. That burned methane forms carbon dioxide, so the overall climate impact is lower than just letting the methane go free. And because methane is invisible and odorless, it can be difficult and expensive to monitor it and prevent it from getting out. As a result, researchers and environmental activists say the industry is likely releasing far more than official government estimates show. Methane also seeps out from coal mines — more methane, actually, than is released during the production of natural gas, which after all is mostly methane. Ember, a clean energy think tank, put together this great visual interactive showing how this happens. The short version is that methane is embedded in coal deposits and as miners dig to expose coal seams, the gas escapes, and continues to do so long after a coal mine reaches the end of its operating life. Since coal miners are focused on extracting coal, they don't often keep track of how much methane they're letting out, nor do regulators pay much attention. According to Ember, methane emissions from coal mines could be 60 percent higher than official tallies. Abandoned coal mines are especially noxious, emitting more than abandoned oil and gas wells. Added up, methane emitted from coal mines around the world each year has the same warming effect on the climate as the total annual carbon dioxide emissions of India. Alarmed by the gaps in the data, some nonprofits have taken it upon themselves to try to get a better picture of methane emissions at a global scale using ground-based sensors, aerial monitors, and even satellites. In 2024, the Environmental Defense Fund launched MethaneSAT, which carries instruments that can measure methane output from small, discrete sources over a wide area. Ritesh Gautam, the lead scientist for MethaneSAT, explained that the project revealed some major overlooked methane emitters. Since launching, MethaneSAT has found that in the US, the bulk of methane emissions doesn't just come from a few big oil and gas drilling sites, but from many small wells that emit less than 100 kilograms per hour. 'Marginal wells only produce 6-7 percent of [oil and gas] in the US but they disproportionately account for almost 50 percent of the US oil and gas production-related emissions,' Gautam said. 'These facilities only produce less than 15 barrels of oil equivalent per day, but then there are more than half a million of these just scattered around the US.' There are ways to stop methane emissions, but we're not using them The good news is that many of the tools for containing methane from the energy industry are already available. 'Around 70 percent of methane emissions from the fossil fuel sector could be avoided with existing technologies, often at a low cost,' according to the IEA methane report. For the oil and gas industry, that could mean something as simple as using better fittings in pipelines to limit leaks and installing methane capture systems. And since methane is a fuel, the sales of the saved methane can offset the cost of upgrading hardware. Letting it go into the atmosphere is a waste of money and a contributor to warming. Capturing or destroying methane from coal mines isn't so straightforward. Common techniques to separate methane from other gases require heating air, which is not exactly the safest thing to do around a coal mine — it can increase the risk of fire or explosion. But safer alternatives have been developed. 'There are catalytic and other approaches available today that don't require such high temperatures,' said Robert Jackson, a professor of earth system science at Stanford University, in an email. However, these methods to limit methane from fossil fuels are vastly underused. Only about 5 percent of active oil and gas production facilities around the world deploy systems to zero out their methane pollution. In the US, there are also millions of oil and gas wells and hundreds of thousands of abandoned coal mines whose operators have long since vanished, leaving no one accountable for their continued methane emissions. 'If there isn't a regulatory mandate to treat the methane, or a price on it, many companies continue to do nothing,' Jackson said. And while recovering methane is ultimately profitable over time, the margins aren't often big enough to make the upfront investment of better pipes, monitoring equipment, or scrubbers worthwhile for them. 'They want to make 10–15 percent on their money (at least), not save a few percent,' he added.
Vox
06-06-2025
- Climate
- Vox
One thing we can count on to keep ruining our summers
is a correspondent at Vox writing about climate change, energy policy, and science. He is also a regular contributor to the radio program Science Friday. Prior to Vox, he was a reporter for ClimateWire at E&E News. Smoke from wildfires in Canada is once again shrouding parts of the United States — cities like Chicago and Milwaukee — with unhealthy air, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency. Parts of the plume have reached as far as Europe. The bulk of the smoke is forecasted to drift eastward across North America and thin out. As of Thursday afternoon, Canada was battling more than 200 blazes, the majority in western provinces like British Columbia and Alberta, according to the Canadian Interagency Forest Fire Centre. In Canada, the fires forced more than 27,000 people to evacuate, but the smoke is 'impacting aerial operations for both suppression and evacuation flights.' This is all too familiar. Canada faced a massive spate of wildfires in 2023 and in 2024 that similarly sent clouds of ash and dust across North America, reaching places like New York City. The burned area this year is a fraction of the size of the regions scorched in 2023, a record-breaking year for wildfires in Canada, but it's still early in the fire season. Canadian fire officials warn that the 'potential for emerging significant wildland fires is high to extreme' and lightning may lead to more ignitions in the next few days. These blazes remind us that the dangers of wildfires reach far beyond their flames, and the threat is growing. Wildfire smoke contains a melange of gases like carbon monoxide, particles of soot, and hazardous chemicals like polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons that can cause cancer. The tiniest particles in smoke can penetrate deep into the lungs, and even reach the bloodstream, leading to a variety of health problems. When it drifts over a community, it often causes a surge in emergency room visits as people who breathe the smoke suffer strokes, heart attacks, and asthma attacks. There's also evidence that long-term exposure to smoke can lead to a higher likelihood of death from heart, lung, kidney, and digestive diseases. And experts believe the true health burden from wildfires is likely much more extensive than we realize. The harms to health will increase as wildfires become more destructive. Though wildfires are a natural, regular, and vital phenomenon across many landscapes, more people are now living in fire-prone areas, increasing the risk to lives and homes. That increases the odds of starting a fire and means more people and property are in harm's way when one ignites. Decades of fire suppression have allowed fuels like trees and grasses to build up to dangerous levels. And as humanity continues to burn fossil fuels, emitting greenhouse gases and heating up the planet, the climate is changing in ways that enhance fire conditions. So smoke isn't the only pollutant to worry about, and as average temperatures continue to rise, these factors are undoing hard-fought progress in improving air quality across much of the world. However, there are ways to clear the air and avoid some of the worst harms. One tactic is to pay attention to the Air Quality Index in your area and avoid being outdoors when pollution reaches high levels. Wearing a high-quality KN95 or N95 mask can help reduce the damage from polluted air. Blocking air from getting indoors and filtering the air in living areas reduces smoke exposure as well.
Vox
02-06-2025
- Business
- Vox
The wild hunt for clean energy minerals
is a correspondent at Vox writing about climate change, energy policy, and science. He is also a regular contributor to the radio program Science Friday. Prior to Vox, he was a reporter for ClimateWire at E&E News. The world is hungry for more stuff: televisions, phones, motors, container ships, solar panels, satellites. That means the stuff required to make stuff is in high demand, and none more so than what are known as 'critical minerals.' These are a handful of elements and minerals that are particularly important for making the modern devices that run the global economy. But 'critical' here doesn't mean rare so much as it means essential — and alarmingly vulnerable to supply chain shocks. In the US, the Geological Survey has flagged 50 minerals as critical to our economy and security. And including some among that larger group, the US Department of Energy is focused on 18 materials that are especially important for energy — copper for transmission lines, cobalt for cathodes in batteries, gallium for LEDs, neodymium for magnets in motors, and so on. For governments, these minerals are more than just industrial components — they're potential bottlenecks. If producers of these substances decide to restrict access to their customers as a political lever, if prices shoot up, or if more industries develop an appetite for them and eat into the supply, companies could go bankrupt and efforts to limit climate change could slow down. That's because these minerals are especially vital for so many clean energy technologies. They're essential for the tools used to produce, store, transmit, and use electricity without emitting greenhouse gases. They're vital to building solar panels, batteries, and electric motors. As the worldwide race for cleaner energy speeds up, the demand for these products is surging. According to the International Energy Agency, mineral demands from clean energy deployment will see anywhere from a doubling to a quadrupling from current levels by 2040. But these minerals aren't spread evenly across the world, which could leave some countries bearing most of the environmental burdens from mining critical minerals while wealthier nations reap the economic benefits and other countries get left out of the supply chain entirely. 'A world powered by renewables is a world hungry for critical minerals,' said UN Secretary-General António Guterres at a panel last year. 'For developing countries, critical minerals are a critical opportunity — to create jobs, diversify economies, and dramatically boost revenues. But only if they are managed properly.' Right now, the US is a major consumer of critical minerals, but not much of a producer — a fact that's become an obsession for the Trump administration. The president has signed several executive orders aimed at increasing critical mineral production within the US by relaxing regulations and speeding up approvals for new critical mineral extraction projects. In Congress, lawmakers are mulling spending billions of dollars to build up a critical mineral stockpile similar to the strategic petroleum reserve. Even as the US government takes those steps, the international trade war that the Trump administration itself launched has begun to disrupt the global supply of critical minerals. China is one of the largest producers of critical minerals, particularly rare earth metals like dysprosium and terbium, but it has imposed limits on some of its critical mineral exports in response to President Donald Trump's tariffs, sending prices skyward. The dawning awareness that the critical minerals everyone needs may not be readily available has led countries to redouble their efforts to find more of these materials wherever they can — in the ocean, across deserts, and even in space. In the near term, that means the world will need more mines to expand supplies of critical minerals. And with the market for clean energy poised to expand even further, scientists are trying to find new alternative materials that can power our world without making it hotter. But it will take more time and investment before the plentiful can replace the precious. Why we're hooked on critical minerals Since the list of critical minerals is long and diverse, it's helpful to narrow it down. And one mineral stands out: lithium. The IEA estimates that half of the mineral demand growth for clean energy will come from electric vehicles and batteries, mainly from their needs for this soft, light metal. Depending on how aggressively the world works to decarbonize, lithium use is projected to increase by as much as 51 times its current levels by 2040, more than 10 million metric tons per year. That's because lithium is still the best material to store and release energy in batteries across a variety of applications, from the tiny cells in wireless earbuds to arrays of thousands of cells packed into giant batteries on the power grid. As more cars trade gasoline engines for electric motors, and as more intermittent wind and solar power connect to the grid, we need more ways to store energy. While lithium is not particularly rare, getting it out of the earth isn't easy. There are only a handful of places in the world that currently have the infrastructure to extract it at scale and at a low enough price to make doing so worthwhile, even with ever rising demand. The US produces less than 2 percent of the world's lithium, with almost all of it coming from just one mine in Nevada. The US has about 20 major sites where lithium could be extracted, according to the US Geological Survey, but building new mines can take more than a decade, and the timelines have only been getting longer. Because of their costs and the long-lasting environmental damage they can cause, mining projects have to undergo reviews before they can be approved. They often generate local opposition as well, stretching out project timelines with litigation. But the US is motivated to build this out and there are already new lithium projects underway in places like the Salton Sea in California and the Smackover formation across the southern US. These sites would extract lithium from brine. Could the US replace lithium and other critical minerals with cheaper, more abundant substances? Not easily. 'Substitution is not impossible, but depends on which material,' Sophia Kalantzakos, who studies environmental science and public policy at NYU Abu Dhabi, said in an email. Some materials are truly one of a kind, while others have alternatives that need a lot more research and development before they can step in. For example, there are companies investing in lithium alternatives in batteries, but they also have to build up a whole supply chain to get enough of the replacement material, which can take years. And it's not enough to mine critical minerals; they need to be refined and processed into usable forms. Here again, China leads, operating 80 percent of the world's refining capacity. The bottom line is that there's no immediate, easy answer to the critical mineral supply crunch right now. But there might be solutions that emerge in the years to come. How can we get around critical mineral constraints? These challenges have spurred a wave of research and development. Engineers are already finding ways to do more with less. Automakers like Ford, Tesla, and the Chinese company BYD are increasingly turning toward lithium iron phosphate (LFP) batteries as an alternative to conventional lithium-ion cells. Not only does the LFP chemistry use less lithium for a given energy storage capacity, it also uses less of other critical minerals like nickel and cobalt, lowering its cost. The batteries also tend to be more durable and stable, making them less prone to catastrophic failure. The US Department of Energy has invested in ways to make lithium-based batteries more efficient and easier to manufacture by redesigning the structure of battery components to store more energy. Researchers are also investigating battery designs that avoid lithium altogether. Chemistries like aluminum ion and sodium ion, as their names suggest, use different and far more abundant elements to carry charges inside the battery. But they still have to catch up to lithium in terms of durability, safety, performance, and production scale. 'I think this lithium-ion technology will still drive much of the energy transition,' said Rachid Amui, a resource economist who coauthored a United Nations Trade & Development report on critical minerals for batteries. It will likely be decades before alternatives can dethrone lithium. Eventually, as components wear out, recycling could help meet some critical mineral needs. But demand for technologies like batteries is poised to see a huge jump, which means the world will have no choice but to grow its fresh lithium supplies. There is some good news, though. Mining is getting more efficient and safer. 'There's so much autonomous technology now being developed in the mining industry that is making mining safer than we could have ever imagined 15, 20 years ago,' said Adam Simon, a professor of earth and environmental science at the University of Michigan. That's helping drive down costs and increase the efficiency of mineral extraction. The number of known sources of lithium is also rising. KoBold Metals, a mining firm backed by Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos, is using AI to locate more critical mineral deposits all over the world. The Energy Department is also throwing its weight behind domestic innovation. The department's Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, which invests in long-shot energy ideas, is funding 18 projects to increase domestic production of critical minerals. The program, dubbed MINER, is aiming to develop minerals that can capture carbon dioxide. 'Through programs like MINER and targeted investments in domestic innovation, we're working to reduce reliance on foreign sources and lay the groundwork for an American energy future that is reliable, cost-effective, and secure,' said Doug Wicks, a program director for ARPA-E, in a statement to Vox. There's also a global race to secure more mineral supplies from far-flung places, all the way down to the bottom of the ocean. On parts of the seafloor, there are vast fields of nodules made of nickel, cobalt, lithium, and manganese. For mining companies, the argument is that mining the seafloor could be less damaging to the environment than drilling or brine extraction on land. But the ocean floor is anything but a desolate place; there's a lot of life down there taking many forms, including species that have yet to be discovered. One of the most lucrative areas for sea mining, the Clarion-Clipperton Zone in the Pacific Ocean, happens to have a rich ecosystem of sponges, anemones, and sea cucumbers. Another factor to consider is that pulling up rocks from the bottom of the sea is inevitably expensive. The Clarion-Clipperton Zone can reach 18,000 feet deep. Hauling those minerals up, shipping them to shore, and refining them adds to their sticker price. 'I think it's interesting and needed because of the [research and development] that it stimulates,' Simon said. 'But economically, there's no company right now who could actually mine the lithium in those clays from the bottom of the ocean.' There are even companies that have proposed mining critical minerals from asteroids. One company, AstroForge, has already launched a test spacecraft into deep space. That's an even dicier business proposition since working in space is even more expensive than trying to mine the bottom of the ocean. But space mining technology is a moonshot — still gestational and decades away from even returning a sample. The companies behind these proposals say that humanity's hunger for these minerals is only growing and it's prudent to start taking steps now toward building up supplies of raw materials in space.
Vox
24-04-2025
- Climate
- Vox
Welcome to the world of triple-digit spring weather
is a correspondent at Vox writing about climate change, energy policy, and science. He is also a regular contributor to the radio program Science Friday. Prior to Vox, he was a reporter for ClimateWire at E&E News. A man walks along a road in Karachi, Pakistan, protecting himself amid the region's ongoing heat wave. In April alone, hundreds of millions of people across Pakistan and India have been experiencing scorching temperates. Asif Hassan/AFP via Getty Images We're only midway through spring, yet searing summer temperatures have already started baking some parts of the world. Heat waves are a distinct weather phenomenon where high temperatures linger for days at a time. As global average temperatures climb higher, the frequency and duration of periods of extreme heat are also growing, which is already hurting people around the world. But the human impacts of heat waves also vary depending on their timing. Climate change is leading to shorter winters, earlier springs, and earlier arrivals of extreme temperatures. Heat waves that occur early in the warm season, well before summer sets in, tend to cause greater harm to health. Related The Texas heat wave is even worse because of its timing 'These early events can cause more heat-related illnesses and fatalities than later heat waves in June or July, even if temperatures are similar,' Davide Faranda, a climate scientist at the French National Center for Scientific Research studying extreme weather, wrote in an email. There are several factors behind this. One is acclimatization. When winter ends, people are less used to high temperatures at a physiological level. When ambient temperatures are higher than body temperatures, individuals absorb more heat, which can lead to heart and lung problems, first in vulnerable people — the very young, the very old, and those with underlying health concerns — then in everyone. In regions like South Asia, spring is when millions of farmers head outdoors to plant crops, where they can face dangerous temperatures while doing intense physical labor. Gradual exposure to heat over time can help people better withstand it, but without this familiarity, an early season heat wave can pack an unexpectedly strong punch. Heat has a cumulative and compounding effect on the body too when it doesn't let up. Humans acclimatize through infrastructure and behavior as well. Drinking water helps limit the dangers of high temperatures, but someone might not be in the habit of staying adequately hydrated in the spring. A person may not recognize that heavy sweating, light headedness, and severe fatigue are symptoms of heat illness. Many buildings may still be set to heat rather than cooling when the first heat wave of the year sets in. The low availability of air conditioning in the Pacific Northwest contributed to the death toll of a severe heat wave in 2021 that killed at least 868 people. That's not to say that mid- or late summer heat waves aren't dangerous, too. Heat has a cumulative and compounding effect on the body too when it doesn't let up. Spells of high temperatures that last weeks and persist long after the sun has set have proven deadly. To reduce the dangers of springtime heat, it's important to pay attention to weather forecasts and prepare accordingly. That means avoiding direct sunlight, proactively staying hydrated, and taking breaks during high temperatures. Ease into the warm weather. It's also essential to recognize the warning signs of heat-related complications and not to try to push past your limits. South Asia is a window into the future of extreme heat The region spanning Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Iran, and Pakistan is home to more than a quarter of the world's population. It's also where scientists can see some of the strongest effects of human activity on temperature. 'South Asia is one of the regions where the climate change signal in heat waves is particularly strong,' Faranda said. Along with an international team of researchers, Faranda analyzed the factors behind the recent heat wave across India and Pakistan. The group found that events like the severe heat wave in April 2025 are 4 degrees Celsius warmer over the past three decades than they were in the period between 1950 and 1986. The team controlled for other factors that influence temperatures like urban air pollution and changes in land use. The recent scorching temperatures also took place at a time when the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, a major driver of global weather variability, was in its neutral phase. In its warm phase, it tends to drive up global temperatures, so seeing this heat wave without this additional boost adds to the evidence that climate change is a major contributor. Humidity is another important driver of heat risk. It can get pretty muggy in South Asia. One of the ways scientists track this is with the wet-bulb globe temperature, a metric that accounts for heat, humidity, and sunlight exposure. For a healthy, young person, the upper survival limit for wet-bulb globe temperature is 95 degrees Fahrenheit. Cities in Iran, India, and Pakistan now regularly cross that threshold. Precipitation also appears to be shifting in the region, with more spells of severe rainfall followed by drought. And as the planet continues to heat up, these trends will continue. 'Future projections indicate that heat waves in South Asia are likely to start earlier in the year, last longer, and reach even higher peak temperatures,' Faranda said. While many factors are unique about South Asia, other regions of the world are on the same course. The same pattern of more frequent heat waves earlier in the season is also playing out in countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, leading to similar problems. 'These impacts include increased mortality rate, and heat-related illnesses, disruption to local food supply and agriculture, and potential overload of power grids due to increased electricity demands,' Gianmarco Mengaldo, a professor at the National University of Singapore who co-authored the India-Pakistan heat wave analysis. The US is also facing an increase in the number of heat waves, with warming starting earlier in the year. The US is seeing an increase in the frequency, duration, and timing of extreme heat. Environmental Protection Agency It's leading to more complications from extreme heat as well as leading to longer, more intense pollen allergy seasons. Communities can take steps to mitigate the impacts of heat with design elements like green spaces and cool roofs that reflect sunlight rather than absorbing it. It's also critical to limit greenhouse gas emissions to slow the warming of the planet as a whole.
