nuclear-news

These US states want polluters to pay for the rising insurance costs of climate disasters.

 As climate disasters drive up the price of home insurance, three US states
are considering empowering their state prosecutors to sue major polluters
for their role in those rising costs.

Lawmakers in California, Hawaii and
New York have introduced measures which would authorize their attorneys
general to sue fossil fuel companies on behalf of residents whose insurance
premiums have soared amid climate disasters. “The cost of home insurance
in California is an absolute crisis,” said state senator Scott Wiener,
lead author of his state’s bill, speaking at a press conference
announcing the measure on Thursday.

“We know that the years ahead are
going to be dramatically more dangerous, tragically, when it comes to
climate disasters, and we can’t allow Californians, our residents, our
small businesses, to be left holding the bag.” The proposals aim to hold
the fossil fuel industry, the top contributor to global warming,
accountable for soaring insurance rates driven by climate-fueled extreme
weather.

 Guardian 8th Feb 2026, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/08/proposal-fossil-fuel-companies-insurance-costs

February 12, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change | Leave a comment

Results are in for one of the clearest measures of global heating in 2025. It should be raising alarm bells

 The world’s oceans absorbed more heat in 2025 than in any year since
modern records began, according to a major international analysis. Ocean
heat content rose by 23 zettajoules – the equivalent of detonating
hundreds of millions of Hiroshima atomic bombs, or roughly 200 times
humanity’s global electricity consumption in 2023 – according to the
analysis published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences. Unlike sea surface
temperatures, ocean heat content is a measure of how much excess energy the
world’s oceans are storing over time, including at depth.

 Independent 9th Jan 2026,
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/ocean-heat-record-2025-b2895936.html

January 14, 2026 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change | Leave a comment

Earth’s frozen regions are sending a clear warning about climate change – but politicians are ignoring it.

The Conversation,  December 18, 2025, https://theconversation.com/earths-frozen-regions-are-sending-a-clear-warning-about-climate-change-but-politicians-are-ignoring-it-270604

1. Chris StokesProfessor in the Department of Geography, Durham University
2. Florence ColleoniSenior Researcher, Polar Geophysics, National Institute of Oceanography and Applied Geophysics (OGS)
3. James KirkhamPostdoctoral Researcher, Antarctic Geography, British Antarctic Survey

“We cannot negotiate with the melting point of ice.” That’s the message from more than 50 leading scientists who study the Earth’s frozen regions, published in the latest annual State of the Cryosphere report.

In the past year alone, the vast polar ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica are likely to have shed around 370 billion tonnes of ice, with a further 270 billion tonnes from the 270,000 mountain glaciers around the world, some of which are disappearing altogether.

In February 2025, global sea ice extent reached a new all-time minimum in the 47-year satellite record. Elsewhere, perennially frozen ground (called permafrost) continues to thaw, releasing additional greenhouse gas emissions each year that are roughly equivalent to the world’s eighth-highest-emitting country.

The warning lights from the cryosphere have been flashing red for several years, and governments ignore this at their peril.

Melting ice is driving an acceleration in the rate of sea-level rise, which has doubled to 4.5mm per year over the last three decades. If this acceleration continues, sea-level rise will reach around 1cm per year by the end of this century – a rate so high that many island and coastal communities will be forced to move.

The loss of mountain glaciers will affect billions of people who rely on their meltwater for agriculture, hydropower and other human activities; and the damage caused to infrastructure by Arctic permafrost thaw has been estimated to cost US$182 billion (£137 billion) by 2050 under our current emissions trajectory.

Negotiations based on ‘best available’ science

In an effort to reduce the risks and effects of climate change, including those from the cryosphere described above, the Paris climate agreement was adopted by 195 countries at the annual UN climate summit in 2015, with the aim of limiting “the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels” and pursue efforts “to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C”.

Its implementation should be based on and guided by the “best available science”. That includes evidence provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group created by the UN to provide governments with regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change, its impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

This guiding principle was strengthened by the International Court of Justice in July 2025, which reaffirmed 1.5°C as the primary legally binding target for climate policies under the Paris climate agreement.

Yet recent climate negotiations, including at the UN climate summit in Brazil in November 2025 (Cop30), have seen some countries – largely fossil fuel producers – push back on previously standard language endorsing the IPCC as a source of the “best available science”.

As cryosphere scientists who regularly attend the UN’s climate summits, we have noticed recent efforts to downplay, confuse and dilute some of the latest scientific findings, especially from the cryosphere. We find this alarming.

At Cop30, observations about the complete loss of glaciers in two countries (Slovenia and Venezuela) were removed from the final draft text. Other shocking scientific findings about “irreversible changes to the cryosphere” were diluted to a rather vague “need to enhance observations and address gaps in the monitoring of the hydrosphere and the cryosphere”.

This tactic to obfuscate the science is not new, but has been increasingly used over recent years, during which the indicators of climate change and its consequences on the cryosphere have become increasingly obvious to scientists.

At Cop30, climate negotiators from several countries expressed disappointment and concern that the role of the IPCC as the best available science was not highlighted alongside some of the more alarming scientific findings, with an intervention from the UK capturing this frustration.

While the final overarching summary text from Cop30 – the Mutirão decision – references the IPCC as the source of the best available science, and contains some strong language around the need to limit warming to 1.5°C, rather than 2°C, these look like empty words when the same document fails to even mention “fossil fuels”. Emissions from fossil fuels will result in 2.6°C of warming by 2100, without urgent action.

Indeed, the final text from Cop30 is the first to explicitly reference a temperature “overshoot”, reiterating the need “to limit both the magnitude and the duration of any temperature overshoot”. Most scientists agree that overshoot is now inevitable, but that 1.5°C increase remains the legal and ethical imperative for a long-term global temperature target.

However, some scientists – including ourselves – would argue that even this is too high, committing us to losing around half of the world’s mountain glaciers and several metres of sea-level rise from the polar ice sheets.

Among the dire warnings, a recent study offers hope that it is still possible to curtail warming in the next 15 to 20 years, peaking at an increase of around 1.7°C in the 2040s before declining to an increase of 1.5°C and then 1.2°C by the end of the century. But that requires rapid and deep cuts in emissions from now on.

Climate negotiations may move at a glacial pace, but the irony is that the pace of glacier change is rapidly overtaking our ability to adapt to it and protect the most vulnerable people. The science is clear. But the perils of ignoring it are even clearer.

December 24, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change | Leave a comment

Climateflation: the food system in crisis

Jonathon Porritt 11th Dec 2025

Someday soon, our mainstream media is going to blow the gaff on today’s self-appointed tribunes of the people who, often in the very same speech, will inveigh against the ever-rising cost of living (and the scourge of food inflation in particular) while robustly asserting that climate change is a myth—a middle-class obsession that imposes outrageous costs on working families.

I can’t say I much like the word, but the portmanteau ‘climateflation’ should provide a bit of a heads-up for these loathsome hypocrites. Food prices have been rising for all sorts of different reasons, and it’s not easy to attribute a particular percentage of these rises to the impact of climate change on food crops and supply chains. But figures of anywhere between 10% and 20% have been cited, with specific reference to extreme heat reducing crop yields around the world (all crops have their own heat tolerance limit), as well as the growing frequency of floods and droughts.

Major food retailers in both Europe and the US are much more exercised about the way this is translating into price rises for fruit and veg in particular, although the language they use often steers clear of pinning it explicitly on climate change. How about this for a classic euphemism from the British Retail Consortium: “seasonal food inflation driven by weather”!

…………………………………………….  climateflation is already with us, with an average temperature increase of around 1.5°C since the Industrial Revolution. No surprise then that projections for future impacts (with average temperature increases of 2°C+) are getting truly scary. The European Central Bank looked at potential impacts by 2035, causing food prices in Europe to rise by between 1% and 3% every year, adding 0.3% to 1.2% to whatever the rate of inflation might be in any one year.

The reprehensible get-out for politicians is that even the most sophisticated climate models are still not much cop when it comes to projecting extreme weather events, let alone the movement of pathogens (pests and diseases) as the weather goes on getting warmer. It’s always after the event that the true scale of the damage becomes clear—as with the killer bacteria ‘xylella fastidiosa’ that has been ravaging Italy’s olives over the last decade, resulting in significant hikes in the price of olive oil. The prices of both chocolate and coffee have been similarly affected by different climate-induced factors.

All that’s bad enough, but we should be thanking our lucky stars we don’t live in one of the many countries directly affected by retreating glaciers. A report from UNESCO in March this year (the World Water Development Report) confirmed that the food and water supplies of around 2 billion people will be affected over the next two or three decades by what is now the fastest rate of glacier melting on record. We’re not just talking about food inflation here—we’re talking about life and death for hundreds of millions of people…………………………………………………………………….

The cruellest response to all this that we hear from the politicians is that farmers must ‘adapt.’ But there’s really not a lot the individual farmer can do as once-reliable weather patterns go berserk, as warmer temperatures steadily reduce moisture in the soil, and as demand for irrigation water steadily rises—even as food retailers remain as greedy and inflexible as ever.

So is that it then? Just factor in the inevitability of worsening climate inflation and invest in more food banks for those already struggling with the cost of food?  Absolutely not! In fact, there are four big things the UK government needs to be focusing on right now:

• Get really serious about food security. (Professor Tim Lang’s report earlier this year (“Just In Case”) written for the National Preparedness Commission, provides the clearest possible warning of the vulnerability of the UK’s food system to external shocks).
• Regulate the hell out of all those companies profiting so handsomely from the sale of ultra-processed food.
• Encourage consumers to eat less meat.
• Reduce food waste — both at the farm gate (particularly in poorer countries) and post-consumer.

Uncomfortably, that means acknowledging that Big Ag (that drives or benefits from each of these meta-impacts on our health and the environment) poses as great a threat to the well-being of people and to our prospects as a species as Big Oil. Which is why you won’t find many politicians venturing into this increasingly controversial territory. https://jonathonporritt.com/climateflation-food-system-crisis/

December 15, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | climate change | Leave a comment