Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

‘How long before climate change will destroy the Earth?’: research reveals what Australian kids want to know about our warming world

News Feed
Wednesday, March 20, 2024

ShutterstockEvery day, more children discover they are living in a climate crisis. This makes many children feel sad, anxious, angry, powerless, confused and frightened about what the future holds. The climate change burden facing young people is inherently unfair. But they have the potential to be the most powerful generation when it comes to creating change. Research and public debate so far has largely failed to engage with the voices and opinions of children – instead, focusing on the views of adults. Our research set out to change this. We asked 1,500 children to tell us what they wanted to know about climate change. The results show climate action, rather than the scientific cause of the problem, is their greatest concern. It suggests climate change education in schools must become more holistic and empowering, and children should be given more opportunities to shape the future they will inherit. Questions of ‘remarkable depth’ In Australia, research shows 43% of children aged 10 to 14 are worried about the future impact of climate change, and one in four believe the world will end before they grow up. Children are often seen as passive, marginal actors in the climate crisis. Evidence of an intergenerational divide is also emerging. Young people report feeling unheard and betrayed by older generations when it comes to climate change. Our study examined 464 questions about climate change submitted to the Curious Climate Schools program in Tasmania in 2021 and 2022. The questions were asked by primary and high school students aged 7 to 18. The children’s questions reveal a remarkable depth of consideration about climate change. Read more: How well does the new Australian Curriculum prepare young people for climate change? The vast majority of children worry about climate change. Shutterstock Kids are thinking globally The impacts of climate change were discussed in 38% of questions. About 10% of questions asked about impacts on places, such as: With the rate of climate change, what will the Earth be like when I’m an adult? What does the melting of glaciers in Antarctica mean for Tassie (Tasmania) and our climate? These questions demonstrate children’s understanding of the global scale of the climate crisis and their concern about places close to home. How climate change will affect humans accounted for 12% of questions. Impacts on animals and biodiversity were the subject of 9% of questions. Examples include: Will climate change make us live elsewhere, eg underwater or in space? What species may become extinct due to climate change, which species could adapt to changing conditions and have we already seen this begin to happen? Approximately 7% of questions asked about ice melting and/or sea-level rise, while 3% asked about extreme weather or disasters. Children wonder what Earth will look like when they are adults. Shutterstock ‘What can we do?’ Action on climate change was the most frequent theme, discussed in 40% of questions. Some questions involved the kinds of action needed and others focused on the challenges in taking action. They include: How would you make rapid climate improvements without sacrificing industry and finance? Around 16% of questions asked about, or implied, who was responsible for climate action. Governments and politicians were the largest group singled out. Other questions asked about the responsibilities of schools, communities, states, countries and individuals. Examples include: What can I do as a 12-year-old to help the planet, and why will these actions help us? If the world knows about climate change, why has not much happened? Some 20% of questions suggested action by specific sectors of the economy. This included stopping using fossil fuels and moving to renewable energy or nuclear power. Some suggested action related to food, agriculture or fisheries. Existential worries In 27% of questions, students raised existential concerns about climate change. This reveals the urgency and frustration many children feel. The largest group of these questions (15%) asked for predictions of future events. Some 5% of questions implied the planet, or humanity, was doomed. They included: Will all the reefs die? How long before climate change will destroy the Earth? How long will we be able to survive on our planet if we do nothing to try to slow down/reverse climate change? Why is Earth getting hot? Scientific questions about climate change made up 25% of the total. The largest group related to the causes and physical processes, such as: What causes the Earth to get hotter due to climate change? Would our world be the same now if the Industrial Revolution hadn’t happened? How do they know the climate and percentage of gases, such as methane, in the 1800s? What all this means Our analysis indicates children are very concerned about how climate change affects the things and places they care about. Children also want to know how to contribute to solutions – either through their own actions or influencing adults, industries and governments. Children asked fewer questions about the scientific evidence for climate change. So what are the implications of this? Research shows that where climate change is taught in schools, it is primarily represented as a scientific and environmental issue, without focus on the social and political causes and challenges. While children need information about the science of global warming, our research suggests this is not enough. Climate change should be integrated into all subjects in the curriculum, from social studies to maths to food. Teachers should also be trained to understand climate challenges themselves, and to identify and support students suffering from climate distress. And children must be given opportunities to get involved in shaping the future. Governments and industry should commit to listening to children’s concerns about climate change, and acting on them. Read more: 'I tend to be very gentle': how teachers are navigating climate change in the classroom Chloe Lucas received funding from the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the University of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office for the research and engagement reported in this article, as part of the Curious Climate Schools program. She is also funded by the Australian Research Council. Chloe is a member of the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the Institute of Australian Geographers and the International Environmental Communication Association, and is a member of the Editorial Board of Australian Geographer.Charlotte Earl-Jones received funding from the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the University of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office for the research and engagement reported in this article, as part of the Curious Climate Schools program. She is also funded by Westpac Scholars Trust and the Australian Commonwealth Government Research Training Program. She is a member of the Institute of Australian Geographers. Gabi Mocatta received funding from the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office (now re-named Renewables, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania) for the research and engagement reported here. She is also President of the Board of the International Environmental Communication Association.Gretta Pecl receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Department of Agriculture Water and the Environment, Department of Primary Industries NSW, Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tasmania), the Fisheries Research & Development Corporation, and has received travel funding support from the Australian government for participation in the IPCC process. Kim Beasy received funding from the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the University of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office for the research and engagement reported in this article, as part of the Curious Climate School program. She is a member of the Centre of Marine Socioecology and the Australian Association of Environmental Education. Rachel Kelly receives funding from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, and the Centre for Marine Socioecology at the University of Tasmania.

The result shows climate change education in schools must become more holistic and empowering, and children should be allowed to shape the future they will inherit.

Shutterstock

Every day, more children discover they are living in a climate crisis. This makes many children feel sad, anxious, angry, powerless, confused and frightened about what the future holds.

The climate change burden facing young people is inherently unfair. But they have the potential to be the most powerful generation when it comes to creating change.

Research and public debate so far has largely failed to engage with the voices and opinions of children – instead, focusing on the views of adults. Our research set out to change this.

We asked 1,500 children to tell us what they wanted to know about climate change. The results show climate action, rather than the scientific cause of the problem, is their greatest concern. It suggests climate change education in schools must become more holistic and empowering, and children should be given more opportunities to shape the future they will inherit.

Questions of ‘remarkable depth’

In Australia, research shows 43% of children aged 10 to 14 are worried about the future impact of climate change, and one in four believe the world will end before they grow up.

Children are often seen as passive, marginal actors in the climate crisis. Evidence of an intergenerational divide is also emerging. Young people report feeling unheard and betrayed by older generations when it comes to climate change.

Our study examined 464 questions about climate change submitted to the Curious Climate Schools program in Tasmania in 2021 and 2022. The questions were asked by primary and high school students aged 7 to 18.

The children’s questions reveal a remarkable depth of consideration about climate change.


Read more: How well does the new Australian Curriculum prepare young people for climate change?


teenagers hold signs at rally
The vast majority of children worry about climate change. Shutterstock

Kids are thinking globally

The impacts of climate change were discussed in 38% of questions. About 10% of questions asked about impacts on places, such as:

With the rate of climate change, what will the Earth be like when I’m an adult?

What does the melting of glaciers in Antarctica mean for Tassie (Tasmania) and our climate?

These questions demonstrate children’s understanding of the global scale of the climate crisis and their concern about places close to home.

How climate change will affect humans accounted for 12% of questions. Impacts on animals and biodiversity were the subject of 9% of questions. Examples include:

Will climate change make us live elsewhere, eg underwater or in space?

What species may become extinct due to climate change, which species could adapt to changing conditions and have we already seen this begin to happen?

Approximately 7% of questions asked about ice melting and/or sea-level rise, while 3% asked about extreme weather or disasters.

four children in school uniforms reading book
Children wonder what Earth will look like when they are adults. Shutterstock

‘What can we do?’

Action on climate change was the most frequent theme, discussed in 40% of questions. Some questions involved the kinds of action needed and others focused on the challenges in taking action. They include:

How would you make rapid climate improvements without sacrificing industry and finance?

Around 16% of questions asked about, or implied, who was responsible for climate action. Governments and politicians were the largest group singled out. Other questions asked about the responsibilities of schools, communities, states, countries and individuals. Examples include:

What can I do as a 12-year-old to help the planet, and why will these actions help us?

If the world knows about climate change, why has not much happened?

Some 20% of questions suggested action by specific sectors of the economy. This included stopping using fossil fuels and moving to renewable energy or nuclear power. Some suggested action related to food, agriculture or fisheries.

Existential worries

In 27% of questions, students raised existential concerns about climate change. This reveals the urgency and frustration many children feel.

The largest group of these questions (15%) asked for predictions of future events. Some 5% of questions implied the planet, or humanity, was doomed. They included:

Will all the reefs die?

How long before climate change will destroy the Earth?

How long will we be able to survive on our planet if we do nothing to try to slow down/reverse climate change?

Why is Earth getting hot?

Scientific questions about climate change made up 25% of the total. The largest group related to the causes and physical processes, such as:

What causes the Earth to get hotter due to climate change?

Would our world be the same now if the Industrial Revolution hadn’t happened?

How do they know the climate and percentage of gases, such as methane, in the 1800s?

What all this means

Our analysis indicates children are very concerned about how climate change affects the things and places they care about. Children also want to know how to contribute to solutions – either through their own actions or influencing adults, industries and governments. Children asked fewer questions about the scientific evidence for climate change.

So what are the implications of this?

Research shows that where climate change is taught in schools, it is primarily represented as a scientific and environmental issue, without focus on the social and political causes and challenges.

While children need information about the science of global warming, our research suggests this is not enough. Climate change should be integrated into all subjects in the curriculum, from social studies to maths to food.

Teachers should also be trained to understand climate challenges themselves, and to identify and support students suffering from climate distress.

And children must be given opportunities to get involved in shaping the future. Governments and industry should commit to listening to children’s concerns about climate change, and acting on them.


Read more: 'I tend to be very gentle': how teachers are navigating climate change in the classroom


The Conversation

Chloe Lucas received funding from the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the University of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office for the research and engagement reported in this article, as part of the Curious Climate Schools program. She is also funded by the Australian Research Council. Chloe is a member of the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the Institute of Australian Geographers and the International Environmental Communication Association, and is a member of the Editorial Board of Australian Geographer.

Charlotte Earl-Jones received funding from the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the University of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office for the research and engagement reported in this article, as part of the Curious Climate Schools program. She is also funded by Westpac Scholars Trust and the Australian Commonwealth Government Research Training Program. She is a member of the Institute of Australian Geographers.

Gabi Mocatta received funding from the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the University of Tasmania and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office (now re-named Renewables, Climate and Future Industries Tasmania) for the research and engagement reported here. She is also President of the Board of the International Environmental Communication Association.

Gretta Pecl receives funding from the Australian Research Council, Department of Agriculture Water and the Environment, Department of Primary Industries NSW, Department of Premier and Cabinet (Tasmania), the Fisheries Research & Development Corporation, and has received travel funding support from the Australian government for participation in the IPCC process.

Kim Beasy received funding from the Centre for Marine Socioecology, the University of Tasmania, and the Tasmanian Climate Change Office for the research and engagement reported in this article, as part of the Curious Climate School program. She is a member of the Centre of Marine Socioecology and the Australian Association of Environmental Education.

Rachel Kelly receives funding from the Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, and the Centre for Marine Socioecology at the University of Tasmania.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

America's Butterflies Are Disappearing At 'Catastrophic' Rate, Study Says

The number of the winged beauties down 22% since 2000, according to new research.

WASHINGTON (AP) — America’s butterflies are disappearing because of insecticides, climate change and habitat loss, with the number of the winged beauties down 22% since 2000, a new study finds.The first countrywide systematic analysis of butterfly abundance found that the number of butterflies in the Lower 48 states has been falling on average 1.3% a year since the turn of the century, with 114 species showing significant declines and only nine increasing, according to a study in Thursday’s journal Science.“Butterflies have been declining the last 20 years,” said study co-author Nick Haddad, an entomologist at Michigan State University. “And we don’t see any sign that that’s going to end.”A team of scientists combined 76,957 surveys from 35 monitoring programs and blended them for an apples-to-apples comparison and ended up counting 12.6 million butterflies over the decades. Last month an annual survey that looked just at monarch butterflies, which federal officials plan to put on the threatened species list, counted a nearly all-time low of fewer than 10,000, down from 1.2 million in 1997.Many of the species in decline fell by 40% or more.David Wagner, a University of Connecticut entomologist who wasn’t part of the study, praised its scope. And he said while the annual rate of decline may not sound significant, it is “catastrophic and saddening” when compounded over time.“In just 30 or 40 years we are talking about losing half the butterflies (and other insect life) over a continent!” Wagner said in an email. “The tree of life is being denuded at unprecedented rates.”The United States has 650 butterfly species, but 96 species were so sparse they didn’t show up in the data and another 212 species weren’t found in sufficient number to calculate trends, said study lead author Collin Edwards, an ecologist and data scientist at the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.“I’m probably most worried about the species that couldn’t even be included in the analyses” because they were so rare, said University of Wisconsin-Madison entomologist Karen Oberhauser, who wasn’t part of the research. Haddad, who specializes in rare butterflies, said in recent years he has seen just two endangered St. Francis Satyr butterflies — which only live on a bomb range at Fort Bragg in North Carolina — “so it could be extinct.” Some well-known species had large drops. The red admiral, which is so calm it lands on people, is down 44% and the American lady butterfly, with two large eyespots on its back wings, decreased by 58%, Edwards said. Even the invasive white cabbage butterfly, “a species that is well adapted to invade the world,” according to Haddad, fell by 50%. “How can that be?” Haddad wondered.Cornell University butterfly expert Anurag Agrawal said he worries most about the future of a different species: Humans.“The loss of butterflies, parrots and porpoises is undoubtedly a bad sign for us, the ecosystems we need and the nature we enjoy,” Agrawal, who wasn’t part of the study, said in an email. “They are telling us that our continent’s health is not doing so well ... Butterflies are an ambassador for nature’s beauty, fragility and the interdependence of species. They have something to teach us.”Oberhauser said butterflies connect people with nature and that “calms us down, makes us healthier and happier and promotes learning.”What’s happening to butterflies in the United States is probably happening to other, less-studied insects across the continent and world, Wagner said. He said not only is this the most comprehensive butterfly study, but the most data-rich for any insect.Butterflies are also pollinators, though not as prominent as bees, and are a major source of pollination of the Texas cotton crop, Haddad said.The biggest decrease in butterflies was in the Southwest — Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Oklahoma — where the number of butterflies dropped by more than half in the 20 years.“It looks like the butterflies that are in dry and warm areas are doing particularly poorly,” Edwards said. “And that kind of captures a lot of the Southwest.”Edwards said when they looked at butterfly species that lived both in the hotter South and cooler North, the ones that did better were in the cooler areas.Climate change, habitat loss and insecticides tend to work together to weaken butterfly populations, Edwards and Haddad said. Of the three, it seems that insecticides are the biggest cause, based on previous research from the U.S. Midwest, Haddad said.“It makes sense because insecticide use has changed in dramatic ways in the time since our study started,” Haddad said.Habitats can be restored and so can butterflies, so there’s hope, Haddad said.“You can make changes in your backyard and in your neighborhood and in your state,” Haddad said. “That could really improve the situation for a lot of species.”Follow Seth Borenstein on X at @borenbearsThe Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Switzerland told it must do better on climate after older women’s ECHR win

Council of Europe says Swiss government failing to respect human rights court’s ruling on emissionsEurope live – latest updatesThe Swiss government has been told it must do more to show that its national climate plans are ambitious enough to comply with a landmark legal ruling.The Council of Europe’s committee of ministers, in a meeting this week, decided that Switzerland was not doing enough to respect a decision by the European court of human rights last year that it must do more to cut its greenhouse gas emissions and rejected the government’s plea to close the case. Continue reading...

The Swiss government has been told it must do more to show that its national climate plans are ambitious enough to comply with a landmark legal ruling.The Council of Europe’s committee of ministers, in a meeting this week, decided that Switzerland was not doing enough to respect a decision by the European court of human rights last year that it must do more to cut its greenhouse gas emissions and rejected the government’s plea to close the case.The KlimaSeniorinnen organisation of more than 2,000 older Swiss women successfully argued that its members’ rights to privacy and family life were being breached because they were particularly vulnerable to the health impacts of heatwaves.It was seen as a historic decision in Europe, where it was the court’s first ruling on climate, with direct ramifications for all 46 Council of Europe member states. It has also influenced climate litigation around the world.However, there was resistance within Switzerland from the start, and by the summer the Swiss federal council had rebuffed the ruling.While it acknowledged the importance of the underlying European convention on human rights, the Swiss government said the court’s interpretation was too broad in extending it to the climate crisis and in accepting a complaint from an organisation.It claimed it was already doing enough to cut national emissions, and submitted an “action report” in October rather than the required action plan. This maintained that the judgment did not require it to set specific carbon budgets and that there was no internationally recognised method for doing so.The committee of ministers, which is responsible for upholding the judgment, noted this week that Switzerland had closed some legislative gaps, including revising its CO2 act and setting goals up to 2030.But it invited Switzerland to provide more information showing how its climate framework aligned with the court’s ruling, “through a carbon budget or otherwise, of national greenhouse gas emissions limitations”. The committee took note of methodologies put forward by a broad coalition of NGOs to calculate this.Georg Klingler, a project coordinator and climate campaigner at Greenpeace, which supported the Swiss women’s case, said this essentially meant setting budgets that reflect Switzerland’s “fair share” of emission reductions in line with the Paris agreement’s goal of limiting warming to under 1.5C. That could mean toughening up existing goals, he said.The Swiss government was also told to keep the committee of ministers informed about planned adaptation measures to protect vulnerable citizens during events such as heatwaves. And it must provide “concrete examples” of citizens’ involvement in developing climate policies. Switzerland has until September to provide this information.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe KlimaSeniorinnen co-president Rosmarie Wydler-Wälti welcomed the decision. She called on the Swiss federal council and parliament “to take the dangers of global warming seriously and finally take decisive action against the climate crisis”.Sébastien Duyck, a senior attorney at the Center for International Environmental Law, said European governments had “reaffirmed the rule of law”. “The decision … makes clear that the Swiss federal council must fulfil its legal obligation to protect its citizens’ human rights by ramping up its climate ambition.”Başak Çalı, a professor of international law at the Oxford Bonavero Institute of Human Rights, said: “It is a good day for respect for European court judgments and international law. This decision also shows just how important international institutions – such as the European court – are for helping to improve the lives of people everywhere.”In a statement, the Swiss federal government said the “competent authorities” would analyse the decision and determine what further information they would submit, adding: “The aim is to demonstrate that Switzerland is complying with the climate policy requirements of the ruling.”

Climate Change Made South Sudan Heat Wave More Likely, Study Finds

Years of war and food insecurity in the region made the extreme heat especially dangerous.

After a blistering February heat wave in South Sudan’s capital city caused dozens of students to collapse from heat stroke, officials closed schools for two weeks. It was the second time in less than a year that the country’s schools closed to protect young people from the deadly effects of extreme heat.Climate change, largely caused by the burning of fossil fuels in rich nations, made at least one week of that heat wave 10 times as likely, and 2 degrees Celsius hotter, according to a new study by World Weather Attribution. Temperatures in some parts of the region soared above 42 degrees Celsius, or 107 degrees Fahrenheit, in the last week of February.The analysis used weather data, observations and climate models to get the results, which have not been peer reviewed but are based on standardized methods.South Sudan, in the tropical band of East Africa, was torn apart by a civil war that led to independence from Sudan in 2011. It’s also one of the countries least responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating up the globe. “The continent has contributed a tiny fraction of global emissions, but is bearing the brunt of climate change,” said Joyce Kimutai, a researcher at the Center for Environmental Policy at Imperial College London.Heat waves are one of the deadliest extreme weather events and have become more frequent and more severe on a warming planet. But analysis methods connecting heat to mortality vary between and within countries, and death tolls can be underreported and are often unknown for months after an event.Prolonged heat is particularly dangerous for children, older adults and pregnant women. For the last three weeks, extreme heat has settled over a large region of continental Eastern Africa, including parts of Kenya and Uganda. Residents have been told to stay indoors and drink water, a difficult directive for countries where many people work outdoors, electricity is sporadic, access to clean water is difficult and modest housing means there are few cooling systems.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Blackbird deaths point to looming West Nile virus threat in the UK

Mosquito-borne diseases like West Nile virus could become a growing concern in the UK and other northern European nations as the climate warms, with a virus affecting blackbirds showing how these pathogens can take hold

Blackbird numbers have fallen in the UK as the Usutu virus has taken holdYtje Veenstra/Shutterstock A deadly virus is killing blackbirds across the UK. Beyond the risk to the birds, its spread indicates that mosquito-borne viruses now pose a growing threat to humans and animals in the country, in part as a result of climate change. The virus in question, Usutu, originated in South Africa in 1959 but is now widespread in Europe. It causes deadly disease in certain bird species, particularly blackbirds, and was first detected in the UK in 2020. In some parts of the country, most notably London, blackbird populations have dropped by more than 40 per cent since 2018. “We first noticed the decline at the same time as Usutu popped up,” says Hugh Hanmer at the British Trust for Ornithology.  Although devastating for bird life, Usutu poses a low risk to humans and mammals. Infections in people are rare and generally only cause a mild fever, but the arrival of the virus in the UK marked the first time a mosquito-borne viral zoonosis – a disease that can be transmitted from an animal to a human – had emerged in animal hosts in the country. Virus experts are keeping a close watch on how far and fast the disease is spreading because it could be a template for the future spread of other mosquito-borne diseases.   For example, the West Nile virus spreads in the same way as Usutu and requires the same environmental conditions. “The same mosquitoes that can transmit Usutu typically can transmit West Nile, and the same birds which act as hosts [for Usutu] can also act as hosts of West Nile,” says Arran Folly at the UK’s Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA).  Humans can also be infected by West Nile virus from a mosquito bite, but its symptoms can be more severe than those of Usutu. Around 20 per cent of those infected will experience symptoms, which include fever, headache, body aches, vomiting and diarrhoea. In rare cases, the virus can cause serious inflammation of the brain and spinal cord, which can be fatal. There is no known human vaccine. Climate change has helped accelerate the spread of West Nile virus through northern and eastern Europe, research shows, as the virus thrives in warm summer temperatures. In the Netherlands, Usutu was first detected in 2016 and West Nile virus followed in 2020. UK officials fear a similar pattern will play out in their country, with studies demonstrating that the climate there is becoming increasingly hospitable to mosquito-borne viruses. “The idea is that, if we have Usutu here, West Nile is probably going to come at some point and is likely to persist, given the right conditions,” says Folly. In response to the threat, APHA launched a project in 2023 to track the emergence and transmission pathways of Usutu and other mosquito-borne viruses in wild birds. This virus-tracing infrastructure will be vital if the country is to respond quickly to West Nile’s arrival, says Folly. “Our real goal, or drive from a governmental point of view, is to be able to detect these [new viruses] circulating in animal populations before we get transmission to humans.” Reina Sikkema at Erasmus University Medical Center in Rotterdam has been studying the emergence of Usutu and West Nile virus in the Netherlands. Although West Nile hasn’t been detected since 2022, she believes the virus is circulating at a low level, kept in check currently by the country’s relatively cool climate. “I believe it is present, but it needs the right circumstances to flare up,” she says. A UK detection of West Nile is now all but inevitable, says Sikkema, but she believes similar climatic factors could prevent the virus spreading too widely for now. But rising summer temperatures, including the increasing frequency of tropical nights – which the UK’s Met Office weather agency defines as when minimum temperatures fail to fall below 20°C – could change the picture in the UK, the Netherlands and other northern European nations in coming years, warns Sikkema. “Mosquito-borne disease is not [just] on your Spanish holiday or when you go to the South Americas,” says Folly. As well as the potential risk of West Nile virus to people, Folly says we shouldn’t forget what Usutu is doing to the UK’s blackbirds: “If 40 per cent of humans dropped dead in Greater London, you’d know about it quite quickly.”

Study tells California legislators to declare war on red tape — but will they?

California needs to "facilitate new construction at an unprecedented scale" to solve housing, water and climate issues, a legislative report says.

Construction of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge and its more famous cousin, the Golden Gate Bridge, began in 1933, and both were carrying traffic by 1937. The 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake severely damaged the Bay Bridge, leading to a decision to replace its eastern section rather than merely repair or refit it. However state and local politicians argued for more than a decade over design of the new section and how to pay for it. Construction finally began in 2002 and was finished 11 years later — nearly four times as long as the entire bridge took — at a cost of $6.5 billion, the costliest public works project in California history. The Bay Bridge saga exemplifies how California, which once taught the world how to build things, lost its mojo by erecting so many political, legal and financial hurdles to getting things done. Sixty-plus years ago, the state’s water managers proposed a canal around the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to complete the state project that carries water from the northern part of the state to the southern. As the years rolled by, the project languished. Eventually it was revised to twin tunnels and more recently to a single tunnel, but construction, if it ever occurs, is still many years away. Lesser projects suffer from the same political and procedural sclerosis. It can take years, or even decades, for large-scale housing projects, electric generation facilities and desalination plants to traverse the thickets of permits from federal, state and local agencies. Even small housing projects are subject to lengthy entanglements in red tape as costs escalate. A newly released report from a special legislative committee declares that to deal with housing, homelessness, water supply and climate change issues, California “will need to facilitate new construction at an unprecedented scale. “This includes millions of housing units, thousands of gigawatts of clean energy generation, storage, and transmission capacity, a million electric vehicle chargers and thousands of miles of transit, and thousands of climate resiliency projects to address drought, flooding and sea level rise, and changing habitats.” However, it continues, “each of these projects will require a government-issued permit before they can be built — and some will require dozens! Therefore, only if governments consistently issue permits in a manner that is timely, transparent, consistent, and outcomes-oriented will we be able to address our housing and climate crises. Unfortunately, for most projects, the opposite is true. They face permitting processes that are time consuming, opaque, confusing, and favor process over outcomes.” Read Next Housing Should builders permit their own projects? Post-fire LA considers a radical idea by Ben Christopher The Legislature itself erected many of these procedural barriers — most notably by passing the California Environmental Quality Act more than a half-century ago — and the Legislature is controlled by regulation-prone Democrats, so it’s remarkable that such a report would be issued. The California Assembly Select Committee on Permitting Reform spent months talking to those who have been affected by California’s permit-happy system, as well as experts on specific kinds of projects, before reaching a conclusion that sounds like it came from conservative Republicans. “It is too damn hard to build anything in California,” Assemblywoman Buffy Wicks, an Oakland Democrat who chaired the committee, said in a statement. “Our broken permitting system is driving up the cost of housing, the cost of energy, and even the cost of inaction on climate change. “If we’re serious about making California more affordable, sustainable, and resilient, we have to make it easier to build housing, clean energy, public transportation, and climate adaptation projects. This report makes it clear: the system isn’t working, and it’s on us to fix it.” Yes it is — and we’ll see whether the report has legs or winds up in the discard bin like so many other governance reform proposals. Read More Environment California lawmakers want to cut red tape to ramp up clean energy but rural communities push back December 13, 2024December 16, 2024 Housing ‘Too damn hard to build’:  A key California Democrat’s push for speedier construction March 4, 2025March 6, 2025

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.