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.

More extreme heat + more people = danger in these California cities. ‘Will it get as hot as Death Valley?’

News Feed
Thursday, September 5, 2024

In summary Inland communities with big population booms will experience the most extreme heat days under climate change projections. The combination puts more people at risk — and many cities are unprepared. On a recent sunny afternoon in Lancaster, Cassandra Hughes looked for a place to cool down. She set up a lawn chair in the shade at the edge of a park and spent the afternoon with a coloring book, listening to hip-hop music.  Reaching a high of 97 degrees, this August day was pleasant by Lancaster standards — a breeze offered temporary relief. But just the week before, during a brutal heat wave, the high hit 109. For Hughes, the Mojave Desert city has been a dramatic change from the mild weather in El Segundo, the coastal city where she lived before moving in April.  Hughes, a retired nurse, is among the Californians who are moving inland in search of affordable housing and more space. But it comes at a price: dangerous heat driven by climate change, accompanied by sky-high electric bills. A CalMatters analysis shows that many California cities with the biggest recent population booms are the same places that will experience the most high heat days — a potentially deadly confluence. The combination of a growing population and rising extreme heat will put more people at risk of illnesses and pose a challenge for unprepared local officials. As greenhouse gasses warm the planet, more people around the globe are experiencing intensifying heat waves and higher temperatures. An international panel of climate scientists recently reported that it is “virtually certain” that “there has been increases in the intensity and duration of heatwaves and in the number of heatwave days at the global scale.”  CalMatters identified the California communities most at risk — the top 1% of the state’s more than 8,000 census tracts that have grown by more than 500 people in recent years and are expected to experience the most intensifying heat under climate change projections. The results: Lancaster and Palmdale in Los Angeles County; Apple Valley, Victorville and Hesperia in San Bernardino County; Lake Elsinore and Murrieta in Riverside County; and the Central Valley cities of Visalia, Fresno, Clovis and Tulare. By 2050, neighborhoods in those 11 inland cities are expected to experience 25 or more high heat days every year, according to data from researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Colorado Boulder and UC Berkeley. A high heat day is when an area’s maximum temperature exceeds the top 2% of its historic high — in other words, temperatures that soar above some of the highest levels ever recorded there this century. (The projections were based on an intermediate scenario for future planet-warming emissions.) Many of these places facing this dangerous combination of worsening heat waves and growing populations are low-income, Latino communities. “We are seeing much more rapid warming of inland areas that were already hotter to begin with,” said UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain.  “There’s an extreme contrast between the people who live within 5 to 10 miles of the beach and people who live as little as 20 miles inland,” he said. “It’s these inland areas where we see people who…are killed by this extreme heat or whose lives are at least made miserable.”  While temperatures are projected to rise across the state, neighborhoods along the coast will remain much more temperate. San Francisco, Santa Barbara and Long Beach, for instance, are not projected to experience significantly more high heat days. San Francisco will average six days a year in the 2050s exceeding 87 degrees, compared to four days in the 2020s. In contrast, Visalia will jump from 17 days exceeding 103 degrees to 32 — more than a full month. Unlike the growing inland populations, the cooler coastal counties, — where more than two-thirds of Californians now live — are expected to lose about 1.3 million residents by 2050, according to the California Department of Finance.  High temperatures can be deadly, triggering heat strokes and heart attacks, and exacerbating asthma, diabetes, kidney failure and other illnesses, even some infectious diseases. Cassandra Hughes sits in the shade in Lancaster on Aug. 15, 2024. The temperature that day reached 97 degrees — cooler than recent heat waves. She strategically cools her home to keep electric bills low.  “I have air conditioning, a swamp cooler and two fans,” she said. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters In California, extreme heat contributed to more than 5,000 hospitalizations and almost 10,600 emergency department visits over the past decade — and the health effects “fall disproportionately on already overburdened” Black people, Latinos and Native Americans, according to a recent state report. City and county officials must grapple with how to protect residents who already are struggling to stay cool and pay their electric bills. Despite the warnings, many local governments have failed to respond.  A 2015 state law required municipalities to update their general plans, safety plans or hazard mitigation plans to include steps countering the effects of climate change, such as cooling roofs and pavement or urban greening projects. But only about half of California’s 540 cities and counties had complied with new plans as of last year, according to the environmental nonprofit Climate Resolve.  The California dream or a hellish reality?  An exodus from California’s coastal regions is a decades-long trend, said Eric McGhee, a policy director who researches California demographic changes at the Public Policy Institute of California. People are moving away from the coasts, especially the Los Angeles region and Bay Area, to elsewhere in California and other states.  About 104,000 people moved from the Bay Area to the Sacramento area, the Inland Empire and the San Joaquin Valley in 2021 and 2022, and about 95,000 moved from Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange County to those same inland regions, according to data collected from the Census. McGhee said most people moving inland are low-income and middle-income Californians looking to expand their families, find cheaper housing and live comfortably — and they’re willing to sacrifice other privileges, like cool weather. California is “becoming more expensive, more exclusive in the places that are least likely to experience extreme heat,” Swain said. As a result, he said, “the people who are most at risk of extreme heat” — those with limited financial resources — “are precisely the people experiencing extreme heat.” The San Bernardino County city of Victorville — which is 55% Hispanic and has median incomes far below the state average — is among California’s fastest growing areas, adding more than 12,500 new residents between 2018 and 2022. Nearby Apple Valley and Hesperia grew by about 3,000 and 6,000 people, respectively, while Lancaster, Palmdale and Visalia added between about 10,000 and 12,000.   In Victorville on an August day that reached 97 degrees, Eduardo Ceja wiped sweat from his forehead as he worked at Superior Grocers store, retrieving shopping carts.  The work is often grueling in this Mojave Desert town. He sometimes drinks five bottles of water to stay hydrated as he works, with the concrete parking lot radiating the heat back onto his skin. When he’s done pushing carts, he recovers in the air conditioned store.  The extreme heat “is noticeable. I don’t think there was a day under 100 in July.”Scott Nassif, apple valley mayor Ceja, 20, moved to nearby Apple Valley about a year ago, around the same time the new grocery store opened. He used to sleep on his parents’ couch in the San Gabriel Valley town of Covina, east of Los Angeles, which is often more than 10 degrees cooler than Apple Valley on summer days. But he wanted a place to himself at a low cost, so now he pays $400 a month for a bedroom in his brother’s home.  Since he moved here, he’s observed many businesses, including his own employer, expand or open in Apple Valley. “I notice a lot of people from L.A. are coming here,” he said. It makes sense to him. “Out here, the apartments have more space.” Apple Valley Mayor Scott Nassif, who has lived there since 1959, said days over 100 degrees used to be rare. Now week-long heat waves above 110 degrees are commonplace. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters Apple Valley Mayor Scott Nassif has seen his desert town grow and get hotter over his lifetime. When he moved to the area in 1959, only a few thousand people lived there. Now it’s home to more than 75,000 people.  Nassif remembers only a few days that would reach above 100 degrees and multiple snowstorms in the winter. Now, snowstorms are rare, and week-long heat waves above 110 degrees are commonplace.    The extreme heat “is noticeable,” he said. “I don’t think there was a day under 100 in July.”  Nassif attributes the town’s growing population to its good schools, a semi-rural lifestyle and affordable housing for families.  In the high desert town of Hesperia, growth is evident. Banners advertising “New homes!” are posted throughout the town, luring potential buyers to tract home communities. Residents are cautiously eyeing a new development, called the Silverwood Community, that has recently broken ground. The massive, 9,000-plus acre development is authorized for more than 15,000 new homes, according to its website. A video on its website coaxes potential buyers: “True believers know the California dream is within reach.” An aerial view of the Silverwood Community, a housing development under construction in Hesperia, on Aug. 16, 2024. The development could include as many as 15,000 new homes to the desert city, which currently is home to about 100,000 people. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters Hesperia, which is almost two-thirds Hispanic and also has median incomes far below the state average, is anticipating continued growth as housing costs soar in other parts of California. Its planning includes rezoning some areas to allow for higher-density housing, which could bring more affordable housing, said Ryan Leonard, Hesperia’s principal planner.  “If people are willing to make a commute to San Bernardino, Riverside or Ontario — a 45-minute to an hour commute — they can afford to buy a home here when they might not be able to afford that same home down the hill,” Leonard said. Summer electric bills soar to $500 or more In the California towns at most risk of intensifying heat, people already are saddled with big power bills because of their reliance on air conditioning. For instance, households in Lancaster, Palmdale and Apple Valley pay on average $200 to $259 a month for electricity, compared to a $177 average in Southern California Edison’s service area, according to California Public Utilities Commission data as of May, 2023. In summer months, average power use in these communities nearly triples compared to spring months, so some people’s bills can climb above $500. And their bills are likely to grow as climate change intensifies heat waves and utility rates rise: Californians are paying about twice as much for electricity than a decade ago. The state’s rates are among the highest in the nation.  “You can’t not run the air conditioner all day… You wouldn’t survive otherwise. The heat is too oppressive.”Diane Carlson, palmdale resident Diane Carlson moved to Palmdale, north of Los Angeles, 30 years ago. The housing was much cheaper and she wanted to move where her children could attend school near where they live.  Over the years, she’s felt the temperatures in Palmdale rise.  Carlson said her electric bill during the summers used to average about $500, a significant chunk of her household budget. About four years ago, though, she had solar panels installed on their home, which cut her bill in half.   “You can’t not run the air conditioner all day, even if you run it low,” she said. “You wouldn’t survive otherwise. The heat is too oppressive.”  With multiple days in the summer reaching at least 115 degrees, Carlson is conscious that there may be a future where Palmdale isn’t livable for her anymore. “Will it get as hot as Death Valley?” she wondered.  Death Valley, the hottest place on Earth, reached record temperatures in July, averaging 108.5 degrees; the high was 121.9, tying a 1917 record.  In comparison, Palmdale by 2050 is projected to have 25 days where the maximum temperature exceeds 105, up from nine days in the 2010s. Carlson said she’d consider moving to the East Coast, where she’s originally from. But she’d face hurricanes rather than the heat. It all comes down to making a decision: “Which negatives are you willing to deal with?”  A street vendor sells fans and mini pools in the Los Angeles County desert town of Lancaster on Aug. 15, 2024. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters First: An infrared thermometer In Lancaster shows the  street surface temperature reached 137 degrees on Aug. 15, 2024. Last: A wire sculpture on a light pole as the hot desert sun shines. Photos by Ted Soqui for CalMatters Hughes, who lives in subsidized housing in Lancaster, said surviving the heat means constantly checking the weather forecast and strategically cooling her home to keep electricity costs low.  “I have air conditioning, a swamp cooler and two fans,” she said.  On a day when the temperature doesn’t reach triple digits, the air conditioner might stay off; she opens the windows and turns on the fans instead.  Local leaders say they know more must be done to protect their residents. Lancaster opens cooling centers in libraries for residents who need respite from the heat. During heat waves, residents ride buses for free, and city programs provide water and other resources to homeless people.  “Is it adequate? Of course it’s not adequate,” said Mayor R. Rex Parris. “If you’ve got people who don’t read or don’t get a newspaper sitting in a sweltering apartment, the information is not getting to them and we know it.”  Parris said air conditioning is necessary for families to stay cool in the hot desert summers, but with utility costs so high, it’s becoming a luxury. With that in mind, he said the city is prioritizing hydrogen energy, which could lower electric bills in the long-term. A new housing tract will be powered by solar panels and batteries that store power, backed up by hydrogen fuel cells, which will be cheaper than if the homes drew energy entirely from the grid, said Jason Caudl, head of Lancaster Energy.   Nassif, the Apple Valley mayor, said his town helps residents finance costly rooftop solar panels that can cut their power bills.  “Educating our public on how to save on their electric bills is a big thing, because you can’t live up here without air conditioning,” Nassif said.  Cooling centers aren’t enough to protect people On a Saturday morning in Visalia, as temperatures climbed to 99 degrees, Maribel Jimenez brought her 2-year-old son to an indoor playground to beat the heat. She sat at a kid-sized table with her son, Mateo, as he played with toy screws and blocks.  Jimenez, 33, has lived in Visalia her whole life. She grew up on a dairy farm and remembers playing outdoors for hours in the summers. But things have changed. She can’t imagine letting her son play outdoors under the scorching sun. She worries he’s not getting the outdoor playtime he should be getting.   “It’s definitely gotten much hotter,” Jimenez said. “You can’t even have your kids outside. We want to take him out to the playground but it’s too hot. By the time it cools down in the evening, it’s his bedtime.”  Other times, she and her family go to the mall for walks, or anywhere where there’s air conditioning.  “As long as he’s out, he’s happy,” she said. “We try our best to protect him.”   Maribel Jimenez and Oscar Olmedo play with their son Mateo in the shade at the ImagineU Children’s Museum in Visalia on Aug. 17, 2024. They say they have trouble finding places where their son can cool off on hot summer days. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local The effects of extreme heat on the body can happen quickly and can affect people of all ages and health conditions. Once symptoms of heat stroke begin — increased heart rate and a change in mental status — cooling off within 30 minutes is crucial to survival, said Tomás Aragón, director of the California Department of Public Health Many municipalities react to extreme heat by following state or county rules, which often involve opening cooling centers in public places when temperatures rise above a certain level for multiple days in a row.  “You want people to be in a space where your body can control its core temperature,” Aragón said. “It’s safer to be in an air conditioned place (that) cools your body down. That’s what cooling centers are for. I tell people, go to the supermarket, go to the library, go to a cooling center, go and just let your body cool down.” “It’s not just about preventing deaths and other terrible outcomes of heat waves … It’s really about having livable communities where kids can play outside and street vendors can run their businesses without risk of overexposure.” Ali Frazzini, los angeles county’s Chief Sustainability office But community advocates say cooling centers are ineffective because they’re underused. Many people are unaware of them, and others have no transportation to reach them. “I think everyone is used to that being the answer for what we do when it gets extremely hot,” said Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of Climate Resolve. “We need to expand our imagination to figure out other ways of taking care of people.” Victorville has complied with the 2015 state law requiring plans to handle climate change, and Hesperia is in the process of updating its plans.  But Los Angeles County is an example of a local government that has gone above and beyond to comply, Parfrey said. The county has updated its emergency preparedness plans and is in the early phases of developing a heat-specific plan for unincorporated areas, which will include urban greening and changes to the built environment to make neighborhoods cooler, said Ali Frazzini, policy director at the county’s Chief Sustainability office. Families play in the water park area of Adventure Park to cool off in Visalia on Aug. 17, 2024. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local “It’s not just about preventing deaths and other terrible outcomes of heat waves, although that’s extremely important,” Frazzini said. “It’s really about having livable communities where kids can play outside and street vendors can run their businesses without risk of overexposure.”  Parfrey said the state plays a role, but “they’re not in charge of the roads or building codes or where you put a water fountain or how you build a local park. All of that has to be done at a local level.” In 2022, the Newsom administration issued an Extreme Heat Action Plan outlining state steps to make California more resilient to extreme heat. That includes funding new community resilience centers where people can cool down as well as find resources or shelter during other emergencies, such as wildfires. It’s a model that some community advocates prefer over traditional cooling centers that are underutilized. The state has granted almost $98 million for 24 projects so far, said Anna Jane Jones, who leads development of the centers for the state’s Strategic Growth Council.   “It’s definitely gotten much hotter. You can’t even have your kids outside. We want to take him out to the playground but it’s too hot.”Maribel Jimenez, Visalia resident In Visalia, Jimenez said her family doesn’t have many options for cool spaces where her young son can be entertained. At home, the family uses the air conditioner sparingly and keeps the blinds closed. During a heat wave, their power bill can climb to $250. If the bills were lower, she’d use the air conditioner all the time “We have to do what we have to do,” she said.  Jimenez and her husband have thought twice about expanding their family and have floated the idea of moving somewhere else, but many of the affordable options, like Texas or Arizona, are even hotter than Visalia.  “Global warming is a thing, and the heat isn’t getting any better anytime soon,” she said. “Everybody’s paying the price.”

Inland communities with big population booms will experience the most extreme heat days under climate change projections. The combination puts more people at risk — and many cities are unprepared.

A person with pants, but no shirt, fills their water bottle during a hot day at a water station at a tennis court.

In summary

Inland communities with big population booms will experience the most extreme heat days under climate change projections. The combination puts more people at risk — and many cities are unprepared.

On a recent sunny afternoon in Lancaster, Cassandra Hughes looked for a place to cool down. She set up a lawn chair in the shade at the edge of a park and spent the afternoon with a coloring book, listening to hip-hop music. 

Reaching a high of 97 degrees, this August day was pleasant by Lancaster standards — a breeze offered temporary relief. But just the week before, during a brutal heat wave, the high hit 109. For Hughes, the Mojave Desert city has been a dramatic change from the mild weather in El Segundo, the coastal city where she lived before moving in April. 

Hughes, a retired nurse, is among the Californians who are moving inland in search of affordable housing and more space. But it comes at a price: dangerous heat driven by climate change, accompanied by sky-high electric bills.

A CalMatters analysis shows that many California cities with the biggest recent population booms are the same places that will experience the most high heat days — a potentially deadly confluence. The combination of a growing population and rising extreme heat will put more people at risk of illnesses and pose a challenge for unprepared local officials.

As greenhouse gasses warm the planet, more people around the globe are experiencing intensifying heat waves and higher temperatures. An international panel of climate scientists recently reported that it is “virtually certain” that “there has been increases in the intensity and duration of heatwaves and in the number of heatwave days at the global scale.” 

CalMatters identified the California communities most at risk — the top 1% of the state’s more than 8,000 census tracts that have grown by more than 500 people in recent years and are expected to experience the most intensifying heat under climate change projections.

The results: Lancaster and Palmdale in Los Angeles County; Apple Valley, Victorville and Hesperia in San Bernardino County; Lake Elsinore and Murrieta in Riverside County; and the Central Valley cities of Visalia, Fresno, Clovis and Tulare.

By 2050, neighborhoods in those 11 inland cities are expected to experience 25 or more high heat days every year, according to data from researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of Colorado Boulder and UC Berkeley. A high heat day is when an area’s maximum temperature exceeds the top 2% of its historic high — in other words, temperatures that soar above some of the highest levels ever recorded there this century. (The projections were based on an intermediate scenario for future planet-warming emissions.)

Many of these places facing this dangerous combination of worsening heat waves and growing populations are low-income, Latino communities.

“We are seeing much more rapid warming of inland areas that were already hotter to begin with,” said UCLA climate scientist Daniel Swain. 

“There’s an extreme contrast between the people who live within 5 to 10 miles of the beach and people who live as little as 20 miles inland,” he said. “It’s these inland areas where we see people who…are killed by this extreme heat or whose lives are at least made miserable.” 

While temperatures are projected to rise across the state, neighborhoods along the coast will remain much more temperate.

San Francisco, Santa Barbara and Long Beach, for instance, are not projected to experience significantly more high heat days.

San Francisco will average six days a year in the 2050s exceeding 87 degrees, compared to four days in the 2020s. In contrast, Visalia will jump from 17 days exceeding 103 degrees to 32 — more than a full month.

Unlike the growing inland populations, the cooler coastal counties, — where more than two-thirds of Californians now live — are expected to lose about 1.3 million residents by 2050, according to the California Department of Finance. 

High temperatures can be deadly, triggering heat strokes and heart attacks, and exacerbating asthma, diabetes, kidney failure and other illnesses, even some infectious diseases.

A person wearing a pink shirt, black pants and sandals sits in a folding chair on a sidewalk while writing in a notebook.
Cassandra Hughes sits in the shade in Lancaster on Aug. 15, 2024. The temperature that day reached 97 degrees — cooler than recent heat waves. She strategically cools her home to keep electric bills low.  “I have air conditioning, a swamp cooler and two fans,” she said. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters

In California, extreme heat contributed to more than 5,000 hospitalizations and almost 10,600 emergency department visits over the past decade — and the health effects “fall disproportionately on already overburdened” Black people, Latinos and Native Americans, according to a recent state report.

City and county officials must grapple with how to protect residents who already are struggling to stay cool and pay their electric bills. Despite the warnings, many local governments have failed to respond. 

A 2015 state law required municipalities to update their general plans, safety plans or hazard mitigation plans to include steps countering the effects of climate change, such as cooling roofs and pavement or urban greening projects.

But only about half of California’s 540 cities and counties had complied with new plans as of last year, according to the environmental nonprofit Climate Resolve

The California dream or a hellish reality? 

An exodus from California’s coastal regions is a decades-long trend, said Eric McGhee, a policy director who researches California demographic changes at the Public Policy Institute of California. People are moving away from the coasts, especially the Los Angeles region and Bay Area, to elsewhere in California and other states. 

About 104,000 people moved from the Bay Area to the Sacramento area, the Inland Empire and the San Joaquin Valley in 2021 and 2022, and about 95,000 moved from Los Angeles, Ventura and Orange County to those same inland regions, according to data collected from the Census.

McGhee said most people moving inland are low-income and middle-income Californians looking to expand their families, find cheaper housing and live comfortably — and they’re willing to sacrifice other privileges, like cool weather.

California is “becoming more expensive, more exclusive in the places that are least likely to experience extreme heat,” Swain said. As a result, he said, “the people who are most at risk of extreme heat” — those with limited financial resources — “are precisely the people experiencing extreme heat.”

Table of California counties by number of historical and projected high heat days and population change by 2050

The San Bernardino County city of Victorville — which is 55% Hispanic and has median incomes far below the state average — is among California’s fastest growing areas, adding more than 12,500 new residents between 2018 and 2022. Nearby Apple Valley and Hesperia grew by about 3,000 and 6,000 people, respectively, while Lancaster, Palmdale and Visalia added between about 10,000 and 12,000.  

In Victorville on an August day that reached 97 degrees, Eduardo Ceja wiped sweat from his forehead as he worked at Superior Grocers store, retrieving shopping carts. 

The work is often grueling in this Mojave Desert town. He sometimes drinks five bottles of water to stay hydrated as he works, with the concrete parking lot radiating the heat back onto his skin. When he’s done pushing carts, he recovers in the air conditioned store. 

The extreme heat “is noticeable. I don’t think there was a day under 100 in July.”

Scott Nassif, apple valley mayor

Ceja, 20, moved to nearby Apple Valley about a year ago, around the same time the new grocery store opened. He used to sleep on his parents’ couch in the San Gabriel Valley town of Covina, east of Los Angeles, which is often more than 10 degrees cooler than Apple Valley on summer days. But he wanted a place to himself at a low cost, so now he pays $400 a month for a bedroom in his brother’s home. 

Since he moved here, he’s observed many businesses, including his own employer, expand or open in Apple Valley.

“I notice a lot of people from L.A. are coming here,” he said. It makes sense to him. “Out here, the apartments have more space.”

A person wearing glasses, a black polo shirt and grey pants stands under a palo verde tree outside of a building during a sunny day.
Apple Valley Mayor Scott Nassif, who has lived there since 1959, said days over 100 degrees used to be rare. Now week-long heat waves above 110 degrees are commonplace. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters

Apple Valley Mayor Scott Nassif has seen his desert town grow and get hotter over his lifetime. When he moved to the area in 1959, only a few thousand people lived there. Now it’s home to more than 75,000 people. 

Nassif remembers only a few days that would reach above 100 degrees and multiple snowstorms in the winter. Now, snowstorms are rare, and week-long heat waves above 110 degrees are commonplace.   

The extreme heat “is noticeable,” he said. “I don’t think there was a day under 100 in July.” 

Nassif attributes the town’s growing population to its good schools, a semi-rural lifestyle and affordable housing for families. 

In the high desert town of Hesperia, growth is evident. Banners advertising “New homes!” are posted throughout the town, luring potential buyers to tract home communities. Residents are cautiously eyeing a new development, called the Silverwood Community, that has recently broken ground.

The massive, 9,000-plus acre development is authorized for more than 15,000 new homes, according to its website. A video on its website coaxes potential buyers: “True believers know the California dream is within reach.”

An aerial view of a giant dirt lot under construction that will soon be a community development.
An aerial view of the Silverwood Community, a housing development under construction in Hesperia, on Aug. 16, 2024. The development could include as many as 15,000 new homes to the desert city, which currently is home to about 100,000 people. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters

Hesperia, which is almost two-thirds Hispanic and also has median incomes far below the state average, is anticipating continued growth as housing costs soar in other parts of California. Its planning includes rezoning some areas to allow for higher-density housing, which could bring more affordable housing, said Ryan Leonard, Hesperia’s principal planner. 

“If people are willing to make a commute to San Bernardino, Riverside or Ontario — a 45-minute to an hour commute — they can afford to buy a home here when they might not be able to afford that same home down the hill,” Leonard said.

Summer electric bills soar to $500 or more

In the California towns at most risk of intensifying heat, people already are saddled with big power bills because of their reliance on air conditioning.

For instance, households in Lancaster, Palmdale and Apple Valley pay on average $200 to $259 a month for electricity, compared to a $177 average in Southern California Edison’s service area, according to California Public Utilities Commission data as of May, 2023.

In summer months, average power use in these communities nearly triples compared to spring months, so some people’s bills can climb above $500.

And their bills are likely to grow as climate change intensifies heat waves and utility rates rise: Californians are paying about twice as much for electricity than a decade ago. The state’s rates are among the highest in the nation

“You can’t not run the air conditioner all day… You wouldn’t survive otherwise. The heat is too oppressive.”

Diane Carlson, palmdale resident

Diane Carlson moved to Palmdale, north of Los Angeles, 30 years ago. The housing was much cheaper and she wanted to move where her children could attend school near where they live. 

Over the years, she’s felt the temperatures in Palmdale rise. 

Carlson said her electric bill during the summers used to average about $500, a significant chunk of her household budget. About four years ago, though, she had solar panels installed on their home, which cut her bill in half.  

“You can’t not run the air conditioner all day, even if you run it low,” she said. “You wouldn’t survive otherwise. The heat is too oppressive.” 

With multiple days in the summer reaching at least 115 degrees, Carlson is conscious that there may be a future where Palmdale isn’t livable for her anymore.

“Will it get as hot as Death Valley?” she wondered. 

Death Valley, the hottest place on Earth, reached record temperatures in July, averaging 108.5 degrees; the high was 121.9, tying a 1917 record.  In comparison, Palmdale by 2050 is projected to have 25 days where the maximum temperature exceeds 105, up from nine days in the 2010s.

Carlson said she’d consider moving to the East Coast, where she’s originally from. But she’d face hurricanes rather than the heat. It all comes down to making a decision: “Which negatives are you willing to deal with?” 

A street vendor sells fans, mini pools and other products outside a white and red two-story house as a man in a bicycle passes by.
A street vendor sells fans and mini pools in the Los Angeles County desert town of Lancaster on Aug. 15, 2024. Photo by Ted Soqui for CalMatters

Hughes, who lives in subsidized housing in Lancaster, said surviving the heat means constantly checking the weather forecast and strategically cooling her home to keep electricity costs low.  “I have air conditioning, a swamp cooler and two fans,” she said. 

On a day when the temperature doesn’t reach triple digits, the air conditioner might stay off; she opens the windows and turns on the fans instead. 

Local leaders say they know more must be done to protect their residents.

Lancaster opens cooling centers in libraries for residents who need respite from the heat. During heat waves, residents ride buses for free, and city programs provide water and other resources to homeless people. 

“Is it adequate? Of course it’s not adequate,” said Mayor R. Rex Parris. “If you’ve got people who don’t read or don’t get a newspaper sitting in a sweltering apartment, the information is not getting to them and we know it.” 

Parris said air conditioning is necessary for families to stay cool in the hot desert summers, but with utility costs so high, it’s becoming a luxury.

With that in mind, he said the city is prioritizing hydrogen energy, which could lower electric bills in the long-term. A new housing tract will be powered by solar panels and batteries that store power, backed up by hydrogen fuel cells, which will be cheaper than if the homes drew energy entirely from the grid, said Jason Caudl, head of Lancaster Energy.  

Nassif, the Apple Valley mayor, said his town helps residents finance costly rooftop solar panels that can cut their power bills. 

“Educating our public on how to save on their electric bills is a big thing, because you can’t live up here without air conditioning,” Nassif said. 

Cooling centers aren’t enough to protect people

On a Saturday morning in Visalia, as temperatures climbed to 99 degrees, Maribel Jimenez brought her 2-year-old son to an indoor playground to beat the heat. She sat at a kid-sized table with her son, Mateo, as he played with toy screws and blocks. 

Jimenez, 33, has lived in Visalia her whole life. She grew up on a dairy farm and remembers playing outdoors for hours in the summers. But things have changed. She can’t imagine letting her son play outdoors under the scorching sun. She worries he’s not getting the outdoor playtime he should be getting.  

“It’s definitely gotten much hotter,” Jimenez said. “You can’t even have your kids outside. We want to take him out to the playground but it’s too hot. By the time it cools down in the evening, it’s his bedtime.” 

Other times, she and her family go to the mall for walks, or anywhere where there’s air conditioning. 

“As long as he’s out, he’s happy,” she said. “We try our best to protect him.”  

A child, on the left side of the frame, places a toy fishing hook in to a small water well with other toys floating around, as his mother and father play next to him.
Maribel Jimenez and Oscar Olmedo play with their son Mateo in the shade at the ImagineU Children’s Museum in Visalia on Aug. 17, 2024. They say they have trouble finding places where their son can cool off on hot summer days. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

The effects of extreme heat on the body can happen quickly and can affect people of all ages and health conditions. Once symptoms of heat stroke begin — increased heart rate and a change in mental status — cooling off within 30 minutes is crucial to survival, said Tomás Aragón, director of the California Department of Public Health

Many municipalities react to extreme heat by following state or county rules, which often involve opening cooling centers in public places when temperatures rise above a certain level for multiple days in a row. 

“You want people to be in a space where your body can control its core temperature,” Aragón said. “It’s safer to be in an air conditioned place (that) cools your body down. That’s what cooling centers are for. I tell people, go to the supermarket, go to the library, go to a cooling center, go and just let your body cool down.”

“It’s not just about preventing deaths and other terrible outcomes of heat waves … It’s really about having livable communities where kids can play outside and street vendors can run their businesses without risk of overexposure.” 

Ali Frazzini, los angeles county’s Chief Sustainability office

But community advocates say cooling centers are ineffective because they’re underused. Many people are unaware of them, and others have no transportation to reach them.

“I think everyone is used to that being the answer for what we do when it gets extremely hot,” said Jonathan Parfrey, executive director of Climate Resolve. “We need to expand our imagination to figure out other ways of taking care of people.”

Victorville has complied with the 2015 state law requiring plans to handle climate change, and Hesperia is in the process of updating its plans. 

But Los Angeles County is an example of a local government that has gone above and beyond to comply, Parfrey said.

The county has updated its emergency preparedness plans and is in the early phases of developing a heat-specific plan for unincorporated areas, which will include urban greening and changes to the built environment to make neighborhoods cooler, said Ali Frazzini, policy director at the county’s Chief Sustainability office.

A wide view of people at a water park with various slides, water toys and splash pads.
Families play in the water park area of Adventure Park to cool off in Visalia on Aug. 17, 2024. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local

“It’s not just about preventing deaths and other terrible outcomes of heat waves, although that’s extremely important,” Frazzini said. “It’s really about having livable communities where kids can play outside and street vendors can run their businesses without risk of overexposure.” 

Parfrey said the state plays a role, but “they’re not in charge of the roads or building codes or where you put a water fountain or how you build a local park. All of that has to be done at a local level.”

In 2022, the Newsom administration issued an Extreme Heat Action Plan outlining state steps to make California more resilient to extreme heat. That includes funding new community resilience centers where people can cool down as well as find resources or shelter during other emergencies, such as wildfires. It’s a model that some community advocates prefer over traditional cooling centers that are underutilized.

The state has granted almost $98 million for 24 projects so far, said Anna Jane Jones, who leads development of the centers for the state’s Strategic Growth Council.  

“It’s definitely gotten much hotter. You can’t even have your kids outside. We want to take him out to the playground but it’s too hot.”

Maribel Jimenez, Visalia resident

In Visalia, Jimenez said her family doesn’t have many options for cool spaces where her young son can be entertained.

At home, the family uses the air conditioner sparingly and keeps the blinds closed. During a heat wave, their power bill can climb to $250. If the bills were lower, she’d use the air conditioner all the time “We have to do what we have to do,” she said. 

Jimenez and her husband have thought twice about expanding their family and have floated the idea of moving somewhere else, but many of the affordable options, like Texas or Arizona, are even hotter than Visalia. 

“Global warming is a thing, and the heat isn’t getting any better anytime soon,” she said. “Everybody’s paying the price.”

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Controversial UK oil field publishes full scale of climate impact

The impact from the Rosebank oil field is estimated at nearly 250 million tonnes of planet warming CO2.

The UK's largest undeveloped oil field has revealed the full scale of its environmental impact, should it gain approval by the government.Developers of the Rosebank oil field said nearly 250 million tonnes of planet warming gas would be released from using oil products from the field.The amount would vary each year, but by comparison the UK's annual emissions in 2024 were 371 million tonnes.The field's developer said its emissions were "not significant" considering the UK's international climate commitments.Rosebank is an oil and gas field which lies about 80 miles north-west of Shetland and is one of the largest undeveloped discoveries of fossil fuels in UK waters.It is said to contain up to 300 million barrels of oil and some gas, and is owned by Norwegian energy giant Equinor and British firm Ithaca Energy.The field was originally approved in 2023, but in July a court ruled that a more detailed assessment of the field's environmental impact was required, taking into account the effect on the climate of burning any fossil fuels extracted from it.A public consultation has now been opened, and will run until 20th November 2025.The final decision on whether to approve the field will be made by the Energy Secretary.Until recently such projects were only required to consider the impact on the environment from extracting the fossil fuels.But in June last year the Supreme Court ruled that authorities must take account of the impact from also using the products, after a woman in Surrey challenged the development of her local gas project.This ruling was then used in a further challenge to the Rosebank oil field by environmental campaigners Uplift and Greenpeace - which was subsequently successful in January. Equinor was required to recalculate the "full impact" of the field and it now estimates that it will contribute an additional 249 million tonnes of the planet warming gas CO2 over the next 25 years. This is more than 50 times greater than the original figure of 4.5 million tonnes it gave from extracting the oil and gas.The UK has a target to produce no additional emissions by 2050 and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband has been vocal about the need to move away from fossil fuels. On Tuesday, he told an industry conference that the UK's dependence on fossil fuels was its "Achilles' heel" and argued clean power was the only way to reduce bills.The fossil fuels for the Rosebank field are not guaranteed to be used in the UK but would be sold on the international market.As such the project is unlikely to have an impact on lowering gas prices. The UK's independent climate advisors said in 2022 that any more domestic oil and gas extraction would have "at most, a marginal effect on prices".But Arne Gurtner, Equinor's senior vice president for the UK, has previously said that: "If the UK needs Rosebank oil, it will go to the UK through open market mechanisms."

The Blue-State Governors Who’ve Gone Weak on Climate Policy

If you scroll California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press releases, a portrait emerges of a undaunted climate fighter. One day he’s “paving [the] way for climate pollution-cutting technology”; another he’s launching “new international climate partnerships as Trump unleashes unhinged UN rant.” Last month, he announced the signing of a suite of measures “saving billions on electric bills, stabilizing [the] gas market and cutting pollution.” But look under the hood, and his heroic self-image dims somewhat. That big legislative package, for instance, also increases oil drilling and sets up a regional electricity market that “could tether California to fossil-fuel states at a time when the Trump administration is moving to roll back clean energy,” CalMatters reported.With Trump in death-drive mode on climate, canceling renewable energy projects left and right and even forbidding federal agencies to use language such as “climate change,” “green,”or “sustainable,” blue-state governors are well positioned to distinguish themselves and their party on the issue. They also have a responsibility: The states are our best hope for policy at a scale to match the problem. Yet a worrying trend is taking shape: Blue-state governors are making a big show of battling the Trump administration, but on climate issues they’ve been disappointing—and sometimes downright infuriating. Last month’s climate package wasn’t the California Democrats’ first flub this year. Over the summer, in what Politico dubbed the state’s “Great Climate Retreat,” they weakened limits on the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, rolled back environmental reviews for new housing, and lifted a cap on oil industry profits. “California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,” Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, told Politico. “It’s questionable whether or not that leadership is still there.” In Maryland, a climate advisory panel appointed by Governor Wes Moore has hit the brakes on a carbon trading measure, and late last month the state Department of the Environment, or MDE, appeared to cave to the Trump administration in abandoning some environmental justice metrics, which many fear means abandoning Black and brown communities to the whims of polluters. “It just appears to me that MDE blatantly does not want to be accountable in the massive pollution and the overburden of these heavy industrial industries,” Kamita Gray, a community leader in Brandywine—a majority-Black town that’s home to gas-fired power plants, a coal ash dump, and a Superfund site—told Maryland Matters.Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania too is under fire from climate critics. As attorney general, he authored a solid road map for protecting Pennsylvanians from the harmful environmental and health effects of fracking, but in his two years as governor he has allowed companies to be secretive about the chemicals used in fracking, and has not pushed to pass any laws curbing the industry. The Environmental Health Project, a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit, said “residents are still waiting for meaningful action. Our assessment concludes that the Shapiro administration has not fulfilled the commitments the governor made to Pennsylvanians in general and to frontline communities in particular.”And then there’s New York. Governor Kathy Hochul has been failing to follow the decarbonization timeline that was outlined in the state’s 2019 climate law, prompting environmental justice groups to sue her. She has delayed plans for “cap and invest” and is dragging her feet on building public renewables (despite the state’s landmark Build Public Renewables Act, which passed in 2023). She has seemingly caved to Trump by going ahead with gas pipelines she previously rejected. And it’s unclear whether she will sign a repeal of the outdated “100 foot rule,” which requires utility ratepayers to subsize the cost of connecting new customers to the gas system, a reform that has long been a priority of the state’s climate movement.Part of what’s so self-destructive here is that energy affordability is a highly salient issue for voters, taking center stage, for example in the governor’s race in New Jersey, where electricity rates have risen 22 percent. Interviewed in Friday’s New York Times on this subject, David Springe of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates described electricity as “the new eggs,” an indicator of how costly daily life is for most Americans. Republicans in New York have seized on the problem as an opportunity to blame Democrats and climate-friendly policies. Stephan Edel of New York Renews, a progressive coalition fighting for clean energy, told me the governor “has spoken really eloquently about the need to do something about affordability.” Indeed, she endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist, for New York City mayor, partly for this reason. She often uses “affordability” to justify rightward shifts or retreats from climate policy, he said, adding that, inexplicably, she also shies away from touting the affordability benefits of climate policies that she does support. For example, in the state budget last year, she agreed to invest over a billion dollars in funding for climate programs, including one that will help make homes for low-income New Yorkers more energy efficient and another that will save school districts money by shifting to electric school buses. Instead of touting those wins for affordability—or embracing the potential of publicly owned renewables to do the same—she’s embraced the Republican narrative that climate policy and affordability are at odds.By contrast, Mikie Sherill in New Jersey has been touting clean energy as a solution to energy affordability woes. If she gets elected and continues this path, more blue state governors should follow her lead. The Democratic base is desperate to see its leaders stand up to Trump on both climate and affordability. (And when Democratic governors do stand up to Trump on anything—Illinois’s JB Pritzker on the militarization of Chicago, Maine’s Janet Mills on health care—their poll numbers spike.)And the reverse is also true—failing to differentiate themselves from Trump has been political suicide for many Democrats. “Every time one of these elected officials says, ‘I’m going to stand up to Trump, I’m going to protect affordability, I’m going to address climate change,’ and then doesn’t do it,” that’s a win for the Republicans, Edel said, because it fuels low turnout for Democratic voters. Climate offers an obvious opportunity to isolate the Republicans on a matter of broad concern, renew Americans’ faith in government, and make real progress. The Democratic governors flailing so badly on this issue have not only a moral obligation to change course, but also a political one.

If you scroll California Governor Gavin Newsom’s press releases, a portrait emerges of a undaunted climate fighter. One day he’s “paving [the] way for climate pollution-cutting technology”; another he’s launching “new international climate partnerships as Trump unleashes unhinged UN rant.” Last month, he announced the signing of a suite of measures “saving billions on electric bills, stabilizing [the] gas market and cutting pollution.” But look under the hood, and his heroic self-image dims somewhat. That big legislative package, for instance, also increases oil drilling and sets up a regional electricity market that “could tether California to fossil-fuel states at a time when the Trump administration is moving to roll back clean energy,” CalMatters reported.With Trump in death-drive mode on climate, canceling renewable energy projects left and right and even forbidding federal agencies to use language such as “climate change,” “green,”or “sustainable,” blue-state governors are well positioned to distinguish themselves and their party on the issue. They also have a responsibility: The states are our best hope for policy at a scale to match the problem. Yet a worrying trend is taking shape: Blue-state governors are making a big show of battling the Trump administration, but on climate issues they’ve been disappointing—and sometimes downright infuriating. Last month’s climate package wasn’t the California Democrats’ first flub this year. Over the summer, in what Politico dubbed the state’s “Great Climate Retreat,” they weakened limits on the carbon intensity of transportation fuels, rolled back environmental reviews for new housing, and lifted a cap on oil industry profits. “California was the vocal climate leader during the first Trump administration,” Chris Chavez, deputy policy director for the Coalition for Clean Air, told Politico. “It’s questionable whether or not that leadership is still there.” In Maryland, a climate advisory panel appointed by Governor Wes Moore has hit the brakes on a carbon trading measure, and late last month the state Department of the Environment, or MDE, appeared to cave to the Trump administration in abandoning some environmental justice metrics, which many fear means abandoning Black and brown communities to the whims of polluters. “It just appears to me that MDE blatantly does not want to be accountable in the massive pollution and the overburden of these heavy industrial industries,” Kamita Gray, a community leader in Brandywine—a majority-Black town that’s home to gas-fired power plants, a coal ash dump, and a Superfund site—told Maryland Matters.Governor Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania too is under fire from climate critics. As attorney general, he authored a solid road map for protecting Pennsylvanians from the harmful environmental and health effects of fracking, but in his two years as governor he has allowed companies to be secretive about the chemicals used in fracking, and has not pushed to pass any laws curbing the industry. The Environmental Health Project, a Pittsburgh-based nonprofit, said “residents are still waiting for meaningful action. Our assessment concludes that the Shapiro administration has not fulfilled the commitments the governor made to Pennsylvanians in general and to frontline communities in particular.”And then there’s New York. Governor Kathy Hochul has been failing to follow the decarbonization timeline that was outlined in the state’s 2019 climate law, prompting environmental justice groups to sue her. She has delayed plans for “cap and invest” and is dragging her feet on building public renewables (despite the state’s landmark Build Public Renewables Act, which passed in 2023). She has seemingly caved to Trump by going ahead with gas pipelines she previously rejected. And it’s unclear whether she will sign a repeal of the outdated “100 foot rule,” which requires utility ratepayers to subsize the cost of connecting new customers to the gas system, a reform that has long been a priority of the state’s climate movement.Part of what’s so self-destructive here is that energy affordability is a highly salient issue for voters, taking center stage, for example in the governor’s race in New Jersey, where electricity rates have risen 22 percent. Interviewed in Friday’s New York Times on this subject, David Springe of the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates described electricity as “the new eggs,” an indicator of how costly daily life is for most Americans. Republicans in New York have seized on the problem as an opportunity to blame Democrats and climate-friendly policies. Stephan Edel of New York Renews, a progressive coalition fighting for clean energy, told me the governor “has spoken really eloquently about the need to do something about affordability.” Indeed, she endorsed Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist, for New York City mayor, partly for this reason. She often uses “affordability” to justify rightward shifts or retreats from climate policy, he said, adding that, inexplicably, she also shies away from touting the affordability benefits of climate policies that she does support. For example, in the state budget last year, she agreed to invest over a billion dollars in funding for climate programs, including one that will help make homes for low-income New Yorkers more energy efficient and another that will save school districts money by shifting to electric school buses. Instead of touting those wins for affordability—or embracing the potential of publicly owned renewables to do the same—she’s embraced the Republican narrative that climate policy and affordability are at odds.By contrast, Mikie Sherill in New Jersey has been touting clean energy as a solution to energy affordability woes. If she gets elected and continues this path, more blue state governors should follow her lead. The Democratic base is desperate to see its leaders stand up to Trump on both climate and affordability. (And when Democratic governors do stand up to Trump on anything—Illinois’s JB Pritzker on the militarization of Chicago, Maine’s Janet Mills on health care—their poll numbers spike.)And the reverse is also true—failing to differentiate themselves from Trump has been political suicide for many Democrats. “Every time one of these elected officials says, ‘I’m going to stand up to Trump, I’m going to protect affordability, I’m going to address climate change,’ and then doesn’t do it,” that’s a win for the Republicans, Edel said, because it fuels low turnout for Democratic voters. Climate offers an obvious opportunity to isolate the Republicans on a matter of broad concern, renew Americans’ faith in government, and make real progress. The Democratic governors flailing so badly on this issue have not only a moral obligation to change course, but also a political one.

Nations Meet to Consider Regulations to Drive a Green Transition in Shipping

Maritime nations are meeting in London to discuss regulations that could shift the shipping industry away from fossil fuels

The world’s largest maritime nations are gathering in London on Tuesday to consider adopting regulations that would move the shipping industry away from fossil fuels to slash emissions.If the deal is adopted, this will be the first time a global fee is imposed on planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions. Most ships today run on heavy fuel oil that releases carbon dioxide and other pollutants as it’s burned. That would be a major win for the climate, public health, the ocean and marine life, said Delaine McCullough at the Ocean Conservancy. For too long, ships have run on crude, dirty oil, she said.“This agreement provides a lesson for the world that legally-binding climate action is possible," McCullough, shipping program director for the nonprofit environmental advocacy group, said. Shipping emissions have grown over the last decade to about 3% of the global total as trade has grown and vessels use immense amounts of fossil fuels to transport cargo over long distances. The regulations would set a pricing system for gas emissions The regulations, or “Net-zero Framework,” sets a marine fuel standard that decreases, over time, the amount of greenhouse gas emissions allowed from using shipping fuels. The regulations also establish a pricing system that would impose fees for every ton of greenhouse gases emitted by ships above allowable limits, in what is effectively the first global tax on greenhouse gas emissions.There's a base-level of compliance for the allowable greenhouse gas intensity of fuels. There's a more stringent direct compliance target that requires further reduction in the greenhouse gas intensity.If ships sail on fuels with lower emissions than what's required under the direct compliance target, they earn “surplus units," effectively credits. Ships with the highest emissions would have to buy those credits from other ships under the pricing system, or from the IMO at $380 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach the base level of compliance. In addition, there's a penalty of $100 per ton of carbon dioxide equivalent to reach direct compliance. Ships that meet the base target but not the direct compliance one must pay the $100 per ton penalty, too. Ships whose greenhouse gas intensity is below a certain threshold will receive rewards for their performance.The fees could generate $11 billion to $13 billion in revenue annually. That would go into an IMO fund to invest in fuels and technologies needed to transition to green shipping, reward low-emission ships and support developing countries so they aren’t left behind with dirty fuels and old ships. Looking for alternative fuels Ships could lower their emissions by using alternative fuels, running on electricity or using onboard carbon capture technologies. Wind propulsion and other energy efficiency advancements can also help reduce fuel consumption and emissions as part of an energy transition. Large ships last about 25 years, so the industry would need to make changes and investments now to reach net-zero around 2050.If adopted, the regulations will enter into force in 2027. Large oceangoing ships over 5,000 gross tonnage, which emit 85% of the total carbon emissions from international shipping, would have to pay penalties for their emissions starting in 2028, according to the IMO. The International Chamber of Shipping, which represents over 80% of the world’s merchant fleet, is advocating for adoption. Concerns over biofuels produced from food crops Heavy fuel oil, liquefied natural gas and biodiesel will be dominant for most of the 2030s and 2040s, unless the IMO further incentivizes green alternatives, according to modeling from Transport and Environment, a Brussels-based environmental nongovernmental organization. The way the rules are designed essentially make biofuels the cheapest fuel to use to comply, but biofuels require huge amounts of crops, pushing out less profitable food production, often leading to additional land clearance and deforestation, said Faig Abbasov, shipping director at T&E. They are urging the IMO to promote scalable green alternatives, not recklessly promote biofuels produced from food crops, Abbasov said. As it stands now, the deal before the IMO won't deliver net-zero emissions by 2050, he added.Green ammonia will get to a price that it’s appealing to ship owners in the late 2040s — quite late in the transition, according to the modeling. The NGO also sees green methanol playing an important role in the long-term transition. The vote at the London meeting The IMO aims for consensus in decision-making but it's likely nations will vote on adopting the regulations. At the April meeting, a vote was called to approve the contents of the regulations. The United States was notably absent in April, but plans to participate in this meeting. Teresa Bui at Pacific Environment said she's optimistic “global momentum is on our side” and a majority of countries will support adoption. Bui is senior climate campaign director for the environmental nonprofit, which has consultative, or non-voting, status at the IMO. If it fails, shipping’s decarbonization will be further delayed.“It's difficult to know for sure what the precise consequences will be, but failure this week will certainly lead to delay, which means ships will emit more greenhouse gases than they would have done and for longer, continuing their outsized contribution to the climate crisis,” said John Maggs, of the Clean Shipping Coalition, who is at the London meeting. The 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.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

For the first time, we linked a new fossil fuel project to hundreds of deaths. Here’s the impact of Woodside’s Scarborough gas project

The results challenge claims that the climate risks posed by an individual fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified.

Massimo Valicchia/NurPhoto via Getty ImagesGlobal warming from Woodside’s massive Scarborough gas project off Western Australia would lead to 484 additional heat-related deaths in Europe alone this century, and kill about 16 million additional corals on the Great Barrier Reef during each future mass bleaching event, our new research has revealed. The findings were made possible by a robust, well-established formula that can determine the extent to which an individual fossil fuel project will warm the planet. The results can be used to calculate the subsequent harms to society and nature. The results close a fundamental gap between science and decision-making about fossil fuel projects. They also challenge claims by proponents that climate risks posed by a fossil fuel project are negligible or cannot be quantified. Each new investment in coal and gas, such as the Scarborough project, can now be linked to harmful effects both today and in the future. It means decision-makers can properly assess the range of risks a project poses to humanity and the planet, before deciding if it should proceed. Each new investment in coal and gas extraction can now be linked to harmful effects. Shutterstock Every tonne of CO₂ matters Scientists know every tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions makes global warming worse. But proponents of new fossil fuel projects in Australia routinely say their future greenhouse gas emissions are negligible compared to the scale of global emissions, or say the effects of these emissions on global warming can’t be measured. The Scarborough project is approved for development and is expected to produce gas from next year. Located off WA, it includes wells connected by a 430km pipeline to an onshore processing facility. The gas will be liquefied and burned for energy, both in Australia and overseas. Production is expected to last more than 30 years. When natural gas is burned, more than 99% of it converts to CO₂. Woodside – in its own evaluation of the Scarborough gas project – claimed: it is not possible to link GHG [greenhouse gas] emissions from Scarborough with climate change or any particular climate-related impacts given the estimated […] emissions associated with Scarborough are negligible in the context of existing and future predicted global GHG concentrations. But what if there was a way to measure the harms? That’s the question our research set out to answer. A method already exists to directly link global emissions to the climate warming they cause. It uses scientific understanding of Earth’s systems, direct observations and climate model simulations. According to the IPCC, every 1,000 billion tonnes of CO₂ emissions causes about 0.45°C of additional global warming. This arithmetic forms the basis for calculating how much more CO₂ humanity can emit to keep warming within the Paris Agreement goals. But decisions about future emissions are not made at the global scale. Instead, Earth’s climate trajectory will be determined by the aggregation of decisions on many individual projects. That’s why our research extended the IPCC method to the level of individual projects – an approach that we illustrate using the Scarborough gas project. Scarborough’s harms laid bare Over its lifetime, the Scarborough project is expected to emit 876 million tonnes of CO₂. We estimate these emissions will cause 0.00039°C of additional global warming. Estimates such as these are typically expressed as a range, alongside a measure of confidence in the projection. In this case, there is a 66–100% likelihood that the Scarborough project will cause additional global warming of between 0.00024°C and 0.00055°C. This additional warming might seem small – but it will cause tangible damage. The human cost of global warming can be quantified by considering how many people will be left outside the “human climate niche” – in other words, the climate conditions in which societies have historically thrived. We calculated that the additional warming from the Scarborough project will expose 516,000 people globally to a local climate that’s beyond the hot extreme of the human climate niche. We drilled down into specific impacts in Europe, where suitable health data was available across 854 cities. Our best estimate is that this project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. The project would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe by the end of this century. Antonio Masiello/Getty Images And what about harm to nature? Using research into how accumulated exposure to heat affects coral reefs, we found about 16 million corals on the Great Barrier Reef would be lost in each new mass bleaching. The existential threat to the Great Barrier Reef from human-caused global warming is already being realised. Additional warming instigated by new fossil fuel projects will ratchet up pressure on this natural wonder. As climate change worsens, countries are seeking to slash emissions to meet their commitments under the Paris Agreement. So, we looked at the impact of Scarborough’s emissions on Australia’s climate targets. We calculated that by 2049, the anticipated emissions from the Scarborough project alone – from production, processing and domestic use – will comprise 49% of Australia’s entire annual CO₂ emissions budget under our commitment to net-zero by 2050. Beyond the 2050 deadline, all emissions from the Scarborough project would require technologies to permanently remove CO₂ from the atmosphere. Achieving that would require a massive scale-up of current technologies. It would be more prudent to reduce greenhouse gas emissions where possible. ‘Negligible’ impacts? Hardly Our findings mean the best-available scientific evidence can now be used by companies, governments and regulators when deciding if a fossil fuel project will proceed. Crucially, it is no longer defensible for companies proposing new or extended fossil fuel projects to claim the climate harms will be negligible. Our research shows the harms are, in fact, tangible and quantifiable – and no project is too small to matter. In response to issues raised in this article, a spokesperson for Woodside said: Woodside is committed to playing a role in the energy transition. The Scarborough reservoir contains less than 0.1% carbon dioxide. Combined with processing design efficiencies at the offshore floating production unit and onshore Pluto Train 2, the project is expected to be one of the lowest carbon intensity sources of LNG delivered into north Asian markets. We will reduce the Scarborough Energy Project’s direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations. Further information on how this is being achieved is included in the Scarborough Offshore Project Proposal, sections 4.5.4.1 and 7.1.3 and in approved Australian Government environment plans, available on the regulator’s website. A report prepared by consultancy ACIL Allen has found that Woodside’s Scarborough Energy Project is expected to generate an estimated A$52.8 billion in taxation and royalty payments, boost GDP by billions of dollars between 2024 and 2056 and employ 3,200 people during peak construction in Western Australia. Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick receives funding from the Australian Research CouncilAndrew King receives funding from the Australian Research Council (Future Fellowship and Centre of Excellence for 21st Century Weather) and the National Environmental Science Program. Nicola Maher receives funding from the Australian Research Council. Wesley Morgan is a fellow with the Climate Council of Australia

Emissions linked to Woodside’s Scarborough gas project could lead to at least 480 deaths, research suggests

Scientists have examined the $16.5bn project’s climate impact and found it could expose more than half a million people to unprecedented heatSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereGreenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades. Continue reading...

Greenhouse emissions linked to a gas field being developed by Australian fossil fuel company Woodside could lead to the death of at least 480 people and expose more than half a million to unprecedented heat, new research suggests.Scientists from six universities have examined the climate impact of the $16.5bn Scarborough project, which is expected to start production off the northern Western Australian coast next year and could result in 876m tonnes of carbon dioxide being released into the atmosphere over three decades.Emissions from the project would contribute 0.00039C to global heating, they estimate. Using recently developed techniques known as climate attribution, they suggest that fraction of warming would expose an additional 516,000 people globally to unprecedented heat, and result in the loss of an extra 16m coral colonies in the Great Barrier Reef in every future bleaching event.It would also push 356,000 people outside the “human climate niche” – the reasonable zone for human survival, with an upper limit for average annual temperature of 29C.The study, published in the journal Climate Action, forms part of a new focus in climate science that aims to quantify the impacts of individual fossil fuel projects and emitters.A Woodside spokesperson said the company would reduce the Scarborough project’s “direct greenhouse gas emissions to as low as reasonably practicable by incorporating energy efficiency measures in design and operations”.“Climate change is caused by the net global concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,” they added. “It cannot be attributed to any one event, country, industry or activity.” Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletterBut study co-author Andrew King, an associate professor in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said the research illustrated that individual projects had tangible climate impacts.“Often the argument made for individual projects that would involve greenhouse gas emissions is that they are quite small [in the global context],” he said. “But really, especially with larger fossil fuel projects, we can very clearly say that the impacts are not negligible.”Study co-author Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick, a professor of climate science at the Australian National University, said that given Australia’s emission reductions requirements, in the coming decades Scarborough would also constitute a greater proportion of the country’s CO2 emissions budget.“By 2049, assuming that the Scarborough project emits the same amount year on year, it’s going to be chewing up half of our emissions budget,” Perkins-Kirkpatrick said. “That’s the stuff that we burn here, let alone what we export overseas.”Beyond 2050, emissions from Scarborough would require CO2 removal from the atmosphere – “technologies that either don’t exist yet, or that we can’t scale up”, she said.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionUnder a middle-of-the-road emissions scenario, warming contributed by Scarborough would cause an additional 484 heat-related deaths in Europe alone by the end of the century, the researchers calculated. Taking into account a reduction in cold-related deaths in Europe, they estimate a net contribution of 118 additional deaths.The researchers calculated the project’s climate impacts with a tool used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, called the Transient Climate Response to CO2 Emissions (TCRE). The TCRE estimates that every 1,000 gigatonnes of CO2 emissions causes 0.45C of additional global heating.Scarborough’s contribution to global heating had a likely range between 0.00024C and 0.00055C, the study’s authors estimated, but they noted “direct measurement of global mean temperature changes is not possible with this level of precision”.The approach could be used by governments and companies to assess whether future “projects fall within acceptable levels of environmental and societal risk”, the researchers suggest. The tool “could be part of the process for determining whether a project should be approved”, King said.Yuming Guo, a professor of global environmental health and biostatistics at Monash University, who was not involved in the study, said the study provided “a valuable tool for conducting environmental risk assessments”.“Considering the vast number of fossil fuel projects operating globally, the cumulative contribution of these emissions to climate change is substantial and should not be overlooked,” he said.Dr Kat O’Mara, a senior lecturer in environmental management and sustainability at Edith Cowan University, who was not part of the study, said: “With the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion a few months ago that countries need to take action to protect the climate, this new research reinforces the need to consider climate impacts beyond just how much carbon is being produced.”

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.