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.

The Next Viral Pandemic Is Coming. Here’s How We Can Stop It

News Feed
Tuesday, December 17, 2024

At 4:30 on a chilly morning in Australia, headlights burned through a dark forest in central Woodford, a small rural town 50 miles north of Brisbane, Queensland. Hundreds of flying foxes—magnificent fruit-eating bats with big eyes, fluffy coats, and a wingspan nearly that of an eagle—had just returned from foraging and dangled on tree branches like gigantic Christmas ornaments. Below them, rather incongruously, a large plastic sheet covered the ground. It had been placed there by a team of ecologists to collect urine and feces that the animals dropped.The scientists, from Griffith University in Brisbane, were probing bat droppings because of a grave human-health concern: plagues now come at us from the skies. Viruses carried by the world’s only flying mammals, bats, have infected people. In the past decades a series of viral attackers—many of them deadly—have been found in or linked to bats: Marburg, Ebola, Hendra, Nipah, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and, most recently, SARS-CoV-2. COVID, the disease that last virus causes, has killed more than seven million people across the world. Bat-derived viruses seem to threaten our health with disturbing frequency.But why bats? And why now? After decades of searching for clues and putting together puzzle pieces involving evolution, ecology and climate, scientists have come up with a good answer. Bats have evolved a unique immune system that lets them coexist with a horde of otherwise harmful viruses, a development that seems tied, in surprising ways, to their ability to fly. But when people destroy their habitats and food and trigger disturbing changes in climate—all of which have coincided recently—bats’ immune systems can be strained to the breaking point. The animals can no longer keep viruses in check. Their burgeoning population of microbes rains down on other animals and eventually infects people.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The search for further evidence to bolster this hypothesis, as well as early warnings of bat-virus outbreaks, had brought the Griffith team to Woodford last year. The investigators were looking for signs of nutrition problems or biomarkers of impaired immunity in the bats, among other indicators. Alison Peel, one of the ecologists, carefully transferred puddles of bat urine from the plastic sheet into test tubes. Then she felt something hard land on her back. “Great, I just got hit by bat poop,” she said with a grimace. The first light of dawn began filtering through the dense forest canopy.The team will be spending several years in the field, trying to pick out causes of virus shedding that can be easily obscured in a wild environment. “Such long-term studies are extremely hard but absolutely critical,” says James Wood, an infectious disease ecologist at the University of Cambridge, who has been working on Hendra-like viruses in African bats in Ghana and Madagascar. The basic links between environmental stress on bats and increased spread of disease were documented in 2022, in a landmark paper in Nature. It connected climate variability, deforestation and food shortages over a quarter of a century to pulses of heightened virus infections in bats, other animals and people.In Queensland, Australia, large groups of black flying foxes hang from trees.One of the authors of that paper was Raina Plowright, an infectious disease ecologist at Cornell University who has been studying flying foxes and viruses for two decades. The interwoven nature of these causes, she says, means that any public-­health intervention to prevent future pandemics will need to tackle the whole environmental tapestry, not just pull on a single thread. “Halting deforestation and climate change will help address the root cause,” she says.On a March evening in 2006, Plowright was in the bushland in northern Australia’s Nitmiluk National Park when she felt that something was not quite right. She had set up a finely meshed net under the forest canopy to capture flying foxes, then sat back and stared at the sky. Plowright, a graduate student at the time, was waiting for what she called a flying river of animals—hundreds of thousands of them rushing from their roosts to feed as the sun went down—letting out a cacophony of high-pitched calls. “It’s absolutely spectacular,” she says. “They are the wildebeests of the Northern Territory.”But that twilight was eerily quiet. Plowright could barely find a trickle of flying foxes, let alone a gushing river. It was extremely unusual. “Where have the bats gone?” she recalls wondering.Plowright was part of a team trying to understand why flying foxes had been spreading the Hendra virus to horses and people. Hendra had killed two humans at that point, and it had killed and sickened many more equines, threatening an industry worth several billions of dollars to Australia. The scientists’ job was to periodically measure the extent of virus infection in wild bats and monitor their health.When the researchers finally managed to capture a few bats, they realized all was not well. The animals were skinny and in bad shape; it looked as if they had not been eating. “The bats were basically starving and in really poor health,” Plowright says. And even though it was just after the mating season, none of the captured females was pregnant. The team couldn’t detect any Hendra genetic material in the animals—which is notoriously tricky to do—but nearly 80 percent of the bats had immune system antibody proteins against the virus. That was nearly twice the level measured the year before, and it meant the bats had caught the pathogen. “It was the first clue that nutritional stress may have a role in an increased susceptibility to virus infection,” Plowright says.Hendra, the virus that Plowright and others were tracking, had made its fearsome debut on the outskirts of Brisbane, in the state of Queens­land, in September 1994. On a breezy spring afternoon a thoroughbred mare named Drama Series started to look sickly while grazing at a paddock near Hendra, a sleepy area known for its racehorses. Drama Series deteriorated precipitously, and she died two days later, says Peter Reid, the equine veterinarian who treated her.Within a few days a dozen more horses fell ill; most of them had shared a stable with Drama Series. Some soon died, and the rest were euthanized to prevent possible transmission to humans. But it was too late, Reid says. Within a week flulike symptoms descended on Drama Series’ trainer, who eventually succumbed to respiratory and kidney failure.Around the same time, another outbreak killed two horses in Mackay, 600 miles north of Brisbane. But the cause remained a mystery until their owner died 14 months later. Medical examinations showed that the cause of his death—and that of his horses—was the same viral pathogen that launched the deadly attacks in Hendra.Researchers spread a plastic sheet under a flying fox roost in Queensland to collect urine and feces samples.The same virus in two deadly outbreaks 600 miles apart: this context gave scientists an ominous clue to the pathogen’s source. “We started to consider the possibility that the virus was transmitted by a flying animal,” says Linfa Wang, an infectious disease expert who was then at the Australian Animal Health Laboratory (now known as the Australian Center for Disease Preparedness).But which animal? Scientists decided to focus their attention on insects, birds and bats. These creatures were the airborne members of a long list of wild animals, including rodents, snakes and marsupials, that field researchers had been trapping and another team of molecular biologists, including Wang, had been analyzing. Their goal was to pinpoint the source of the disease. Wang, now at Duke–­National University of Singapore Medical School, says the work soon paid off. Blood samples from all four of the flying fox species in Australia had antibodies to Hendra. In the ensuing years, the team managed to isolate the virus from a bat and obtained the full sequence of its genome.That discovery focused attention on bats as virus carriers, and scientists have since discovered dozens of bat-­borne pathogens. They learned, for instance, that bats are vectors for the Nipah virus, which killed around 100 people and led to the culling of one million pigs in Malaysia in 1998–1999. In the aftermath of SARS in 2005, Wang and his colleagues in China, Australia and the U.S. reported in Science that bats might also be the source of the new contagion.These discoveries posed a conundrum. Nipah, Hendra, and other viruses can make humans and other animals sick, often with devastating consequences, yet bats seem to tolerate them well. Wang wanted to understand why. He was shocked when he realized how little was known. “It was like stepping into a void,” Wang says. “Our understanding of bat immunity was almost zero.” It was a void that, beginning in the early 2000s, he and other scientists started to fill.In 2008 the Australian government gave Wang a coveted blue-­sky research grant, one awarded to scientists deemed on a path toward breakthrough discoveries. With around $2 million to spend over five years, he could do whatever he wanted. There was only one thing on his mind. “I wanted to be the first person in the world to sequence bat genomes,” he says. What he didn’t expect was that the effort would lead to a fascinating link between bats’ unusual immune system and their even more unusual evolution.Of the 6,400 or so living mammalian species, bats are the only ones that can fly. More than one in five mammalian species is a bat—it is one of the most diverse groups in the class, second only to rodents. Bats’ life­spans are extraordinary. Some bats weigh only a few grams but can live as long as 40 years, equivalent to humans living for almost 1,000 years. Despite such longevity, bats rarely develop cancer.How and when the only flying mammals evolved wings and became airborne is still unclear. The oldest fossils of bats that “have all the hallmarks of a flying creature” are dated to 52.5 million years ago, says Nancy Simmons, a mammalogist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, who worked on these exquisitely preserved skeletons from present-day Wyoming. The signs of wings and other flight features on the fossils indicate the animals’ unique path to the skies began to evolve millions of years earlier, and the lineage probably split from other mammalian species before the massive asteroid impact that wiped out dinosaurs and around 70 percent of all species worldwide 66 million years ago.“The advantages of flight are tremendous be­­cause you can cover much larger areas than similarly sized animals that can’t fly,” Simmons says. “It opened up a whole new set of resources that were not available to those that couldn’t fly.” Bats, in essence, became “birds of the night,” occupying many of the same ecological niches as birds but avoiding competition with them by being nocturnal.A scientist prepares to analyze DNA from flying fox feces samples.This high-flying lifestyle requires a lot of energy. In flight, some species of bats increase their metabolic rate more than 15-­fold. Body temperature can rise from around 95 degrees Fahrenheit to 104 degrees F, and their heart rates can speed up from a resting pace of 200 to 400 beats per minute to 1,100 beats. From their roost sites, they often travel dozens of miles to feed in one night. Some migratory species can travel up to 1,240 miles from their summer locations to winter ones. The use of so much energy releases a large amount of metabolic by-products, such as damaged DNA and highly reactive chemicals. These substances trigger inflammatory responses similar to those caused by microbial infection. “Bats must have an efficient system to deal with the insults that come with flight,” Wang says. “It’s all about damage control.”With his blue-sky grant, Wang set out to systematically study how bats were physiologically different from other mammals—a question considered esoteric at the time. By collaborating with BGI, a Chinese genomics company that had already sequenced the genomes of organisms such as rice and the giant panda, Wang and his colleagues got the first chance to read the “genetic book” of two types of bats: a small, insect-eating species (Myotis davidii) from northern China and Russia, and a big, fruit-eating black flying fox (Pteropus alecto) from Australia. “It was like hitting a jackpot,” Wang says. Writing in Science in 2013, the team reported that bats have more genes responsible for repairing DNA damage than other mammals such as mice and humans do—possibly allowing the flying creatures to be more adept at fixing the molecular wear and tear caused by their high metabolism.There were also some helpful genetic absences. The genetic books of both of the bat species Wang’s team sequenced, for instance, have lost several “pages”—genes found in more grounded mammals—that encode certain immune system proteins. These proteins help to detect invading organisms and launch inflammatory responses. This scenario might sound counterintuitive: Wouldn’t the lack of those genes make bats more vulnerable to infection? Scientists think not; it’s often the immunological overdrive in response to pathogens, rather than pathogens themselves, that kills the host. (A lethal aspect of COVID, early in the pandemic, was a “storm” of immunological overreaction that damaged organs beyond repair.) “This was the first tantalizing clue to how bats deal with infection,” Wang says.A hint about what happens when this delicate infection-control system goes awry came from earlier bat-­sur­veil­lance studies: when the animals shed more virus, other species started to get sick. In June 2011 a Hendra outbreak hit horses in Australia’s eastern states of Queensland and New South Wales. By October of that year about two dozen horses perished, traced to not one but 18 separate transmissions of the virus from flying foxes. “It was unprecedented,” says Hamish McCallum, an expert on ecological modeling at Griffith University’s Southport campus. There had been only 14 transmission events since the first Hendra outbreak in 1994.At about the same time, a team led by Peel (who would go on to collect samples in Woodford) uncovered another troubling phenomenon: bats were shedding a whole bunch of viruses other than Hendra. Since November 2010, her colleagues had been collecting urine samples from flying foxes—mostly the black flying fox and the grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)—at their roost sites on a monthly basis. Their studies show that the bat populations usually have a variety of viruses at low levels. But the levels tended to rise in the cold and dry winter months, between June and August, when risks of virus transmission are heightened.In winter 2011 the levels of eight viruses—including Hendra, its cousin the Cedar virus and the Menangle virus (which can also infect humans)—peaked in urine samples collected from bats in Queensland. This bump did not happen in subsequent winters or in the state of Victoria, where there were no reported cases of Hendra infection in horses, Peel says. “That was when it became clear that flying foxes shed multiple viruses simultaneously in discrete pulses,” says Plowright, who collaborated with both Peel and McCallum for the study. The pulse seemed to coincide with the times when the horses got infected. A rise in virus shedding therefore seems to be a critical step—and a sentinel indicator—for cross-­species transmission.To bat immunologists such as Tony Schountz of Colorado State University in Fort Collins, the level of virus shedding is intricately related to the so-called immunological détente between pathogens and their bat hosts. “It’s a relationship in which the virus and the host effectively say to each other, ‘If you don’t bother me, I won’t bother you,’” he says.Two strategies are in place to maintain the détente. One typically entails the constant expression of immune system signals that are switched on in other mammals only when the animals are invaded by pathogens. In some bat species, this includes type I interferons (a group of signaling molecules regarded as the first line of defense against viral infection) and heat-shock proteins (which in other animals are induced in response to stress). “Bats are always in a state of ‘ready to fight,’” says Zhou Peng, an expert on bat virology at the Guangzhou National Laboratory in China. “This helps to keep the viruses in check.”The grey-headed flying fox also carries the Hendra virus, which threatens people and other animals.The other strategy is to have only minimal inflammation, avoiding the overreactions that can damage organs. Bats show only small signs of tissue inflammation even when infected by viruses, Schountz notes. Such dampened responses can leave bats vulnerable to viruses, but the “ready to fight” immune system components usually take care of the invaders with a more targeted, precise counterattack that goes after the viruses and not the organs they are in. “They never go overboard” in their defenses, Schountz says.This finely tuned interaction, developed over a long history as bats and viruses learned to coexist, can explain bats’ remarkable ability to harbor viruses without getting sick. “It’s all about yin and yang,” Wang says. “But the balance can be tipped.”Changes in the environment can do the tipping. That might be what happened to the bats the Griffith team sampled in 2011. Research over decades has shown that food availability predicts virus shedding. Several times a year since 2006, scientists have conducted detailed assessments of environmental conditions within the foraging radius of several flying fox roosts in Queens­land. They found that the eucalyptus forests at those sites provided the highest abundance of food resources in late summer—especially highly nutritious pollen and nectar. The amount of food dropped to the lowest point in winter months, when Hendra cases can rise.What was particularly striking was how well the levels of virus shedding and horse infection correlated with food availability. When food was hard to find, bats tended to shed more virus, and horse infections shot up. But when food was abundant, virus-­related problems dropped. The food ups and downs, it turned out, were affected by a pattern of climate variability known as the El Niño–­South­ern Oscillation (ENSO) in the preceding months or years. ENSO lurches between two states: El Niño, when surface waters in the tropical central and eastern Pacific are unusually warm, results in hot and dry years in Australia. La Niña, when waters are exceptionally cool, leads to wetter weather on land. Recent studies have shown that global warming might have made the switches more intense and more frequent.In 2011—the year scientists uncovered the big surge of virus shedding and horse infection—Australia was coming out of two strong El Niño years. The drought had created a prolonged food shortage for bats because eucalyptus trees didn’t flower. “There was little nectar around,” McCallum says. “The bats were probably starving.” Food availability during the winter of 2010 hit one of the lowest points during the entire period the scientists studied.The findings are also consistent with what Plowright saw in the spring of 2006 in Nitmiluk: starving and unhealthy bats, as well as a large number with signs of Hendra infection. That period followed a major cyclone that reduced food availability. Scientists suspect that food shortages and nutrition deficiencies, possibly exacerbated by an increasingly erratic ENSO, might have thrown off the balance of the animals’ immune systems, leading to increased levels of virus infection, replication and shedding.But ENSO is not the only culprit behind food shortages for flying foxes. The species have suffered from habitat loss for decades. Plowright’s team found that 70 percent of the forest that provided winter habitats for the animals was cut down and cleared, mostly for agriculture, mining and urban development, by 1996. Nearly a third of the remaining habitat was gone by 2018—often without proper regulatory approval, Plowright says. Millions more acres are set to be cleared in the coming decade, she adds, making Australia one of the worst deforesters in the world. The 2022 Nature paper she co-authored, which highlighted the correlations between environmental changes and fluctuations in virus activity, showed that Hendra shedding was curtailed when there were unexpected pulses of winter flowering in remnant forests. The blooms provided nutrition for the flying foxes, most likely improving their health and ability to keep viruses in check.Just after sunset, flying foxes take off to feed over the Australian town of Gympie, showing how close the bats live to people.The overall trend of development and loss of foraging habitat is forcing flying foxes to move into urban and agricultural landscapes. They scavenge foods such as weeds and leaves of shade and ornamental trees, which are less nutritious, hard to digest and possibly even harmful. “It’s a choice between you starve and die or you find new sources of food,” Plowright says. “They’re really just trying to survive.” At the same time that urbanization is depriving the animals of nutrition, it is also bringing them much closer to horses and humans. Both trends increase the likelihood of virus transmission. Plowright and her colleagues found that more than two thirds of all incidents of Hendra infection in horses, as of 2010, occurred within the foraging areas of bat colonies in urban settings.Australia is certainly not alone in driving bats out of their traditional habitats, says disease ecologist Richard Suu-­Ire of the University of Ghana in Accra. In Africa, Suu-Ire’s team has identified an increasing number of Hendra-like viruses in straw-­colored fruits bats (Eidolon helvum) and also found that pigs near deforested areas or bat colonies in urban settlements have been infected by those viruses. “It’s quite alarming,” he says. This aligns with other studies that suggest cross-­species virus transmission may happen far more frequently than previously recognized.It’s become increasingly clear that disease emergence from flying mammals is about the alignment of several elements. The virus reservoir, such as a bat colony, has to be infected, and bats have to shed significant amounts of virus. The environment—including factors such as temperature and precipitation level—has to support pathogen survival. And infection victims such as horses and people must come in contact with bats or the virus that they shed. “All of these things have to align to create the perfect storm,” Plowright says.El Niño, global warming and habitat loss have conspired to catalyze this alignment with an increasing frequency. Some researchers suspect the combination might also have contributed to the emergence of COVID, although investigations into the origins of that disease are ongoing. If the link to food shortages continues to hold up, scientists may be able to predict the risk of virus shedding by simulating ecological factors, climate conditions and bat physiology. The environmental connection could also be tested to see how it affects the spread of other bat-­borne viruses—especially Nipah, one of the World Health Organization’s top-10 priority diseases for research. Killing up to three quarters of the people it infects and, unlike Hendra, capable of hu­man-­to-­hu­man transmission, the virus has caused frequent outbreaks in South and Southeast Asia since its emergence in 1998.The new findings also point at ways to lower the risk of disease emergence. One is to plant tree species that flower in winter when food shortages tend to occur and to do so away from human settlements. This could provide flying foxes with badly needed foraging habitats. Scientists say this could keep the animals healthy and away from urban settings during vulnerable times of the year. “It’s about safeguarding public health through habitat conservation,” McCallum says. And Peel’s team is working to iden­­ti­­­­fy biomarkers of deteriorating bat nutrition and health that could serve as early warnings of virus shedding. Those markers will enable researchers to fine-tune com­­puter models that predict habitat changes that elevate the risk of virus spread.Ultimately disease risks, habitat loss and climate change are all interconnected elements of the same gigantic challenge facing humanity in the 21st century. Yet international initiatives have typically tackled those challenges separately, says Alice Hughes, an ecologist at the University of Hong Kong. For instance, an agreement negotiated during the past three years by WHO member states and set to be finalized in May 2025 includes few provisions that factor biodiversity loss and global warming into its strategies to prevent pandemics. “It’s a missed opportunity,” Hughes says. One hopeful sign is a global action plan that came out of the 2024 U.N. Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The plan aims to address the connections among environmental degradation, wildlife exploitation and pathogen emergence.The flying foxes missing from that March evening in 2006 pointed Plowright toward many of the interlaced elements driving elevated disease risks. It’s since become abundantly clear that virus transmission is not only about the behavior of bats. It is also deeply tied to the actions of people and our increasingly tortured relationship with nature. Repairing that relationship will require coordinated global action. Such tasks are never easy, but the benefits of success are re­­duced pandemic risks and improved health for mammals that walk on the ground and fly through the air.This reporting was supported by a grant from the Al­­fred P. Sloan Foundation.

A new combo of climate and habitat crises, along with immune system stress, is driving more bat-borne viruses to afflict us

At 4:30 on a chilly morning in Australia, headlights burned through a dark forest in central Woodford, a small rural town 50 miles north of Brisbane, Queensland. Hundreds of flying foxes—magnificent fruit-eating bats with big eyes, fluffy coats, and a wingspan nearly that of an eagle—had just returned from foraging and dangled on tree branches like gigantic Christmas ornaments. Below them, rather incongruously, a large plastic sheet covered the ground. It had been placed there by a team of ecologists to collect urine and feces that the animals dropped.

The scientists, from Griffith University in Brisbane, were probing bat droppings because of a grave human-health concern: plagues now come at us from the skies. Viruses carried by the world’s only flying mammals, bats, have infected people. In the past decades a series of viral attackers—many of them deadly—have been found in or linked to bats: Marburg, Ebola, Hendra, Nipah, SARS-CoV-1, MERS-CoV and, most recently, SARS-CoV-2. COVID, the disease that last virus causes, has killed more than seven million people across the world. Bat-derived viruses seem to threaten our health with disturbing frequency.

But why bats? And why now? After decades of searching for clues and putting together puzzle pieces involving evolution, ecology and climate, scientists have come up with a good answer. Bats have evolved a unique immune system that lets them coexist with a horde of otherwise harmful viruses, a development that seems tied, in surprising ways, to their ability to fly. But when people destroy their habitats and food and trigger disturbing changes in climate—all of which have coincided recently—bats’ immune systems can be strained to the breaking point. The animals can no longer keep viruses in check. Their burgeoning population of microbes rains down on other animals and eventually infects people.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The search for further evidence to bolster this hypothesis, as well as early warnings of bat-virus outbreaks, had brought the Griffith team to Woodford last year. The investigators were looking for signs of nutrition problems or biomarkers of impaired immunity in the bats, among other indicators. Alison Peel, one of the ecologists, carefully transferred puddles of bat urine from the plastic sheet into test tubes. Then she felt something hard land on her back. “Great, I just got hit by bat poop,” she said with a grimace. The first light of dawn began filtering through the dense forest canopy.

The team will be spending several years in the field, trying to pick out causes of virus shedding that can be easily obscured in a wild environment. “Such long-term studies are extremely hard but absolutely critical,” says James Wood, an infectious disease ecologist at the University of Cambridge, who has been working on Hendra-like viruses in African bats in Ghana and Madagascar. The basic links between environmental stress on bats and increased spread of disease were documented in 2022, in a landmark paper in Nature. It connected climate variability, deforestation and food shortages over a quarter of a century to pulses of heightened virus infections in bats, other animals and people.

A large group of black flying foxes hang from trees.

In Queensland, Australia, large groups of black flying foxes hang from trees.

One of the authors of that paper was Raina Plowright, an infectious disease ecologist at Cornell University who has been studying flying foxes and viruses for two decades. The interwoven nature of these causes, she says, means that any public-­health intervention to prevent future pandemics will need to tackle the whole environmental tapestry, not just pull on a single thread. “Halting deforestation and climate change will help address the root cause,” she says.


On a March evening in 2006, Plowright was in the bushland in northern Australia’s Nitmiluk National Park when she felt that something was not quite right. She had set up a finely meshed net under the forest canopy to capture flying foxes, then sat back and stared at the sky. Plowright, a graduate student at the time, was waiting for what she called a flying river of animals—hundreds of thousands of them rushing from their roosts to feed as the sun went down—letting out a cacophony of high-pitched calls. “It’s absolutely spectacular,” she says. “They are the wildebeests of the Northern Territory.”

But that twilight was eerily quiet. Plowright could barely find a trickle of flying foxes, let alone a gushing river. It was extremely unusual. “Where have the bats gone?” she recalls wondering.

Plowright was part of a team trying to understand why flying foxes had been spreading the Hendra virus to horses and people. Hendra had killed two humans at that point, and it had killed and sickened many more equines, threatening an industry worth several billions of dollars to Australia. The scientists’ job was to periodically measure the extent of virus infection in wild bats and monitor their health.

When the researchers finally managed to capture a few bats, they realized all was not well. The animals were skinny and in bad shape; it looked as if they had not been eating. “The bats were basically starving and in really poor health,” Plowright says. And even though it was just after the mating season, none of the captured females was pregnant. The team couldn’t detect any Hendra genetic material in the animals—which is notoriously tricky to do—but nearly 80 percent of the bats had immune system antibody proteins against the virus. That was nearly twice the level measured the year before, and it meant the bats had caught the pathogen. “It was the first clue that nutritional stress may have a role in an increased susceptibility to virus infection,” Plowright says.

Hendra, the virus that Plowright and others were tracking, had made its fearsome debut on the outskirts of Brisbane, in the state of Queens­land, in September 1994. On a breezy spring afternoon a thoroughbred mare named Drama Series started to look sickly while grazing at a paddock near Hendra, a sleepy area known for its racehorses. Drama Series deteriorated precipitously, and she died two days later, says Peter Reid, the equine veterinarian who treated her.

Within a few days a dozen more horses fell ill; most of them had shared a stable with Drama Series. Some soon died, and the rest were euthanized to prevent possible transmission to humans. But it was too late, Reid says. Within a week flulike symptoms descended on Drama Series’ trainer, who eventually succumbed to respiratory and kidney failure.

Around the same time, another outbreak killed two horses in Mackay, 600 miles north of Brisbane. But the cause remained a mystery until their owner died 14 months later. Medical examinations showed that the cause of his death—and that of his horses—was the same viral pathogen that launched the deadly attacks in Hendra.

Researchers spread a plastic sheet under a flying fox roost in the dark

Researchers spread a plastic sheet under a flying fox roost in Queensland to collect urine and feces samples.

The same virus in two deadly outbreaks 600 miles apart: this context gave scientists an ominous clue to the pathogen’s source. “We started to consider the possibility that the virus was transmitted by a flying animal,” says Linfa Wang, an infectious disease expert who was then at the Australian Animal Health Laboratory (now known as the Australian Center for Disease Preparedness).

But which animal? Scientists decided to focus their attention on insects, birds and bats. These creatures were the airborne members of a long list of wild animals, including rodents, snakes and marsupials, that field researchers had been trapping and another team of molecular biologists, including Wang, had been analyzing. Their goal was to pinpoint the source of the disease. Wang, now at Duke–­National University of Singapore Medical School, says the work soon paid off. Blood samples from all four of the flying fox species in Australia had antibodies to Hendra. In the ensuing years, the team managed to isolate the virus from a bat and obtained the full sequence of its genome.

That discovery focused attention on bats as virus carriers, and scientists have since discovered dozens of bat-­borne pathogens. They learned, for instance, that bats are vectors for the Nipah virus, which killed around 100 people and led to the culling of one million pigs in Malaysia in 1998–1999. In the aftermath of SARS in 2005, Wang and his colleagues in China, Australia and the U.S. reported in Science that bats might also be the source of the new contagion.

These discoveries posed a conundrum. Nipah, Hendra, and other viruses can make humans and other animals sick, often with devastating consequences, yet bats seem to tolerate them well. Wang wanted to understand why. He was shocked when he realized how little was known. “It was like stepping into a void,” Wang says. “Our understanding of bat immunity was almost zero.” It was a void that, beginning in the early 2000s, he and other scientists started to fill.

In 2008 the Australian government gave Wang a coveted blue-­sky research grant, one awarded to scientists deemed on a path toward breakthrough discoveries. With around $2 million to spend over five years, he could do whatever he wanted. There was only one thing on his mind. “I wanted to be the first person in the world to sequence bat genomes,” he says. What he didn’t expect was that the effort would lead to a fascinating link between bats’ unusual immune system and their even more unusual evolution.

Of the 6,400 or so living mammalian species, bats are the only ones that can fly. More than one in five mammalian species is a bat—it is one of the most diverse groups in the class, second only to rodents. Bats’ life­spans are extraordinary. Some bats weigh only a few grams but can live as long as 40 years, equivalent to humans living for almost 1,000 years. Despite such longevity, bats rarely develop cancer.

How and when the only flying mammals evolved wings and became airborne is still unclear. The oldest fossils of bats that “have all the hallmarks of a flying creature” are dated to 52.5 million years ago, says Nancy Simmons, a mammalogist at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City, who worked on these exquisitely preserved skeletons from present-day Wyoming. The signs of wings and other flight features on the fossils indicate the animals’ unique path to the skies began to evolve millions of years earlier, and the lineage probably split from other mammalian species before the massive asteroid impact that wiped out dinosaurs and around 70 percent of all species worldwide 66 million years ago.

“The advantages of flight are tremendous be­­cause you can cover much larger areas than similarly sized animals that can’t fly,” Simmons says. “It opened up a whole new set of resources that were not available to those that couldn’t fly.” Bats, in essence, became “birds of the night,” occupying many of the same ecological niches as birds but avoiding competition with them by being nocturnal.

A scientist in a white coat and glasses prepares to analyze DNA in a lab

A scientist prepares to analyze DNA from flying fox feces samples.

This high-flying lifestyle requires a lot of energy. In flight, some species of bats increase their metabolic rate more than 15-­fold. Body temperature can rise from around 95 degrees Fahrenheit to 104 degrees F, and their heart rates can speed up from a resting pace of 200 to 400 beats per minute to 1,100 beats. From their roost sites, they often travel dozens of miles to feed in one night. Some migratory species can travel up to 1,240 miles from their summer locations to winter ones. The use of so much energy releases a large amount of metabolic by-products, such as damaged DNA and highly reactive chemicals. These substances trigger inflammatory responses similar to those caused by microbial infection. “Bats must have an efficient system to deal with the insults that come with flight,” Wang says. “It’s all about damage control.”

With his blue-sky grant, Wang set out to systematically study how bats were physiologically different from other mammals—a question considered esoteric at the time. By collaborating with BGI, a Chinese genomics company that had already sequenced the genomes of organisms such as rice and the giant panda, Wang and his colleagues got the first chance to read the “genetic book” of two types of bats: a small, insect-eating species (Myotis davidii) from northern China and Russia, and a big, fruit-eating black flying fox (Pteropus alecto) from Australia. “It was like hitting a jackpot,” Wang says. Writing in Science in 2013, the team reported that bats have more genes responsible for repairing DNA damage than other mammals such as mice and humans do—possibly allowing the flying creatures to be more adept at fixing the molecular wear and tear caused by their high metabolism.

There were also some helpful genetic absences. The genetic books of both of the bat species Wang’s team sequenced, for instance, have lost several “pages”—genes found in more grounded mammals—that encode certain immune system proteins. These proteins help to detect invading organisms and launch inflammatory responses. This scenario might sound counterintuitive: Wouldn’t the lack of those genes make bats more vulnerable to infection? Scientists think not; it’s often the immunological overdrive in response to pathogens, rather than pathogens themselves, that kills the host. (A lethal aspect of COVID, early in the pandemic, was a “storm” of immunological overreaction that damaged organs beyond repair.) “This was the first tantalizing clue to how bats deal with infection,” Wang says.

A hint about what happens when this delicate infection-control system goes awry came from earlier bat-­sur­veil­lance studies: when the animals shed more virus, other species started to get sick. In June 2011 a Hendra outbreak hit horses in Australia’s eastern states of Queensland and New South Wales. By October of that year about two dozen horses perished, traced to not one but 18 separate transmissions of the virus from flying foxes. “It was unprecedented,” says Hamish McCallum, an expert on ecological modeling at Griffith University’s Southport campus. There had been only 14 transmission events since the first Hendra outbreak in 1994.

At about the same time, a team led by Peel (who would go on to collect samples in Woodford) uncovered another troubling phenomenon: bats were shedding a whole bunch of viruses other than Hendra. Since November 2010, her colleagues had been collecting urine samples from flying foxes—mostly the black flying fox and the grey-headed flying fox (Pteropus poliocephalus)—at their roost sites on a monthly basis. Their studies show that the bat populations usually have a variety of viruses at low levels. But the levels tended to rise in the cold and dry winter months, between June and August, when risks of virus transmission are heightened.

In winter 2011 the levels of eight viruses—including Hendra, its cousin the Cedar virus and the Menangle virus (which can also infect humans)—peaked in urine samples collected from bats in Queensland. This bump did not happen in subsequent winters or in the state of Victoria, where there were no reported cases of Hendra infection in horses, Peel says. “That was when it became clear that flying foxes shed multiple viruses simultaneously in discrete pulses,” says Plowright, who collaborated with both Peel and McCallum for the study. The pulse seemed to coincide with the times when the horses got infected. A rise in virus shedding therefore seems to be a critical step—and a sentinel indicator—for cross-­species transmission.

To bat immunologists such as Tony Schountz of Colorado State University in Fort Collins, the level of virus shedding is intricately related to the so-called immunological détente between pathogens and their bat hosts. “It’s a relationship in which the virus and the host effectively say to each other, ‘If you don’t bother me, I won’t bother you,’” he says.

Two strategies are in place to maintain the détente. One typically entails the constant expression of immune system signals that are switched on in other mammals only when the animals are invaded by pathogens. In some bat species, this includes type I interferons (a group of signaling molecules regarded as the first line of defense against viral infection) and heat-shock proteins (which in other animals are induced in response to stress). “Bats are always in a state of ‘ready to fight,’” says Zhou Peng, an expert on bat virology at the Guangzhou National Laboratory in China. “This helps to keep the viruses in check.”

Close up of a grey-headed flying fox eating a plant, against a black background.

The grey-headed flying fox also carries the Hendra virus, which threatens people and other animals.

The other strategy is to have only minimal inflammation, avoiding the overreactions that can damage organs. Bats show only small signs of tissue inflammation even when infected by viruses, Schountz notes. Such dampened responses can leave bats vulnerable to viruses, but the “ready to fight” immune system components usually take care of the invaders with a more targeted, precise counterattack that goes after the viruses and not the organs they are in. “They never go overboard” in their defenses, Schountz says.

This finely tuned interaction, developed over a long history as bats and viruses learned to coexist, can explain bats’ remarkable ability to harbor viruses without getting sick. “It’s all about yin and yang,” Wang says. “But the balance can be tipped.”

Changes in the environment can do the tipping. That might be what happened to the bats the Griffith team sampled in 2011. Research over decades has shown that food availability predicts virus shedding. Several times a year since 2006, scientists have conducted detailed assessments of environmental conditions within the foraging radius of several flying fox roosts in Queens­land. They found that the eucalyptus forests at those sites provided the highest abundance of food resources in late summer—especially highly nutritious pollen and nectar. The amount of food dropped to the lowest point in winter months, when Hendra cases can rise.

What was particularly striking was how well the levels of virus shedding and horse infection correlated with food availability. When food was hard to find, bats tended to shed more virus, and horse infections shot up. But when food was abundant, virus-­related problems dropped. The food ups and downs, it turned out, were affected by a pattern of climate variability known as the El Niño–­South­ern Oscillation (ENSO) in the preceding months or years. ENSO lurches between two states: El Niño, when surface waters in the tropical central and eastern Pacific are unusually warm, results in hot and dry years in Australia. La Niña, when waters are exceptionally cool, leads to wetter weather on land. Recent studies have shown that global warming might have made the switches more intense and more frequent.

In 2011—the year scientists uncovered the big surge of virus shedding and horse infection—Australia was coming out of two strong El Niño years. The drought had created a prolonged food shortage for bats because eucalyptus trees didn’t flower. “There was little nectar around,” McCallum says. “The bats were probably starving.” Food availability during the winter of 2010 hit one of the lowest points during the entire period the scientists studied.

The findings are also consistent with what Plowright saw in the spring of 2006 in Nitmiluk: starving and unhealthy bats, as well as a large number with signs of Hendra infection. That period followed a major cyclone that reduced food availability. Scientists suspect that food shortages and nutrition deficiencies, possibly exacerbated by an increasingly erratic ENSO, might have thrown off the balance of the animals’ immune systems, leading to increased levels of virus infection, replication and shedding.

But ENSO is not the only culprit behind food shortages for flying foxes. The species have suffered from habitat loss for decades. Plowright’s team found that 70 percent of the forest that provided winter habitats for the animals was cut down and cleared, mostly for agriculture, mining and urban development, by 1996. Nearly a third of the remaining habitat was gone by 2018—often without proper regulatory approval, Plowright says. Millions more acres are set to be cleared in the coming decade, she adds, making Australia one of the worst deforesters in the world. The 2022 Nature paper she co-authored, which highlighted the correlations between environmental changes and fluctuations in virus activity, showed that Hendra shedding was curtailed when there were unexpected pulses of winter flowering in remnant forests. The blooms provided nutrition for the flying foxes, most likely improving their health and ability to keep viruses in check.

Just after sunset, flying foxes take off in the sky

Just after sunset, flying foxes take off to feed over the Australian town of Gympie, showing how close the bats live to people.

The overall trend of development and loss of foraging habitat is forcing flying foxes to move into urban and agricultural landscapes. They scavenge foods such as weeds and leaves of shade and ornamental trees, which are less nutritious, hard to digest and possibly even harmful. “It’s a choice between you starve and die or you find new sources of food,” Plowright says. “They’re really just trying to survive.” At the same time that urbanization is depriving the animals of nutrition, it is also bringing them much closer to horses and humans. Both trends increase the likelihood of virus transmission. Plowright and her colleagues found that more than two thirds of all incidents of Hendra infection in horses, as of 2010, occurred within the foraging areas of bat colonies in urban settings.

Australia is certainly not alone in driving bats out of their traditional habitats, says disease ecologist Richard Suu-­Ire of the University of Ghana in Accra. In Africa, Suu-Ire’s team has identified an increasing number of Hendra-like viruses in straw-­colored fruits bats (Eidolon helvum) and also found that pigs near deforested areas or bat colonies in urban settlements have been infected by those viruses. “It’s quite alarming,” he says. This aligns with other studies that suggest cross-­species virus transmission may happen far more frequently than previously recognized.

It’s become increasingly clear that disease emergence from flying mammals is about the alignment of several elements. The virus reservoir, such as a bat colony, has to be infected, and bats have to shed significant amounts of virus. The environment—including factors such as temperature and precipitation level—has to support pathogen survival. And infection victims such as horses and people must come in contact with bats or the virus that they shed. “All of these things have to align to create the perfect storm,” Plowright says.

El Niño, global warming and habitat loss have conspired to catalyze this alignment with an increasing frequency. Some researchers suspect the combination might also have contributed to the emergence of COVID, although investigations into the origins of that disease are ongoing. If the link to food shortages continues to hold up, scientists may be able to predict the risk of virus shedding by simulating ecological factors, climate conditions and bat physiology. The environmental connection could also be tested to see how it affects the spread of other bat-­borne viruses—especially Nipah, one of the World Health Organization’s top-10 priority diseases for research. Killing up to three quarters of the people it infects and, unlike Hendra, capable of hu­man-­to-­hu­man transmission, the virus has caused frequent outbreaks in South and Southeast Asia since its emergence in 1998.

The new findings also point at ways to lower the risk of disease emergence. One is to plant tree species that flower in winter when food shortages tend to occur and to do so away from human settlements. This could provide flying foxes with badly needed foraging habitats. Scientists say this could keep the animals healthy and away from urban settings during vulnerable times of the year. “It’s about safeguarding public health through habitat conservation,” McCallum says. And Peel’s team is working to iden­­ti­­­­fy biomarkers of deteriorating bat nutrition and health that could serve as early warnings of virus shedding. Those markers will enable researchers to fine-tune com­­puter models that predict habitat changes that elevate the risk of virus spread.

Ultimately disease risks, habitat loss and climate change are all interconnected elements of the same gigantic challenge facing humanity in the 21st century. Yet international initiatives have typically tackled those challenges separately, says Alice Hughes, an ecologist at the University of Hong Kong. For instance, an agreement negotiated during the past three years by WHO member states and set to be finalized in May 2025 includes few provisions that factor biodiversity loss and global warming into its strategies to prevent pandemics. “It’s a missed opportunity,” Hughes says. One hopeful sign is a global action plan that came out of the 2024 U.N. Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity. The plan aims to address the connections among environmental degradation, wildlife exploitation and pathogen emergence.

The flying foxes missing from that March evening in 2006 pointed Plowright toward many of the interlaced elements driving elevated disease risks. It’s since become abundantly clear that virus transmission is not only about the behavior of bats. It is also deeply tied to the actions of people and our increasingly tortured relationship with nature. Repairing that relationship will require coordinated global action. Such tasks are never easy, but the benefits of success are re­­duced pandemic risks and improved health for mammals that walk on the ground and fly through the air.

This reporting was supported by a grant from the Al­­fred P. Sloan Foundation.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

Contributor: The left's climate panic is finally calming down

Millions of Americans may still believe warming exists, but far fewer view it as an imminent existential threat.

Is the American left finally waking up from its decades-long climate catastrophism stupor? For years, climate alarmism has reigned as political catechism: The planet is burning and only drastic action — deindustrialization, draconian regulation, even ceasing childbearing — could forestall certain apocalypse. Now, at least some signs are emerging that both the broader public and leading liberal voices may be recoiling from the doom and gloom.First, recent polling shows that the intensity of climate dread is weakening. According to a July report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, while a majority (69%) of Americans still say global warming is happening, only 60% say it’s “mostly human-caused”; 28% attribute it mostly to natural environmental changes. A similar October study from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found that “belief in human-driven climate change declined overall” since 2017. Interestingly, Democrats and political independents, not Republicans, were primarily responsible for the decline.Moreover, public willingness to countenance personal sacrifice in the name of saving the planet seems to be plummeting: An October 2024 poll from the Pew Research Center found that only 45% said human activity contributed “a great deal” to climate change. An additional 29% said it contributed “some” — while a quarter said human influence was minimal or nonexistent.The moral panic is slowly evaporating. Millions of Americans may still believe warming exists, but far fewer view it as an imminent existential threat — let alone embrace sweeping upheavals in energy policy and personal lifestyle.The fading consensus among ordinary Americans matches a more dramatic signal from ruling-class elites. On Oct. 28, no less an erstwhile ardent climate change evangelist than Bill Gates published a remarkable blog post addressing climate leaders at the then-upcoming COP30 summit. Gates unloaded a blistering critique of what he called “the doomsday view of climate change,” which he said is simply “wrong.” While acknowledging the serious risks for the poorest countries, Gates insisted that humanity will continue to “live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.” He added that “using more energy is a good thing, because it’s so closely correlated with economic growth.” One might be forgiven for suffering a bit of whiplash.The unraveling of climate catastrophism got another jolt recently with the formal retraction of a high-profile 2024 study published in the journal Nature. That study — which had predicted a calamitous 62% decline in global economic output by 2100 if carbon emissions were not sufficiently reduced — was widely cited by transnational bodies and progressive political activists alike as justification for the pursuit of aggressive decarbonization. But the authors withdrew the paper after peer reviewers discovered that flawed data had skewed the result. Without that data, the projected decline in output collapses to around 23%. Oops.The climate alarm machine — powered by the twin engines of moral panic and groupthink homogeneity — is sputtering. When the public grows skeptical, when billionaire techno-philanthropists question the prevailing consensus and when supposedly mainstream scientific projections reverse course, that’s a sign that the days of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda documentary and John Kerry’s “special presidential envoy for climate” globe-trotting vanity gig are officially over.Ultimately, no one stands to benefit more from this incipient trend toward climate sanity than the American people themselves. In an era when optimism can be hard to come by, the professed certitude of imminent environmental apocalypse is pretty much the least helpful thing imaginable. If one is seeking to plant the seeds of hope, nothing could be worse than lecturing to the masses that one is a climate change-“denying” misanthrope if he has the temerity to take his family on an airplane for a nice vacation or — egad! — entertain thoughts of having more children. Even more to the point, given the overwhelming evidence that Americans are now primarily concerned about affordability and the cost of living, more — not less — hydrocarbon extraction has never been more necessary.There are green shoots that liberals and elites may be slowly — perhaps grudgingly — giving up on the climate catastrophism hoax to which they have long stubbornly clung. In America’s gladiatorial two-party system, that could well deprive Republicans of a winning political issue with which to batter out-of-touch, climate-change-besotted Democrats. But for the sake of good governance, sound public policy and the prosperity of the median American citizen, it would be the best thing to happen in a decade.Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the pieceThe author contends that climate catastrophism has dominated progressive political discourse for decades but is now experiencing a notable decline in public support and credibility. Recent polling demonstrates weakening consensus on climate risks, with only 60% of Americans attributing warming primarily to human causes compared to 28% citing natural environmental changes, while belief in human-caused climate change has declined particularly among Democrats and independents since 2017. The author notes that public willingness to accept personal sacrifices for climate goals has diminished substantially, with only 45% of Americans saying human activity contributed “a great deal” to warming. The author highlights prominent figures like Bill Gates questioning the “doomsday view of climate change” and emphasizing that humanity will continue to thrive, arguing that increased energy consumption correlates with economic growth. The retraction of a 2024 Nature study that had predicted a 62% decline in global economic output by 2100—which peer reviewers found used flawed data—serves as evidence, according to the author, that catastrophic projections lack credibility. The author maintains that climate alarmism has been counterproductive to American well-being, fostering pessimism about the future and discouraging people from having children or pursuing economic development, and that moving away from this narrative will allow policymakers to address concerns Americans prioritize, particularly affordability and cost of living, through expanded hydrocarbon extraction.Different views on the topicScientific researchers have documented substantive health consequences from climate-related extreme events that suggest legitimate grounds for public concern rather than baseless alarmism. A comprehensive peer-reviewed literature review identified extensive evidence linking climate change to measurable increases in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation following extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods, hurricanes, and droughts[1]. The research demonstrates that approximately 80% of the global population experiences water and food insecurity resulting from climate impacts, with particularly acute effects in rural areas facing drought and agricultural disruption[1]. Scientific studies indicate that anthropogenic warming has contributed to increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with vulnerable populations—including elderly individuals, low-income communities, women, and disabled persons—facing disproportionate risks due to limited access to resources and protection[1]. Rather than representing unfounded catastrophism, documented mental and physical health outcomes following extreme weather suggest that public concern about climate impacts reflects genuine public health challenges warranting policy attention and resource allocation for adaptation and mitigation strategies.

South Australian bus ads misled public by claiming gas is ‘clean and green’, regulator finds

Ads to be removed from Adelaide Metro buses after advertising regulator rules they breach its environmental claims codeSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereSouth Australia’s transport department misled the public by running ads on buses claiming “natural gas” was “clean and green”, the advertising regulator has found.The SA Department for Transport and Infrastructure has agreed to remove the advertising that has been on some Adelaide Metro buses since the early 2000s after Ad Standards upheld a complaint from the not-for-profit organisation Comms Declare.Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter Continue reading...

South Australia’s transport department misled the public by running ads on buses claiming “natural gas” was “clean and green”, the advertising regulator has found.The SA Department for Transport and Infrastructure has agreed to remove the advertising that has been on some Adelaide Metro buses since the early 2000s after Ad Standards upheld a complaint from the not-for-profit organisation Comms Declare.The ads have appeared on the side of buses that run on “compressed natural gas”, or CNG. In its complaint, Comms Declare said describing gas as clean and green was false and misleading as it suggested the fuel had a neutral or positive impact on the environment and was less harmful than alternatives.It said in reality gas was mostly composed of methane, a short-lived but potent fossil fuel.The Ad Standards panel agreed the ads breached three sections of its environmental claims code.It said CNG buses were originally introduced to provide more environmentally responsible transport than diesel buses, but transport solutions had evolved dramatically over the past 20 years and now included cleaner electric, hydrogen and hybrid alternatives.Comms Declare said multiple studies from across the globe had found buses that ran on CNG resulted in a roughly similar amount of greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere as buses that ran on diesel. It highlighted Adelaide Metro was now replacing its bus fleet with electric vehicles that it described as “better for the environment”.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 promotionComms Declare’s founder, Belinda Noble, said the decision was “another warning to any advertisers that want to make claims about gas products being good for the environment”. She said it followed similar rulings against Hancock Prospecting and Australian Gas Networks ads.“Methane gas creates toxic pollution at all stages of its production and use and is a major cause of global heating,” Noble said.Ad Standards said the Department for Transport and Infrastructure had “reviewed the decision and will take the appropriate action to remedy the issue in the near future”.A department spokesperson said it had received a direction from the Ad Standards panel to remove messaging from “a small number” of Adelaide Metro buses.The spokesperson argued that CNG was a “cleaner burning alternative to diesel” when it was purchased, offering about a 13% cut in greenhouse gas emissions and a “considerable reduction in harmful emissions” of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and particulates.

What’s the best way to expand the US electricity grid?

A study by MIT researchers illuminates choices about reliability, cost, and emissions.

Growing energy demand means the U.S. will almost certainly have to expand its electricity grid in coming years. What’s the best way to do this? A new study by MIT researchers examines legislation introduced in Congress and identifies relative tradeoffs involving reliability, cost, and emissions, depending on the proposed approach.The researchers evaluated two policy approaches to expanding the U.S. electricity grid: One would concentrate on regions with more renewable energy sources, and the other would create more interconnections across the country. For instance, some of the best untapped wind-power resources in the U.S. lie in the center of the country, so one type of grid expansion would situate relatively more grid infrastructure in those regions. Alternatively, the other scenario involves building more infrastructure everywhere in roughly equal measure, which the researchers call the “prescriptive” approach. How does each pencil out?After extensive modeling, the researchers found that a grid expansion could make improvements on all fronts, with each approach offering different advantages. A more geographically unbalanced grid buildout would be 1.13 percent less expensive, and would reduce carbon emissions by 3.65 percent compared to the prescriptive approach. And yet, the prescriptive approach, with more national interconnection, would significantly reduce power outages due to extreme weather, among other things.“There’s a tradeoff between the two things that are most on policymakers’ minds: cost and reliability,” says Christopher Knittel, an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, who helped direct the research. “This study makes it more clear that the more prescriptive approach ends up being better in the face of extreme weather and outages.”The paper, “Implications of Policy-Driven Transmission Expansion on Costs, Emissions and Reliability in the United States,” is published today in Nature Energy.The authors are Juan Ramon L. Senga, a postdoc in the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; Audun Botterud, a principal research scientist in the MIT Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems; John E. Parson, the deputy director for research at MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; Drew Story, the managing director at MIT’s Policy Lab; and Knittel, who is the George P. Schultz Professor at MIT Sloan, and associate dean for climate and sustainability at MIT.The new study is a product of the MIT Climate Policy Center, housed within MIT Sloan and committed to bipartisan research on energy issues. The center is also part of the Climate Project at MIT, founded in 2024 as a high-level Institute effort to develop practical climate solutions.In this case, the project was developed from work the researchers did with federal lawmakers who have introduced legislation aimed at bolstering and expanding the U.S. electric grid. One of these bills, the BIG WIRES Act, co-sponsored by Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Rep. Scott Peters of California, would require each transmission region in the U.S. to be able to send at least 30 percent of its peak load to other regions by 2035.That would represent a substantial change for a national transmission scenario where grids have largely been developed regionally, without an enormous amount of national oversight.“The U.S. grid is aging and it needs an upgrade,” Senga says. “Implementing these kinds of policies is an important step for us to get to that future where we improve the grid, lower costs, lower emissions, and improve reliability. Some progress is better than none, and in this case, it would be important.”To conduct the study, the researchers looked at how policies like the BIG WIRES Act would affect energy distribution. The scholars used a model of energy generation developed at the MIT Energy Initiative — the model is called “Gen X” — and examined the changes proposed by the legislation.With a 30 percent level of interregional connectivity, the study estimates, the number of outages due to extreme cold would drop by 39 percent, for instance, a substantial increase in reliability. That would help avoid scenarios such as the one Texas experienced in 2021, when winter storms damaged distribution capacity.“Reliability is what we find to be most salient to policymakers,” Senga says.On the other hand, as the paper details, a future grid that is “optimized” with more transmission capacity near geographic spots of new energy generation would be less expensive.“On the cost side, this kind of optimized system looks better,” Senga says.A more geographically imbalanced grid would also have a greater impact on reducing emissions. Globally, the levelized cost of wind and solar dropped by 89 percent and 69 percent, respectively, from 2010 to 2022, meaning that incorporating less-expensive renewables into the grid would help with both cost and emissions.“On the emissions side, a priori it’s not clear the optimized system would do better, but it does,” Knittel says. “That’s probably tied to cost, in the sense that it’s building more transmission links to where the good, cheap renewable resources are, because they’re cheap. Emissions fall when you let the optimizing action take place.”To be sure, these two differing approaches to grid expansion are not the only paths forward. The study also examines a hybrid approach, which involves both national interconnectivity requirements and local buildouts based around new power sources on top of that. Still, the model does show that there may be some tradeoffs lawmakers will want to consider when developing and considering future grid legislation.“You can find a balance between these factors, where you’re still going to still have an increase in reliability while also getting the cost and emission reductions,” Senga observes.For his part, Knittel emphasizes that working with legislation as the basis for academic studies, while not generally common, can be productive for everyone involved. Scholars get to apply their research tools and models to real-world scenarios, and policymakers get a sophisticated evaluation of how their proposals would work.“Compared to the typical academic path to publication, this is different, but at the Climate Policy Center, we’re already doing this kind of research,” Knittel says. 

UK farmers lose £800m after heat and drought cause one of worst harvests on record

Many now concerned about ability to make living in fast-changing climate after one of worst grain harvests recordedRecord heat and drought cost Britain’s arable farmers more than £800m in lost production in 2025 in one of the worst harvests recorded, analysis has estimated.Three of the five worst harvests on record have now occurred since 2020, leaving some farmers asking whether the growing impacts of the climate crisis are making it too financially risky to sow their crops. Farmers are already facing heavy financial pressure as the costs of fertilisers and other inputs have risen faster than prices. Continue reading...

Record heat and drought cost Britain’s arable farmers more than £800m in lost production in 2025 in one of the worst harvests recorded, analysis has estimated.Three of the five worst harvests on record have now occurred since 2020, leaving some farmers asking whether the growing impacts of the climate crisis are making it too financially risky to sow their crops. Farmers are already facing heavy financial pressure as the costs of fertilisers and other inputs have risen faster than prices.This year Britain had the hottest and driest spring on record, and the hottest summer, with drought conditions widespread. As a result, the production of the five staple arable crops – wheat, oats, spring and winter barley, and oilseed rape – fell by 20% compared with the 10-year average, according to the analysis by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU). The harvest in England was the second-worst in records going back to 1984.Supercharged by global heating, extreme rainfall in the winters of 2019-20 and 2023-24 also led to very poor harvests, as farmers were unable to access waterlogged and flooded fields to drill their crops.“This has been another torrid year for many farmers in the UK, with the pendulum swinging from too wet to too hot and dry,” said Tom Lancaster at the ECIU. “British farmers have once again been left counting the costs of climate change, with four-fifths now concerned about their ability to make a living due to the fast-changing climate.”He added: “There is an urgent need to ensure farmers are better supported to adapt to these climate shocks and build their resilience as the bedrock of our food security. In this context, the delays [by ministers] to the relaunch of vital green farming schemes are the last thing the industry needs.” The sustainable farming incentive was closed in March.Many farmers are struggling to break even and some blame environmental policies, but Lancaster said: “The evidence suggests that climate impacts are what’s actually driving issues of profitability, certainly in the arable sector, as opposed to policy change. Without reaching net zero emission there is no way to limit the impacts making food production in the UK ever more difficult.”David Lord, an arable farmer from Essex, said: “As a farmer, I’m used to taking the rough with the smooth, but recent years have seen near constant extreme rainfall, heat and drought. It’s getting to the point with climate change where I can’t take the risk of investing in a new crop of wheat or barley because the return on that investment is just so uncertain.“Green farming schemes are a vital lifeline for me, helping build my resilience to these shocks whilst providing cashflow to help buffer me financially.”Green farming approaches include planting winter cover crops. These increase resilience by boosting the organic content of soil, meaning it can retain water better during droughts. Cover crops can also help break up compacted soil, allowing it to drain better during wet periods.The ECIU analysis used production data for England published in October and current grain prices and then extrapolated it to the UK as a whole, a method shown to be reliable in previous years. Since 2020, which was the worst harvest on record, lost revenue associated with the impact of extreme weather is now more than £2bn for UK arable farmers. Grain prices are set globally, so low harvests in the UK do not translate in the market to higher prices.The link between worsening extreme weather and global heating is increasingly clear. The Met Office said the UK summer of 2025 was the hottest in more than a century of records and was made 70 times more probable because of the climate crisis. Global heating also made the severe rainfall in the winter storms of 2023-24 about 20% heavier.“This year’s harvest was extremely challenging,” said Jamie Burrows, the chair of the National Farmers’ Union combinable crops board. “Growing crops in the UK isn’t easy due to the unpredictable weather we are seeing more of. Funding is needed for climate adaptation and resilient crop varieties to safeguard our ability to feed the nation.”The price of some foods hit by extreme weather are rising more than four times faster than others in the average shop, the ECIU reported in October. It found the price of butter, beef, milk, coffee and chocolate had risen by an average of 15.6% over the year, compared with 2.8% for other food and drink.Drought in the UK led to poor grass growth, hitting butter and beef production, while extreme heat and rain in west Africa pushed up cocoa prices and droughts in Brazil and Vietnam led to a surge in coffee prices.A spokesperson for the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said farmers were stewards of the nation’s food security. “We know there are challenges in the sector and weather extremes have affected harvests,” she said. “We are backing our farmers in the face of a changing climate with the largest nature-friendly farming budget in history to grow their businesses and get more British food on our plates.”

Realtors just forced Zillow to hide a key piece of information about buying a home. Here’s why

Until recently, when you looked at a house for sale on Zillow, you could see property-specific scores for the risk of flooding, wildfires, wind from storms and hurricanes, extreme heat, and air quality. The numbers came from First Street, a nonprofit that uses peer-reviewed methodologies to calculate “climate risk.” But Zillow recently removed those scores after pressure from CRMLS, one of the large real-estate listing services that supplies its data. “The reality is these models have been around for over five years,” says Matthew Eby, CEO of First Street, which also provides its data to sites like Realtor.com and Redfin. (Zillow started displaying the information in 2024, but Realtor.com incorporated First Street’s “Flood Scores” in 2020.) “And what’s happened is the market’s gotten very tight. And now they’re looking for ways to try and make it easier to sell homes at the expense of homebuyers.” The California Regional MLS, like others across the country, controls the database that feeds real estate listings to sites like Zillow. The organization said in a statement to the New York Times that it was “suspicious” after seeing predictions of high flood risk in areas that hadn’t flooded in the past. When Fast Company asked for an example of a location, they pointed to a neighborhood in Huntington Beach—but that area actually just flooded last week. In a statement, First Street said that it stands behind the accuracy of its scores. “Our models are built on transparent, peer-reviewed science and are continuously validated against real-world outcomes. In the CRMLS coverage area, during the Los Angeles wildfires, our maps identified over 90% of the homes that ultimately burned as being at severe or extreme risk—our highest risk rating—and 100% as having some level of risk, significantly outperforming CalFire’s official state hazard maps. So when claims are made that our models are inaccurate, we ask for evidence. To date, all the empirical validation shows our science is working as designed and providing better risk insight than the tools the industry has relied on historically.” Zillow’s trust in the data has not changed, and that data is important to consumers: In one survey, it saw that more than 80% of buyers considered the data when shopping for a house. But the company said in a statement that it updated its “climate risk product experience to adhere to varying MLS requirements.” It’s not clear exactly what happened: In response to questions for this story, CRMLS now says it only asked Zillow to remove “predictive numbers” and flood map layers on listings, while Zillow says the MLS board voted to demand they block all of the data. It’s also not clear what would have happened if Zillow hadn’t made any changes, though in theory, the MLS could have stopped giving the site access to its listings. Images of Zillow’s climate risk tools from a 2024 press release [Image: Zillow] Zillow still links to First Street’s website in each listing, so homebuyers can access the information, but it’s less easy to find. The site also still includes a map that consumers can use to view overall neighborhood risk, if they take the extra step to click on checkboxes for flooding, fire, or other hazards. But the main scores are gone. Obviously, seeing that a particular house has a high flood risk or fire risk can hurt sales. Nevertheless, after First Street first launched, the National Association of Realtors put out guidance saying that the information was useful—and that since realtors aren’t experts in things like flood risk, they shouldn’t try to tell buyers themselves that a particular house is safe, even if it hasn’t flooded in the past. First Street’s flood data goes further than that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which uses outdated flood maps. It also incorporates more climate predictions, along with the risk of flooding from heavy rainfall and surface runoff, not just flooding from rivers or the coast. And it includes predictions of small amounts of flooding (for example, whether an inch of water is likely to reach the property). Buyers can dig deeper to figure out how much that amount of flooding might affect a particular house. It’s not surprising that some high risk scores have upset home sellers who haven’t experienced flooding or other problems in the past. But as the climate changes, past experiences don’t guarantee what a property will be like for the next 30 years. Take the example of North Carolina, where some residents hadn’t ever experienced flooding until Hurricane Helene dumped unprecedented rainfall on their neighborhoods. Redfin, another site that uses the data, plans to continue providing it, though sellers have the option to ask for it to be removed from a particular home if they believe it’s inaccurate. (First Street also allows homeowners to ask for their data to be revised if there’s a problem, and then reviews the accuracy.) “Redfin will continue to provide the best-possible estimates of the risks of fires, floods, and storms,” Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather said in a statement. “Homebuyers want to know, because losing a home in a catastrophe is heartbreaking, and insuring against these risks is getting more and more expensive.” Realtor.com is working with CRMLS and data providers to look into the issues raised by the MLS over the scores. “We aim to balance transparency about the evolving environmental risks to what is often a family’s biggest investment, with an understanding that the available data can sometimes be limited,” the company said in a statement. “For this reason we always encourage consumers to consult a local real estate professional for guidance or to learn more. When issues are raised, we work with our data partners to review them and make updates when appropriate.” If more real estate sites take down the scores, it’s likely that some buyers won’t see the information at all. First Street says that while it’s good that Zillow still includes a link to its site, the impact is real. “Whenever you add friction into something, it just is used less,” Eby says. “And so not having that information at the tip of your fingers is definitely going to have an impact on the millions of people that go to Zillow every day to see it.”

Until recently, when you looked at a house for sale on Zillow, you could see property-specific scores for the risk of flooding, wildfires, wind from storms and hurricanes, extreme heat, and air quality. The numbers came from First Street, a nonprofit that uses peer-reviewed methodologies to calculate “climate risk.” But Zillow recently removed those scores after pressure from CRMLS, one of the large real-estate listing services that supplies its data. “The reality is these models have been around for over five years,” says Matthew Eby, CEO of First Street, which also provides its data to sites like Realtor.com and Redfin. (Zillow started displaying the information in 2024, but Realtor.com incorporated First Street’s “Flood Scores” in 2020.) “And what’s happened is the market’s gotten very tight. And now they’re looking for ways to try and make it easier to sell homes at the expense of homebuyers.” The California Regional MLS, like others across the country, controls the database that feeds real estate listings to sites like Zillow. The organization said in a statement to the New York Times that it was “suspicious” after seeing predictions of high flood risk in areas that hadn’t flooded in the past. When Fast Company asked for an example of a location, they pointed to a neighborhood in Huntington Beach—but that area actually just flooded last week. In a statement, First Street said that it stands behind the accuracy of its scores. “Our models are built on transparent, peer-reviewed science and are continuously validated against real-world outcomes. In the CRMLS coverage area, during the Los Angeles wildfires, our maps identified over 90% of the homes that ultimately burned as being at severe or extreme risk—our highest risk rating—and 100% as having some level of risk, significantly outperforming CalFire’s official state hazard maps. So when claims are made that our models are inaccurate, we ask for evidence. To date, all the empirical validation shows our science is working as designed and providing better risk insight than the tools the industry has relied on historically.” Zillow’s trust in the data has not changed, and that data is important to consumers: In one survey, it saw that more than 80% of buyers considered the data when shopping for a house. But the company said in a statement that it updated its “climate risk product experience to adhere to varying MLS requirements.” It’s not clear exactly what happened: In response to questions for this story, CRMLS now says it only asked Zillow to remove “predictive numbers” and flood map layers on listings, while Zillow says the MLS board voted to demand they block all of the data. It’s also not clear what would have happened if Zillow hadn’t made any changes, though in theory, the MLS could have stopped giving the site access to its listings. Images of Zillow’s climate risk tools from a 2024 press release [Image: Zillow] Zillow still links to First Street’s website in each listing, so homebuyers can access the information, but it’s less easy to find. The site also still includes a map that consumers can use to view overall neighborhood risk, if they take the extra step to click on checkboxes for flooding, fire, or other hazards. But the main scores are gone. Obviously, seeing that a particular house has a high flood risk or fire risk can hurt sales. Nevertheless, after First Street first launched, the National Association of Realtors put out guidance saying that the information was useful—and that since realtors aren’t experts in things like flood risk, they shouldn’t try to tell buyers themselves that a particular house is safe, even if it hasn’t flooded in the past. First Street’s flood data goes further than that of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which uses outdated flood maps. It also incorporates more climate predictions, along with the risk of flooding from heavy rainfall and surface runoff, not just flooding from rivers or the coast. And it includes predictions of small amounts of flooding (for example, whether an inch of water is likely to reach the property). Buyers can dig deeper to figure out how much that amount of flooding might affect a particular house. It’s not surprising that some high risk scores have upset home sellers who haven’t experienced flooding or other problems in the past. But as the climate changes, past experiences don’t guarantee what a property will be like for the next 30 years. Take the example of North Carolina, where some residents hadn’t ever experienced flooding until Hurricane Helene dumped unprecedented rainfall on their neighborhoods. Redfin, another site that uses the data, plans to continue providing it, though sellers have the option to ask for it to be removed from a particular home if they believe it’s inaccurate. (First Street also allows homeowners to ask for their data to be revised if there’s a problem, and then reviews the accuracy.) “Redfin will continue to provide the best-possible estimates of the risks of fires, floods, and storms,” Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather said in a statement. “Homebuyers want to know, because losing a home in a catastrophe is heartbreaking, and insuring against these risks is getting more and more expensive.” Realtor.com is working with CRMLS and data providers to look into the issues raised by the MLS over the scores. “We aim to balance transparency about the evolving environmental risks to what is often a family’s biggest investment, with an understanding that the available data can sometimes be limited,” the company said in a statement. “For this reason we always encourage consumers to consult a local real estate professional for guidance or to learn more. When issues are raised, we work with our data partners to review them and make updates when appropriate.” If more real estate sites take down the scores, it’s likely that some buyers won’t see the information at all. First Street says that while it’s good that Zillow still includes a link to its site, the impact is real. “Whenever you add friction into something, it just is used less,” Eby says. “And so not having that information at the tip of your fingers is definitely going to have an impact on the millions of people that go to Zillow every day to see it.”

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.