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

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.