Is the world being destroyed?

Earth is becoming “increasingly uninhabitable” as the planet continues to warm due to climate change.

A group of 80 researchers from 45 countries is warning this week of global challenges driven by human-made emissions.

Those challenges include surging methane emission levels, continued air pollution, intense heat and humidity, increasing health risks exacerbated by climate extremes, concerns about global climate patterns, threats to biodiversity and the Amazon, impacts to infrastructure, and more.

“This report confirms that the world faces planetary scale challenges ... yet it also provides clear pathways and solutions, demonstrating that with urgent, decisive action, we still can avoid unmanageable outcomes,” the researchers wrote.

These findings, the 10 New Insights in Climate Change, are released annually by scientists at Future Earth, The Earth League, and the World Climate Research Programme. The group aims to provide timely insights to help policymakers and negotiators in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, also known as COP.

The authors said that climate-warming is increasing natural methane emissions, making cuts to human emissions more urgent. Methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that is emitted during the production of coal, natural, gas, and oil, and by the agriculture industry and landfills, is the second-largest contributor to climate warming after carbon dioxide. Methane levels are surging, driven primarily by human activities.

“We have enough information about our methane emissions to take action, but more enforceable policies to drive reductions are vital. While reductions in the fossil fuel and waste sectors are most feasible, addressing agricultural emissions is also critical,” the report noted.

The report said that reductions in air pollution have aided public health in several regions. But, at the same time, changes in the amount of airborne particles in the atmosphere have reduced the cooling effect these particles have on the climate. Some particles can reflect sunlight, helping to cool the atmosphere.

“Further reduction of anthropogenic aerosol emissions will reduce health impacts and directly save lives, and is beneficial for climate and the environment,” the report said. “It will, however, amplify climate warming, and can also strengthen precipitation change and extreme events in many regions.”

This could be Earth’s hottest year and increasingly warm and humid weather is making more of the planet unlivable, with 600 million people living outside habitable climatic conditions. With each degree of warming in the future, an estimated 10 percent of Earth’s population will join them. Those in the Global South are more exposed than others.

And, pregnant women, infants, and unborn children are also facing increased risks from climate extremes, like heat and flooding. Those living in high levels of poverty and “entrenched” gender norms that prevent women from changing practices that could expose them to those conditions are disproportionately affected.

In the Amazon, which has felt multiple climate extremes this year, biodiversity and the ecosystem have also suffered. The scientists note some areas are shifting “from carbon sinks to carbon sources,” with “far-reaching consequences” for both regional and global climate.

“Due to climate change, Amazon forests are approaching multiple thresholds (related to temperature, rainfall, and seasonality), beyond which significant ecological changes can be triggered, potentially leading to a large-scale forest collapse,” the report said.

The Amazon, which is home to billions of trees that absorb carbon dioxide, produces 20 percent of Earth’s oxygen. However, hundreds of millions have been cut down down to make room for cattle ranchers. The International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List said Monday that more than a third of the world’s tree species are threatened with extinction and the United Nations says species are disappearing 10 to 100 times faster than in the past 10 million years, with three-quarters of Earth’s land altered by humans.

The scientists say critical human infrastructure is also increasingly exposed and vulnerable to hazards, suggesting artificial intelligence could help enhance resilience.

Perhaps most worryingly, the scientists highlighted “heightened concerns” about large-scale ocean and atmosphere interactions, including concerns about more extreme and costly climate patterns and the collapse of a critical system of currents that circulates water within the Atlantic Ocean, bringing warm water north and cold water south.

Recently, scientists alerted that the circulation’s collapse could be much sooner than previously estimated, with “potentially catastrophic consequences” like widespread droughts, floods, and plummeting temperatures in Europe.

“The consequences for global climate, weather patterns, and human well-being would be severe,” the report said.

At the global biodiversity talks underway in Cali, Colombia, government officials from a single nation wear badges with a red streak along the bottom emblazoned with a small but jarring word: “non-party.”

Call it a diplomatic scarlet letter.

That country is the United States. The only other delegation with the same status is the Holy See. All the other country delegates saunter around the conference with badges that sport an inviting green line with the word “party,” granting them access to rooms where the most sensitive negotiations take place.

When I started covering biodiversity a few years ago, I was surprised to learn that the U.S. wasn’t a member of the treaty that underpins global agreements on the issue. The absence seemed especially significant given the scale of the problem: a decline in global biodiversity that’s unprecedented in human history, threatening not only countless species but the well-being of humans, too.

I quickly came to understand that the U.S. government does indeed participate in U.N. biodiversity talks, and in significant ways. It sends a delegation. It gives hundreds of millions of dollars in biodiversity funding to other countries. And, of course, it takes its own actions to conserve nature. But when decisions are being made at the global talks, the United States is relegated to the diplomatic sidelines along with other observers like advocacy and business groups.

“Of course we would love to have them as a party,” said Astrid Schomaker, executive secretary of the treaty, which is called the Convention on Biodiversity. “But the U.S. is here.”

It started differently. In the 1980s, the U.S. played a significant role in drafting and negotiating the biodiversity treaty. The first President George Bush declined to sign it, but President Bill Clinton did in 1993. The next step was ratification, which requires two-thirds approval by the Senate. Republicans, led by Jesse Helms and Bob Dole, opposed it amid concerns over national sovereignty and intellectual property. Democrats said those fears were unfounded, but U.S. ratification has been a long shot ever since.

Nevertheless, U.S. civil society has long had a big presence at biodiversity talks. This year, it’s present “in droves,” Schomaker said. And a government delegation about three dozen strong flew in from Washington and the embassy in Bogotá.

On a panel on Tuesday, Brenda Mallory, chair of the Biden administration’s Council on Environmental Quality, spoke of how the U.S. was “on track” to safeguard at least 30 percent of its land and waters by 2030. The effort began under the Biden administration in 2021 and it mirrors a global commitment, known as 30x30, reached under the biodiversity treaty the following year.

“The biodiversity and climate crises know no borders, and we really have to fight this together,” she concluded, to applause.

But in Cali, where talks opened on Oct. 21, the United States is at a big disadvantage in that fight. For example, the haggling over language in United Nations negotiations is epic. For the U.S. to suggest a word change, it must ask allies to put forward the proposal. And as countries duke it out in the final days over the thorniest issues, the United States will be relegated farther and farther to the margins.

Cellphones help.

“It really does require another level of diplomacy,” said Christine Dawson, director of the office of conservation and water in the U.S. State Department.

Some of the most substantive decisions on the table at these talks relate to how Indigenous people participate and access funding, how countries will come up with the money they agreed to at the last meeting and how to set up a system for compensating countries for the use of digital genetic information.

The United States is focused on all three of those issues, officials at the State Department said. But late Wednesday, the U.S. and other mere observers had to leave the talks on genetic information. It was time for a harder push, and only parties were allowed.

Meanwhile, representatives from another level of U.S. government made themselves known at the talks: the state of California. Officials took the initiative to submit a plan for how the state is implementing its own version of 30x30, which many parties of the treaty have lagged on. On Monday, Wade Crowfoot, California’s secretary of natural resources, held a news conference with tribal representatives who called on President Biden to designate three new national monuments.

Later, Crowfoot lamented the federal government’s status.

“Unfortunately, it conveys a message that the United States doesn’t prioritize this or isn’t doing it, which, over the last four years is actually not true,” he said.

(Secretary Crowfoot’s badge displays the letters “NGO,” meaning nongovernmental organization. That seems odd, but I guess it’s tricky when you represent a regional government of a non-party.)

When I’ve spoken about the United States’ status with delegates and observers from around the world, some point to the fact that the U.S. still participates, but others look down or smirk or shake their heads. They express disappointment or exasperation.

On Wednesday, one delegate for the European Union, Carola Rackete, a leftist member of Parliament, was willing to give her opinion on the record.

“I personally think it’s a scandal,” she said.

In 2024, the ozone hole over the Antarctic showed a notable reduction in size, ranking as the seventh smallest since monitoring began post-Montreal Protocol.

This improvement is credited to ongoing reductions in CFC emissions and enhanced atmospheric dynamics that transport ozone southward.

Ozone Layer Recovery Progress in 2024

In 2024, the annual hole in the ozone layer over Earth’s southern pole was relatively small compared to previous years. NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) estimate that, if current trends continue, the ozone layer could fully recover by 2066.

This year’s peak ozone depletion season, which lasts from September 7 to October 13, saw the ozone hole rank as the seventh smallest since recovery efforts began in 1992, following the Montreal Protocol—a global agreement to phase out ozone-depleting chemicals.

The ozone-depleted region over Antarctica averaged nearly 20 million square kilometers (8 million square miles) this year, covering an area almost three times the size of the contiguous United States. On September 28, the hole reached its largest single-day extent of 22.4 million square kilometers (8.5 million square miles).

The map above shows the size and shape of the ozone hole over the South Pole on the day of its 2024 maximum extent. Moderate ozone losses (orange) are visible amid areas of more potent ozone losses (red). Scientists describe the ozone “hole” as the area in which ozone concentrations drop below the historical threshold of 220 Dobson units.

What Is a Dobson Unit?

• The Dobson Unit (DU) is the standard measurement for ozone concentration in Earth’s atmosphere. It quantifies the total amount of ozone in a column of air from the surface to the edge of space. One Dobson Unit equals a 0.01-millimeter layer of pure ozone at standard temperature and pressure. For example, 300 DU would form a 3-millimeter ozone layer if compressed. Scientists use Dobson Units to observe ozone health globally, providing insight into seasonal thinning and recovery patterns.

Impact of Global Efforts on Ozone Health

The improvement is due to a combination of continuing declines in harmful chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) chemicals, along with an unexpected infusion of ozone carried by air currents from north of the Antarctic, scientists said.

In previous years, NASA and NOAA have reported the ozone hole ranking using a time frame dating back to 1979, when scientists began tracking Antarctic ozone levels with satellite data. Using that longer record, this year’s hole ranked 20th smallest in area across the 45 years of observations.

“The 2024 Antarctic hole is smaller than ozone holes seen in the early 2000s,” said Paul Newman, leader of NASA’s ozone research team and chief scientist for Earth sciences at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center. “The gradual improvement we’ve seen in the past two decades shows that international efforts that curbed ozone-destroying chemicals are working.”

UV Radiation and Ozone Depletion Concerns

The ozone-rich layer high in the atmosphere acts as a planetary sunscreen that helps shield us from harmful ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun. Areas with depleted ozone allow more UV radiation to reach Earth’s surface, resulting in increased cases of skin cancer and cataracts. Excessive exposure to UV light can also reduce agricultural yields as well as damage aquatic plants and animals in vital ecosystems.

Scientists were alarmed in the 1970s at the prospect that CFCs could eat away at atmospheric ozone. By the mid-1980s, the ozone layer had been depleted so much that a broad swath of the Antarctic stratosphere was essentially devoid of ozone by early October each year. Sources of damaging CFCs included coolants in refrigerators and air conditioners, as well as aerosols in hairspray, antiperspirant, and spray paint. Harmful chemicals were also released in the manufacture of insulating foams and as components of industrial fire suppression systems.

Monitoring and Future Outlook

The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 to phase out CFC-based products and processes. Countries worldwide agreed to replace the chemicals with more environmentally friendly alternatives by 2010. The release of CFC compounds has dramatically decreased following the Montreal Protocol. But CFCs already in the air will take many decades to break down. As existing CFC levels gradually decline, ozone in the upper atmosphere will rebound globally, and ozone holes will shrink.

“For 2024, we can see that the ozone hole’s severity is below average compared to other years in the past three decades, but the ozone layer is still far from being fully healed,” said Stephen Montzka, senior scientist of the NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory.

Researchers rely on a combination of systems to monitor the ozone layer. They include instruments on NASA’s Aura satellite, the NOAA-20 and NOAA-21 satellites, and the Suomi NPP satellite, jointly operated by NASA and NOAA.

NOAA scientists also release instrumented weather balloons from the South Pole Baseline Atmospheric Observatory to observe ozone concentrations directly overhead. The 2024 concentration reached its lowest value of 109 Dobson units on October 5. The lowest value ever recorded over the South Pole was 92 Dobson units in October 2006.

NASA and NOAA satellite observations of ozone concentrations cover the entire ozone hole, which can produce a slightly smaller value for the lowest Dobson unit measurement.

“That is well below the 225 Dobson units that was typical of the ozone cover above the Antarctic in 1979,” said NOAA research chemist Bryan Johnson. “So, there’s still a long way to go before atmospheric ozone is back to the levels before the advent of widespread CFC pollution.”

Alberta’s United Conservative Party has passed a resolution to rebrand carbon dioxide — the chief gas whose overabundance in Earth’s atmosphere is causing the climate emergency — in a brazen display of climate science denial that harkens back to the 1990s fossil fuel industry playbook.

Resolution 12, which falls under the “environmental stewardship and emissions reduction” area of the policy discussion, will “recognize the importance of CO2 to life and Alberta’s prosperity.”

In approving the resolution, the UCP resolved to abandon the province’s net zero targets, remove the designation of CO2 as a pollutant, and further “recognize that CO2 is a foundational nutrient for all life on Earth.”

“We must prioritize policies that protect our economy and our way of life. CO2 is an essential nutrient for mass, driving growth and boosting plant production. According to the CO2 Coalition, higher CO2 levels have led to healthier crops and improved food security worldwide,” said a UCP member speaking in favour of the policy who cited the notorious CO2 Coalition.

The resolution passed by a wide majority.

A member who spoke against the bill, saying that just like like someone can drink too much water and experience water poisoning, too much CO2 can be bad. He was booed by the crowd.

The policy discussion took place in Red Deer, Alberta, where 6,085 UCP members and observers debated 33 policy resolutions at their annual general meeting. Earlier in the day, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith pledged to “triple down” on conservative priorities, including further expanding oil production and attacking Canadian climate policies.

As several outlets have reported previously, Resolution 12 flies in the face of the scientific consensus on climate change, and the party’s rationale for the resolution states a widely debunked claim that “the Earth needs more CO2 to support life and to increase plant yields.”

Carbon dioxide is the gas principally responsible for exacerbating the greenhouse effect, the consequence of which is global warming. Whereas carbon is a foundational building block of life on Earth, carbon dioxide is an asphyxiating gas whose atmospheric proportions are so high they’re disrupting the normal function of the carbon cycle.

The resolution was submitted by the members of the legislative assembly (MLA) representing the provincial ridings of Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock (Glenn van Dijken), and Red Deer-South (Jason Stephan).

The argument that carbon dioxide is a “gas of life” has been a common yet easily refutable talking point popularized by climate change deniers and other right-wing extremists. One such group, the anti-wind energy group Wind Concerns, referred to carbon dioxide as a “gas of life” in an interview with DeSmog last year. Their leader, Mark Mallett, took credit for contributing to the anti-renewable energy moratorium instituted by Alberta UCP Premier Danielle Smith.

Climate scientists have long confirmed that increased CO2 in the atmosphere does not, as climate change deniers insist, create better growing conditions for plants.

The argument that carbon dioxide is beneficial for the environment appears to have first been made by the Greening Earth Society (GES) in the mid-late 1990s. GES was a creation of the Western Fuels Association, and it was later determined the two groups were one and the same. GES published the World Climate Report, a non-academic and non-peer-reviewed journal that served as a platform for climate change denial. They were transparent in acknowledging their funding from fossil fuel companies, and appear to have originated several talking points now common amongst climate change deniers, including those that advocate for increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, which would result in faster plant growth and greater agricultural yields.

In the “rationale” section of the resolution, the United Conservative Party document argues that “CO2 is a nutrient foundational to all life on Earth.”

While plants need both light and carbon dioxide to thrive, the over-supply of CO2 in recent decades is leading to plants being deprived of their nutrients. One biologist was quoted in a 2017 Politico article describing this as akin to “the greatest injection of carbohydrates into the biosphere in human history,” and that injection is diluting the nutrients in the food supply.

While the resolution notes that the “carbon cycle is a biological necessity,” it doesn’t appear the resolution’s sponsors are aware that increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere throws the carbon cycle off balance. This is precisely what’s causing the climate emergency: too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere combined with the destruction of natural carbon storage is destroying the carbon cycle as we know it. The proposed resolution is as contradictory as it is scientifically illiterate.

The resolution also states that current CO2 levels are around 420 PPM, which is described as being “near the lowest level in over 1000 years.” Where this idea comes from is not clear, but it is not supported by verifiable scientific evidence. To the contrary, CO2 levels were 34 percent lower than today in the year 1024, at about 280 PPM. CO2 levels have climbed steadily since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, though they have grown most aggressively since 1950. NASA estimates that, despite wide fluctuations over time, CO2 levels had not exceeded 300 PPM over the last 800,000 years, but have stayed above that level since 1950.

The argument that more CO2 will support life, increase yields, and “contribute to the health and prosperity of all Albertans” — as stated in the resolution — is not supported by scientific evidence. The opposite is a far likelier outcome. As the principal driver of the climate crisis and global warming, increasing CO2 levels will exacerbate droughts, wildfires, and floods, among other disasters, in turn resulting in loss of life and major disruptions to global supply chains. The consequent economic disturbances and their aftereffects will worsen the affordability crisis and result in increasingly negative economic outcomes for all, not just Albertans. Rather than stimulate Alberta’s agricultural sector, climate change will destroy it, and the evidence this is already happening is quite clear.

Another policy resolution is focused on the provincial government’s “scrap the cap” program. The policy builds on a previous resolution to repeal the carbon tax and instead: “Prohibit any consumer carbon tax or carbon pricing scheme or carbon cap and trade system from being implemented in Alberta.”

The resolution also proposes to support “any federal or interprovincial government’s efforts to “axe the tax” (the federal conservative campaign) by eliminating the federal carbon pricing backstop from being imposed on Albertans and Canadians.”

Other resolutions over the weekend have focused on print-based identification, and a requirement for in-person voting “to deal with all the voter fraud.”

Countries must curb production now and tackle plastic’s full life cycle, says Norwegian minister Anne Beathe Tvinnereim ahead of key UN talks this week

The world will be “unable to cope” with the sheer volume of plastic waste a decade from now unless countries agree to curbs on production, the co-chair of a coalition of key countries has warned ahead of crunch talks on curbing global plastic pollution.

Speaking before the final, critical round of UN talks on the first global treaty to end plastic waste, in Busan, South Korea, this week, Norway’s minister for international development, Anne Beathe Tvinnereim, acknowledged the split that had developed between plastic-producing countries and others. She represents more than 60 “high ambition” nations, led by Rwanda and Norway, who want plastic pollution tackled over its full life cycle. Crucially, this means clamping down heavily on production.

... ... ...

For a species that can calculate derivatives, project ballistic trajectories, and estimate sales volumes, it is astounding that humans stubbornly refuse to even acknowledge the negative effects of what is by far their most destructive, as well as most obvious, impact on the planet: overpopulation.

You won’t hear the Roger Hallams, the George Monbiots, Greenpeaces and Extinction Rebellions talk passionately about overpopulation because they have all censored themselves (I can name more names, I don’t care, there’s more where that came from). Especially for Monbiot, the usual argument is that the problem is not all humans, but only the rich humans. As a biologist I can tell you this argument is invalid, because rich and poor humans are identical biologically, therefore they have the same natural propensity for overconsumption, destruction and waste, given the chance. Aside from that, “poor” humans are equally wasteful to rich humans, when you consider their huge number compared to the rich. The contribution of poor people to the climate crisis and ecological collapse on this planet is immense, despite the fact that on an individual basis it is negligible compared to rich people. What matters is total impact on the planet, not per capita. Come on Monbiot, haven’t you ever taken a basic statistics or maths class? Hmm…

At the heart of the self-censorship of the overpopulation debate lies the most delusional, unrealistic and idealistic belief: that we can make significantly better, more sustainable humans, and that this will be enough to counteract the impact of overpopulation. This is the most hypocritical, delusional and dangerous BS the environmental movement has ever invented. You can’t change human DNA.

Let me tell you a brief story: since our beginnings on this planet, we have been natural extroverts and overachievers who always need to have more, and build more. This is not a nurtured trait but a genetic one which came with the factory settings of our RELD brain (Resource Exploitation Logistical Device). We will ALWAYS be harmful to the environment, no matter what we do or how we live. We have come to a point in this civilisation where we depend on so much tech, so much plastic, so much energy use, that it is impossible to do this all sustainably. We need to stop fantasizing and simply accept that we will continue to be a wasteful and destructive species, however much we modify our behaviour. This is not about self-hate, but simply about accepting who we are. We can stop eating meat and stop flying. It still won’t stop the ecological devastation and pollution which are the results of overpopulation and dependence on toxic materials as long as our population size continues to be what it is. A civilisation which throws out 13 million smartphones a day cannot be described as a civilisation. It is a spreading infection on its way to becoming consumed by its own waste.

We need to have far fewer smartphones, because we will never be able to manufacture them sustainably. We need to use less energy, because the energy transition and renewables revolution have already failed. And for these things to happen we need to have fewer humans, because it is the only way which absolutely guarantees the reduction of our impact on the planet.

It is time the so-called “environmentalists” take their masks off. Who are they protecting? Who are they afraid of? Are they afraid society will dismiss them as eco-fascists? Are they afraid people will call them hypocrites because they themselves are having children? Are they afraid that the mainstream media who have embraced them, designated them as the official representatives of the environmental movement, will dethrone them? There is a bit of truth on all of the above, I’m afraid. And they are not my representatives. They don’t speak for me, and for a great swathe of others who care about this planet.

Every year, billions of vehicles worldwide shed an estimated 6 million tons of tire fragments. These tiny flakes of plastic, generated by the wear and tear of normal driving, eventually accumulate in the soil, in rivers and lakes, and even in our food. Researchers in South China recently found tire-derived chemicals in most human urine samples.

These tire particles are a significant but often-overlooked contributor to microplastic pollution. They account for 28% of microplastics entering the environment globally.

Despite the scale of the issue, tire particles have flown under the radar. Often lumped in with other microplastics, they are rarely treated as a distinct pollution category, yet their unique characteristics demand a different approach.

We urgently need to classify tire particles as a unique pollution category. In our recent international study, colleagues and I found that this approach would drive more focused research that could inform policies specifically designed to mitigate tire pollution. And it could help ordinary people better understand the scale of the problem and what they can do about it.

Right now, delegates are meeting in South Korea to negotiate the first global plastics pollution treaty. While this landmark agreement is poised to address many aspects of plastic pollution, tire particles are barely on the agenda. Given their significant contribution to microplastics, recognizing tire pollution as a unique issue could help unlock targeted solutions and public awareness. This is what we need to address this growing environmental threat.

Hundreds of chemical additives

Tire particles tend to be made from a complex mix of synthetic and natural rubbers, along with hundreds of chemical additives. This means the consequences of tire pollution can be unexpected and far reaching.

For instance, zinc oxide accounts for around 0.7% of a tire's weight. Though it is essential for making tires more durable, zinc oxide is highly toxic for fish and other aquatic life and disrupts ecosystems even in trace amounts.

Another harmful additive is a chemical known as 6PPD, which protects tires from cracking. When exposed to air and water, it transforms into 6PPD-quinone, a compound linked to mass fish die-offs in the US.

Heavy vehicles, more pollution

We know that heavier vehicles, including electric cars (which have very heavy batteries), wear down their tires faster and generate more microplastic particles. Car industry experts Nick Molden and Felix Leach say that, as weight is so crucial to a vehicle's environmental impact, manufacturers should be targeted with weight-based taxes under a "polluter pays" principle. This could encourage lighter vehicle designs while motivating consumers to make greener choices.

There are many questions we still need to investigate. For instance, we still don't know how far these tire particles disperse, or exactly where they are accumulating. To assess their full ecological impact, we need more detailed information on which tire additives are most toxic, how they behave in the environment, and which species are most at risk (some salmon species are more sensitive to 6PPD-quinone than others, for example).

In the longer-term, standardized methods will be crucial to measure tire particles and create effective regulations.

We need global action

Regulatory frameworks, such as the EU's upcoming Euro 7 emissions standard (which targets vehicle emissions), provide a starting point for controlling tire emissions. But additional measures are needed.

Innovations in tire design, such as eco-friendly alternatives to zinc oxide and other materials like 6PPD, could significantly reduce environmental harm. Establishing a global panel of scientific and policy experts, similar to ones that already exist for climate science (known as the IPCC) or biodiversity (IPBES), could further coordinate research and regulatory efforts.

Crucially, we must classify tire particles as a distinct pollution category. Compared to conventional microplastics, tire particles behave differently in the environment, break down into unique chemical compounds, and present distinct toxicological challenges.

With more than 2 billion tires produced each year to fit ever-heavier and more numerous cars, the problem is set to escalate. The environmental toll will only increase unless we recognize and target the specific problem.

Measures like weight-based taxation and eco-friendly tire innovations would not only reduce tire pollution but also pave the way for more sustainable transportation systems. The question isn't whether we can afford to act. It's whether we can afford not to.

Almost one-third of species around the world would be at risk of extinction by the end of the century if we continue to churn out greenhouse gases, according to a new study.

The study found that if global temperatures rise to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above the pre-industrial average temperature, exceeding the target of the Paris Agreement, extinctions would rapidly accelerate — especially for amphibians; species in mountain, island and freshwater ecosystems; and species in South America, Australia and New Zealand. Earth has already warmed about 1.8 F (1 C) since the Industrial Revolution.

Climate change causes shifts in temperatures and precipitation patterns, altering habitats and species interactions. For instance, warmer temperatures have caused monarch butterfly migration to mismatch with the blooming of plants they pollinate. Many animal and plant species are shifting their ranges to higher latitudes or elevations to follow more favorable temperatures.

While some species might adapt or migrate in response to changing environmental conditions, some can't survive the drastic environmental changes, resulting in population declines and sometimes extinction. Global assessments have predicted rising extinction risks for over a million species, but scientists have not clearly understood how exactly this growing risk is linked to climate change.

The new study, published Thursday (Dec. 5) in the journal Science, analyzed over 30 years of biodiversity and climate change research, encompassing over 450 studies of most known species. If greenhouse gas emissions are managed in accordance with the Paris Agreement, nearly 1 in 50 species worldwide — an estimated 180,000 species — will be at risk of extinction by 2100. When the climate model's temperature is increased to a 4.9 F (2.7 C) rise, which is predicted under current international emissions commitments, 1 in 20 species around the world would be at risk of extinction.

Hypothetical warming beyond this point makes the number of species at risk rise sharply: 14.9% of species were at risk of extinction under a 7.7 F (4.3 C) warming scenario, which assumes high greenhouse gas emissions. And 29.7% of all species would be at risk of extinction under a 9.7 F (5.4 C) warming scenario, a high estimate, but one that is possible given current emissions trends.

The increase in the number of species at risk increases steeply beyond the 1.5 C warming target, study author Mark Urban, a biologist at the University of Connecticut told Live Science.

"If we keep global warming to below 1.5 C, in accordance with the Paris Agreement, then the [extinction] risk from today to 1.5 C is not a large increase," Urban said. But at a 2.7 C rise, the trajectory accelerates. Species in South America, Australia and New Zealand face the greatest threats. Amphibians are the most threatened because amphibians' life cycles depend heavily on weather, and are highly sensitive to shifting rainfall patterns and drought, Urban said. Mountain, island and freshwater ecosystems have the most at-risk species, likely because these isolated environments are surrounded by inhospitable habitats for their species, making it difficult or impossible for them to migrate and seek more favorable climates, he added.

Limiting greenhouse gas emissions can slow warming and halt these growing extinction risks, but understanding which species and ecosystems are most affected by climate change can also help target conservation efforts where they're needed most.

Urban hopes the results have an impact on policymakers. "The main message for policymakers is that this relationship is much more certain," Urban said. "There's no longer the excuse to do nothing because these impacts are uncertain."

What's New

Experts are warning of a looming increase in grocery prices as agricultural soil becomes increasingly unproductive.

In a concerning trend that could impact households across the globe, the combination of overfarming, climate change and insufficient sustainable practices has left vast swaths of farmland degraded and unproductive, threatening food supply chains and driving up costs.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 33 percent of the Earth's soils are already degraded and more than 90 percent could become degraded by 2050.

Why It Matters

According to the FAO, soil erosion "occurs naturally under all climatic conditions and on all continents, but it is significantly increased and accelerated by unsustainable human activities (up to 1,000 times) through intensive agriculture, deforestation, overgrazing and improper land use changes.

"Soil erosion rates are much higher than soil formation rates," the FAO said. "Soil is a finite resource, meaning its loss and degradation is not recoverable within a human lifespan."

A map previously published by Newsweek predicts that 95 percent of America's soil will be degraded in less than 30 years. Only a 5 percent area is marked not degraded.

What to Know

Soil degradation reduces the ability of farmland to sustain crops, forcing farmers to invest in costly artificial fertilizers and other interventions—or, in the worst cases, abandon their fields altogether.

Experts point to several key drivers behind declining soil productivity. Overfarming strips the soil of essential nutrients and leads to erosion.

Additionally, rising temperatures, erratic rainfall and extreme weather events exacerbate soil erosion and salinization.

Another factor is deforestation. Clearing land for agriculture reduces organic matter in the soil and destroys ecosystems that support fertility.

Staple grocery items such as bread, fresh vegetables and meat could see significant price hikes going forward. Produce and grains are directly impacted by soil fertility, while the rising cost of feed grains for livestock drives up meat prices.

What People Are Saying

"In the U.S. between 2016 and 2024, the Consumer Price Index for food has increased year on year," said former regenerative farmer Anand Ethirajalu, a project director at the Save Soil Movement and the Rally for Rivers Project. In fact, 2022 saw the highest annual increase since 1979, with food-at-home prices rising by 11.4 percent.

"While food prices rise, the topsoil in the U.S. is declining. These two things are intrinsically connected. The U.S. loses billions of metric tons of topsoil annually—impacting food systems and costing the nation $67 billion each year.

"These depleted soils lead to reduced crop yields, forcing farmers to rely on costly fertilizers and irrigation, which drive up food production costs and, ultimately, consumer prices.

"Healthy soil is the foundation of our food security, yet it is increasingly vulnerable to erosion, nutrient loss and climate change. When soil becomes unproductive, it not only threatens our food supply but also farmer's livelihoods.

"By taking immediate action to restore and protect our soils—through practices like regenerative agriculture, integrating trees, crops and animals—we can help future-proof food prices, and enhance the resilience of farms and farmers to climate and market risks.

"Protecting our soil isn't just an environmental priority; it's an economic and social imperative."

In an emailed statement to Newsweek on Monday, a representative for the FAO said: "FAO does track with the FAO Food Price Index the price at point of export of major commodities. That, however, accounts for a passingly small share of the American household retail price so we don't like to correlate.

"Soil damage is a major risk. FAO assessments suggest the 2022 food price jump was a post-COVID one. [It] may have had to do with repairing global supply chains and relatively loose monetary policy in the USA and elsewhere.

"That said, the view on fertilizers is widely shared with FAO. In fact, members have asked FAO to add a FAO Fertilizer Price Index to the Food index above, and shortly we will do that. Again, on a global level.

"I am not sure there is evidence of depleted crop yields in the USA yet due to soil. There are lurking issues due to excess fertilizers and one day also depleted aquifers. Not just in the USA.

"The US State Department is very eagerly promoting FAO's work on "soil maps" in hunger-impacted countries [Central America, Ethiopia, others] so both parties agree this is hyper-important."

What Happens Next

While the outlook is mixed, solutions are within reach. Farmers and policy-makers are advocating for sustainable agricultural practices such as cover cropping and reduced tillage.

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), planting cover crops provides multiple benefits, including controlling erosion.

These types of methods help restore soil health, improve carbon sequestration and reduce reliance on synthetic fertilizers. Carbon sequestration is the process of capturing and storing atmospheric carbon dioxide to reduce greenhouse gas levels and mitigate climate change

According to Farm Together, practices such as reduced tillage, crop rotation and no-till farming can enhance soil health, lower costs and support long-term farm value.

Additionally, innovations like regenerative agriculture and soil-monitoring technologies could offer hope for reversing the damage, along with subsidies for farmers adopting greener methods.

... heavenly radiation ...