# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change has been going on for years.

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change has been going on for years.

# data[].attributes.headline
one of climate changes biggest causes is hairspray as well as gas. When too much of this is used the protective layer I between earth and the sun gets damaged or melted in some sort causing the earth to over heat

# data[].attributes.subject
one of climate changes biggest causes is hairspray as well as gas. When too much of this is used the protective layer I between earth and the sun gets damaged or melted in some sort causing the earth to over heat

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change is causing art anti a to melt leaving polar bears and other animals stranded

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change is causing art anti a to melt leaving polar bears and other animals stranded

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change can cause dramatic weather changes for example : a sunny day , to a hurricane.

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change can cause dramatic weather changes for example : a sunny day , to a hurricane.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change is happening around the world

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change is happening around the world

# data[].attributes.headline
Many people dont realize how bad climate change is .

# data[].attributes.subject
Many people dont realize how bad climate change is .

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change causes some places in our world to be burning hot.

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change causes some places in our world to be burning hot.

# data[].attributes.headline
Some people think that climate change is good while there are others who believe the opposite.

# data[].attributes.subject
Some people think that climate change is good while there are others who believe the opposite.

# data[].attributes.headline
If everyone stops driving cars climate change could get so much better.

# data[].attributes.subject
If everyone stops driving cars climate change could get so much better.

# data[].attributes.headline
It comes form greenhouse gasses, like coal and oil mining which is why solar power and turning lights off to conserve energy is better.

# data[].attributes.subject
It comes form greenhouse gasses, like coal and oil mining which is why solar power and turning lights off to conserve energy is better.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hairspray is not good for climate change.

# data[].attributes.subject
Hairspray is not good for climate change.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change is causing the ice caps to melt and animals are going extinct, mostly animals from colder places because their habitat is getting heated.

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change is causing the ice caps to melt and animals are going extinct, mostly animals from colder places because their habitat is getting heated.

# data[].attributes.headline
Global warming affects food and production.

# data[].attributes.subject
Global warming affects food and production.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change is bad for farms because it can cause droughts and dead crops.

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change is bad for farms because it can cause droughts and dead crops.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change causes dramatic swings such as heat waves and not-so-natural disasters.

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change causes dramatic swings such as heat waves and not-so-natural disasters.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change is constantly getting worse but we can also conserve energy, use electric cars and bike and walk more.

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change is constantly getting worse but we can also conserve energy, use electric cars and bike and walk more.

# data[].attributes.headline
Global warming is bad for the earth and water is rising and causing costal places to ‘sink’.

# data[].attributes.subject
Global warming is bad for the earth and water is rising and causing costal places to ‘sink’.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why haven’t people stopped mining gasses even though its bad?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why haven’t people stopped mining gasses even though its bad?

# data[].attributes.headline
What percent of people contribute to global warming?

# data[].attributes.subject
What percent of people contribute to global warming?

# data[].attributes.headline
What percent of people try to help get rid of climate change?

# data[].attributes.subject
What percent of people try to help get rid of climate change?

# data[].attributes.headline
Does it also cause loss of homes because people loose jobs?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does it also cause loss of homes because people loose jobs?

# data[].attributes.headline
Do the natural disasters cause more problems?

# data[].attributes.subject
Do the natural disasters cause more problems?

# data[].attributes.headline
Is climate change actually good in any way?

# data[].attributes.subject
Is climate change actually good in any way?

# data[].attributes.headline
Will there be more homeless people because people are loosing their homes?

# data[].attributes.subject
Will there be more homeless people because people are loosing their homes?

# data[].attributes.headline
Why dont people stop driving gas powered cars, and ride bikes and use electric cars more?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why dont people stop driving gas powered cars, and ride bikes and use electric cars more?

# data[].attributes.headline
What percent of people drive cars knowing the consequences?

# data[].attributes.subject
What percent of people drive cars knowing the consequences?

# data[].attributes.headline
How often does the weather have dramatic changes?

# data[].attributes.subject
How often does the weather have dramatic changes?

# data[].attributes.headline
How many animals are being affected from Antarctica 

# data[].attributes.subject
How many animals are being affected from Antarctica 

# data[].attributes.headline
affecting the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the weather we experience.

# data[].attributes.subject
affecting the food we eat, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the weather we experience.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Why are fossil fuels so hard to quit? | Brookings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We understand today that humanity's use of fossil fuels is severely damaging our environment. Fossil fuels cause local pollution where they are produced and used, and their ongoing use is causing lasting harm to the climate of our entire planet. Nonetheless, meaningfully changing our ways has been very difficult.

But suddenly, the COVID-19 pandemic brought trade, travel, and consumer spending to a near-standstill. With billions of people recently under stay-at-home orders and economic activity plunging worldwide, the demand for and price of oil have fallen further and faster than ever before. Needless to say, oil markets have been in turmoil and producers around the world are suffering.

A combo shows the India Gate war memorial on October 17, 2019 and after air pollution level started to drop during a 21-day nationwide lockdown to slow the spreading of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19), in New Delhi, India, April 8, 2020. REUTERS/Anushree Fadnavis/Adnan Abidi

The idea that the pandemic could ultimately help save the planet misses crucial points. First and foremost, damaging the world's economy is not the way to deal with climate change. And in terms of oil, what will take its place? We haven't found a good substitute for oil, in terms of its availability and fitness for purpose. Although the supply is finite, oil is plentiful and the technology to extract it continues to improve, making it ever-more economic to produce and use. The same is also largely true for natural gas.

Climate change is real and we see its effects clearly now: In 2019 worldwide, 15 extreme weather events, exacerbated by climate change, caused more than $1 billion in damage each. Four of these events each caused more than $10 billion in damage. The large-scale use of fossil fuels tops the list of factors contributing to climate change. But the concentrated energy that they provide has proven hard to replace. Why?

A reporter raised that very question to me after a press Q&A that I did at a conference a few years ago. "We know that oil contributes to climate change and other environmental problems - why do we still use it? Why don't we just quit already?," he asked me.

Until that moment, I hadn't thought enough about how my experience and background give me a clearer view than many on the promise and challenge of moving to a cleaner energy system. I have gained a wide-angle view of the energy industry as I've moved through my career, working in government and in consulting - for both oil and gas and clean energy clients - and then moving into the think tank world.

To deal with the challenge of climate change, we must start by understanding the fossil fuel system - namely how energy is produced and used. Although fossil fuel companies are politically powerful, in the United States and around the world, their lobbying prowess is not the key reason that their fuels dominate the global energy system. Likewise, the transition to an all-renewable energy system is not a simple task. But the politics of blame are popular, as we've seen during the 2020 election campaign and in light of recent lawsuits against fossil fuel companies. There is plenty of blame to go around, from fossil fuel companies that for years denied the problem to policymakers reluctant to enact the policies needed to force real change. It has been easier for everyone to stick with the status quo.

The world needs technology and strong policy to move in a new direction. Throughout history, humanity's energy use has moved toward more concentrated, convenient, and flexible forms of energy. Understanding the advantages of today's energy sources and the history of past transitions can help us understand how to move toward low-carbon energy sources. With greater understanding of the climate challenge, we are making huge strides in developing the technology we need to move toward a low-carbon future. Still, understanding how we got here and why the modern world was built on fossil fuels is crucial to understanding where we go from here.

Our energy comes from the sun, one way or another

In the pre-industrial age, solar energy met all of humanity's energy needs. Plants convert solar energy into biomass through the process of photosynthesis. People burned this biomass for heat and light. Plants provided food for people and animals, which, in turn, used their muscle power to do work. Even as humans learned to smelt metals and make glass, they fueled the process with charcoal made from wood. Apart from photosynthesis, humans made some use of wind and water power, also ultimately fueled by the sun. Temperature differences in the atmosphere brought about by sunlight drive the wind, and the cycle of rainfall and flowing water also gets its energy from sunlight. But the sun is at the center of this system, and people could only use the energy that the sun provided in real time, mostly from plants.

biomass
Plant material, including leaves, stalks, and woody mass. Biomass can be burned directly or processed to create biofuels, like ethanol.

This balance between human energy use and sunlight sounds like utopia, but as the human population grew and became more urban, the bio-based energy system brought problems. In England, wood became scarce in the 1500s and 1600s, since it was not only used for fuel, but also for building material. London, for instance, grew from 60,000 people in 1534 to 530,000 in 1696, and the price of firewood and lumber rose faster than any other commodity. The once lush forests of England were denuded.

In 1900, roughly 50,000 horses pulled cabs and buses around the streets of London, not including carts to transport goods. As you can imagine, this created an enormous amount of waste. As Lee Jackson writes in his book " Dirty Old London," by the 1890s London's immense horse population generated roughly 1,000 tons of dung per day. All this manure also attracted flies, which spread disease. The transportation system was literally making people sick. The pre-fossil era was not the utopia we envision.

Fossil fuels opened new doors for humanity. They formed from the transformation of ancient plants through pressure, temperature, and tens to hundreds of millions of years, essentially storing the sun's energy over time. The resulting fuels freed humanity from its reliance on photosynthesis and current biomass production as its primary energy source. Instead, fossil fuels allowed the use of more energy than today's photosynthesis could provide, since they represent a stored form of solar energy.

First coal, then oil and natural gas allowed rapid growth in industrial processes, agriculture, and transportation. The world today is unrecognizable from that of the early 19th century, before fossil fuels came into wide use. Human health and welfare have improved markedly, and the global population has increased from 1 billion in 1800 to almost 8 billion today. The fossil fuel energy system is the lifeblood of the modern economy. Fossil fuels powered the industrial revolution, pulled millions out of poverty, and shaped the modern world.

How energy density and convenience drove fossil fuel growth

The first big energy transition was from wood and charcoal to coal, beginning in the iron industry in the early 1700s. By 1900, coal was the primary industrial fuel, taking over from biomass to make up half the world's fuel use. Coal has three times the energy density by weight of dry wood and is widely distributed throughout the world. Coal became the preferred fuel for ships and locomotives, allowing them to dedicate less space to fuel storage.

Oil was the next major energy source to emerge. Americans date the beginning of the oil era to the first commercial U.S. oil well in Pennsylvania in 1859, but oil was used and sold in modern-day Azerbaijan and other areas centuries earlier. Oil entered the market as a replacement for whale oil for lighting, with gasoline produced as a by-product of kerosene production. However, oil found its true calling in the transportation sector. The oil era really took off with the introduction of the Ford Model-T in 1908 and the boom in personal transportation after World War II. Oil overtook coal to become the world's largest energy source in 1964.

Oil resources are not as extensively distributed worldwide as coal, but oil has crucial advantages. Fuels produced from oil are nearly ideal for transportation. They are energy-dense, averaging twice the energy content of coal, by weight. But more importantly, they are liquid rather than solid, allowing the development of the internal combustion engine that drives transportation today.

Different fuels carry different amounts of energy per unit of weight. Fossil fuels are more energy dense than other sources.

Oil changed the course of history. For example, the British and American navies switched from coal to oil prior to World War I, allowing their ships to go further than coal-fired German ships before refueling. Oil also allowed greater speed at sea and could be moved to boilers by pipe instead of manpower, both clear advantages. During World War II, the United States produced nearly two-thirds of the world's oil, and its steady supply was crucial to the Allied victory. The German army's blitzkrieg strategy became impossible when fuel supplies could not keep up, and a lack of fuel took a toll on the Japanese navy.

Natural gas, a fossil fuel that occurs in gaseous form, can be found in underground deposits on its own, but is often present underground with oil. Gas produced with oil was often wasted in the early days of the oil industry, and an old industry saying was that looking for oil and finding gas instead was a quick way to get fired. In more recent times, natural gas has become valued for its clean, even combustion and its usefulness as a feedstock for industrial processes. Nonetheless, because it is in a gaseous form, it requires specific infrastructure to reach customers, and natural gas is still wasted in areas where that infrastructure doesn't exist.

A final key development in world energy use was the emergence of electricity in the 20th century. Electricity is not an energy source like coal or oil, but a method for delivering and using energy. Electricity is very efficient, flexible, clean, and quiet at the point of use. Like oil, electricity's first use was in lighting, but the development of the induction motor allowed electricity to be efficiently converted to mechanical energy, powering everything from industrial processes to household appliances and vehicles.

Over the 20th century, the energy system transformed from one in which fossil energy was used directly into one in which an important portion of fossil fuels are used to generate electricity. The proportion used in electricity generation varies by fuel. Because oil - an energy-dense liquid - is so fit-for-purpose in transport, little of it goes to electricity; in contrast, roughly 63% of coal produced worldwide is used to generate electricity. Methods of generating electricity that don't rely on fossil fuels, like nuclear and hydroelectric generation, are also important parts of the system in many areas. However, fossil fuels are still the backbone of the electricity system, generating 64% of today's global supply.

Fossil fuels still dominate global electricity generation.

In sum, the story of energy transitions through history has not just been about moving away from current solar flows and toward fossil fuels. It has also been a constant move toward fuels that are more energy-dense and convenient to use than the fuels they replaced. Greater energy density means that a smaller weight or volume of fuel is needed to do the job. Liquid fuels made from oil combine energy density with the ability to flow or be moved by pumps, an advantage that opened up new technologies, especially in transportation. And electricity is a very flexible way of consuming energy, useful for many applications.

Back to the future - the return of the solar era

Fossil fuels allowed us to move away from relying on today's solar flows, instead using concentrated solar energy stored over millions of years. Before we could make efficient use of solar flows, this seemed like a great idea.

However, the advantages of fossil fuels come with a devastating downside. We now understand that the release of carbon dioxide (CO ₂) from burning fossil fuels is warming our planet faster than anything we have seen in the geological record. One of the greatest challenges facing humanity today is slowing this warming before it changes our world beyond recognition.

Now that there are almost eight billion of us, we clearly see the impact of rising CO ₂ concentrations. Going back to the old days of relying mostly on biomass for our energy needs is clearly not a solution. Nonetheless, we need to find a way to get back to reliance on real-time solar flows (and perhaps nuclear energy) to meet our needs. There are so many more of us now, interacting via a vastly larger and more integrated global economy, and using much more energy. But we also have technologies today that are much more efficient than photosynthesis at transforming solar flows to useful energy.

Since 1900, global population and economic activity have skyrocketed, along with fossil fuel consumption.

Unfortunately, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, the most consequential greenhouse gas, has steadily climbed at the same time, along with global average temperature.

The earth gets plenty of energy from the sun for all of us, even for our modern energy-intensive lives. The amount of solar energy that reaches habitable land is more than 1,000 times the amount of fossil fuel energy extracted globally per year. The problem is that this energy is diffuse. The sun that warms your face is definitely providing energy, but you need to concentrate that energy to heat your home or move a vehicle.

This is where modern technology comes in. Wind turbines and solar photovoltaic (PV) cells convert solar energy flows into electricity, in a process much more efficient than burning biomass, the pre-industrial way of capturing solar energy. Costs for wind and solar PV have been dropping rapidly and they are now mainstream, cost-effective technologies. Some existing forms of generating electricity, mainly nuclear and hydroelectricity, also don't result in CO ₂ emissions. Combining new renewables with these existing sources represents an opportunity to decarbonize - or eliminate CO 2 emissions from - the electricity sector. Electricity generation is an important source of emissions, responsible for 27% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2018.

However, unlike fossil fuels, wind and solar can only generate electricity when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. This is an engineering challenge, since the power grid operates in real time: Power is generated and consumed simultaneously, with generation varying to keep the system in balance.

Engineering challenges beget engineering solutions, and a number of solutions can help. Power grids that cover a larger area are easier to balance, given that if it isn't windy or sunny in one location, it may be somewhere else. Demand-response strategies can encourage customers with flexibility in their processes to use more power when renewable power is available and to cut back when it isn't. Power storage technologies can save excess electricity to be used later. Hydroelectric dams can serve this function now, and declining costs will make batteries more economic for power storage on the grid. Storage solutions work well over a timeframe of hours - storing solar power to use in the evening, for example. But longer-term storage poses a greater challenge. Perhaps excess electricity can be used to create hydrogen or other fuels that can be stored and used at a later time. Finally, fossil fuel generation often fills in the gaps in renewable generation today, especially natural gas generation, which can be efficiently ramped up and down to meet demand.

Transforming solar energy flow into electricity is a clear place to start in creating a decarbonized energy system. A simple formula is to decarbonize the electricity sector and electrify all the energy uses we can. Many important processes can be electrified - especially stationary uses, like in buildings and many industrial processes. To deal with climate change, this formula is the low-hanging fruit.

The two parts of this formula must proceed together. A shiny new electric vehicle in the driveway signals your concern about the environment to your neighbors, but achieving its full potential benefit also requires a greener power system. For today's power system in the United States, and nearly everywhere in the world, electric vehicles provide emissions benefits, but the extent of those benefits varies greatly by location. Achieving the full potential benefit of electric vehicles would require a grid that supplies all renewable or zero-carbon power, something that no area in the United States consistently achieves today.

Wind and solar power aren't everything - the remaining challenges

"Electrify everything" is a great plan, so far as it goes, but not everything can be easily electrified. Certain qualities of fossil fuels are difficult to replicate, such as their energy density and their ability to provide very high heat. To decarbonize processes that rely on these qualities, you need low-carbon fuels that mimic the qualities of fossil fuels.

The energy density of fossil fuels is particularly important in the transportation sector. A vehicle needs to carry its fuel around as it travels, so the weight and volume of that fuel are key. Electric vehicles are a much-touted solution for replacing oil, but they are not perfect for all uses. Pound for pound, gasoline or diesel fuel contain about 40 times as much energy as a state-of-the-art battery. On the other hand, electric motors are much more efficient than internal combustion engines and electric vehicles are simpler mechanically, with many fewer moving parts. These advantages make up for some of the battery's weight penalty, but an electric vehicle will still be heavier than a similar vehicle running on fossil fuel. For vehicles that carry light loads and can refuel often, like passenger cars, this penalty isn't a big deal. But for aviation, maritime shipping, or long-haul trucking, where the vehicle must carry heavy loads for long distances without refueling, the difference in energy density between fossil fuels and batteries is a huge challenge, and electric vehicles just don't meet the need.

Gasoline carries much more energy per unit of weight than a battery. A gas-powered car with a 12.4-gallon tank carries 77.5 pounds of gasoline.

A 77.5-pound battery, in contrast, would only carry an electric car 21 miles.

An electric car with a range of 360 miles would need a 1,334 pound battery.

Note: Images not to scale.

Despite the weight of the battery, other components of electric vehicles are lighter and simpler than their counterparts in a gasoline car. Thus, the overall weight penalty for electric vehicles isn't as severe as the weight penalty for the battery alone.

Industrial processes that need very high heat - such as the production of steel, cement, and glass - pose another challenge. Steel blast furnaces operate at about 1,100° C, and cement kilns operate at about 1,400° C. These very high temperatures are hard to achieve without burning a fuel and are thus difficult to power with electricity.

Renewable electricity can't solve the emissions problem for processes that can't run on electricity. For these processes, the world needs zero-carbon fuels that mimic the properties of fossil fuels - energy-dense fuels that can be burned. A number of options exist, but they each have pros and cons and generally need more work to be commercially and environmentally viable.

Biofuels are a possibility, since the carbon released when the biofuel is burned is the same carbon taken up as the plant grew. However, the processing required to turn plants into usable fuels consumes energy, and this results in CO ₂ emissions, meaning that biofuels are not zero-carbon unless the entire process runs on renewable or zero-carbon energy. For example, the corn ethanol blended into gasoline in the United States averages only 39% lower CO ₂ emissions than the gasoline it replaces, given the emissions that occur from transporting the corn to processing facilities and converting it to fuel. Biofuels also compete for arable land with food production and conservation uses, such as for recreation or fish and wildlife, which gets more challenging as biofuel production increases. Fuels made from crop waste or municipal waste can be better, in terms of land use and carbon emissions, but supply of these wastes is limited and the technology needs improvement to be cost-effective.

Another pathway is to convert renewable electricity into a combustible fuel. Hydrogen can be produced by using renewable electricity to split water atoms into their hydrogen and oxygen components. The hydrogen could then be burned as a zero-carbon fuel, similar to the way natural gas is used today. Electricity, CO ₂, and hydrogen could be also combined to produce liquid fuels to replace diesel and jet fuel. However, when we split water atoms or create liquid fuels from scratch, the laws of thermodynamics are not in our favor. These processes use electricity to, in effect, run the combustion process backwards, and thus use large amounts of energy. Since these processes would use vast amounts of renewable power, they only make sense in applications where electricity cannot be used directly.

Carbon capture and storage or use is a final possibility for stationary applications like heavy industry. Fossil fuels would still be burned and create CO ₂, but it would be captured instead of released into the atmosphere. Processes under development envision removing CO ₂ from ambient air. In either case, the CO ₂ would then be injected deep underground or used in an industrial process.

The most common use for captured CO ₂ today is in enhanced oil recovery, where pressurized CO ₂ is injected into an oil reservoir to squeeze out more oil. The idea of capturing CO ₂ and using it to produce more fossil fuel seems backwards - does that really reduce emissions overall? But studies show that the captured CO ₂ stays in the oil reservoir permanently when it is injected in this way. And if enough CO ₂ is injected during oil production, it might make up for the combustion emissions of the produced oil, or even result in overall negative emissions. This won't be a panacea for all oil use, but could make oil use feasible in those applications, like aviation, where it is very hard to replace.

Carbon capture is today the cheapest way to deal with emissions from heavy industries that require combustion. It has the advantage that it can also capture CO ₂ emissions that come from the process itself, rather than from fuel combustion, as occurs in cement production when limestone is heated to produce a component of cement with CO ₂ as a by-product.

When considering how carbon capture might contribute to climate change mitigation, we have to remember that fossil fuels are not the ultimate cause of the problem - CO ₂ emissions are. If maintaining some fossil fuel use with carbon capture is the easiest way to deal with certain sources of emissions, that's still solving the fundamental problem.

Our biggest challenges are political

Science clearly tells us that we need to remake our energy system and eliminate CO ₂ emissions. However, in addition to the engineering challenges, the nature of climate change makes it politically challenging to deal with as well. Minimizing the impact of climate change requires re-making a multi-trillion-dollar industry that lies at the center of the economy and people's lives. Reducing humanity's reliance on fossil fuels requires investments here and now that provide uncertain, long-term benefits. These decisions are particularly difficult for politicians, who tend to focus on policies with immediate, local benefits that voters can see. Last year The New York Times asked, for instance, "whether any climate policy is both big enough to matter and popular enough to happen." Durable climate policy requires securing buy-in from a range of actors, including politicians from both parties, business leaders, and civil society. Their perspectives inevitably differ, and the lack of consensus - combined with very real efforts to exert pressure on the policymaking process - is a key reason that climate action is so politically difficult. (To try your hand at navigating the policy dilemmas, play our - admittedly simplified! - game below: "A president's climate quandary.")

In the United States and other parts of the wealthy world, current efforts focus on reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from our energy-intensive lives. But the second part of today's energy challenge is providing modern energy to the billion people in the developing world that don't currently have it. You don't hear as much about the second goal in the public discourse about climate change, but it's crucial that developing countries follow a cleaner path than the developed world did. The need to provide both cleaner energy and more energy for developing countries magnifies the challenge, but a solution that leaves out the developing world is no solution at all.

Plentiful and inexpensive fossil fuels make transitioning away from them more difficult. Around 15 years ago, pundits were focused on "peak oil" - the idea that the world was running out of oil, or at least inexpensive oil, and that a reckoning was coming. Events of the past decade have proven that theory wrong. Instead of declining oil production and rising prices, we've seen the opposite, nowhere more than here in the United States. Technology has brought about a boom in oil production; geologists long knew the resources were there, but did not know how to make money producing them. There's no reason to expect this trend to slow down anytime soon. In other words, running out of oil will not save us. The world will need to transition away from oil and other fossil fuels while they are abundant and inexpensive - not an easy task.

To achieve this technically and politically challenging transition, we need to avoid one-dimensional solutions. My own thoughts about how we need to deal with climate change have certainly evolved over time, as we understand the climate system better and as time passes with emissions still increasing. As an example, I used to be skeptical of the idea of carbon capture, either from industrial processes or directly from the air. The engineer in me just couldn't see using such an energy-hungry process to capture emissions. I've changed my mind, with a greater understanding of processes that will be hard to decarbonize any other way.

The accumulation of CO ₂ in the atmosphere is like putting air into a balloon. It's a cumulative system: We're continually adding to the total concentration of a substance that may last in the atmosphere for up to 200 years. We don't know when the effects of warming will become overwhelming, but we do know that the system will become stretched and compromised - experiencing more negative effects - as the balloon fills. The cumulative nature of the climate system means that we need more stringent measures the longer that we wait. In other words: Sooner action is better. We need to take action now where it's easiest, in the electricity and light vehicle sectors, and in making new buildings extremely energy efficient. Other sectors need more technology, like heavy transport and industry, or will take a long time, like improving our existing stock of buildings.

Those pushing to end fossil fuel production now are missing the point that fossil fuels will still be needed for some time in certain sectors. Eliminating unpopular energy sources or technologies, like nuclear or carbon capture, from the conversation is short-sighted. Renewable electricity generation alone won't get us there - this is an all-technologies-on-deck problem. I fear that magical thinking and purity tests are taking hold in parts of the left end of the American political spectrum, while parts of the political right are guilty of outright denialism around the climate problem. In the face of such stark polarization, the focus on practical solutions can get lost - and practicality and ingenuity are the renewable resources humanity needs to meet the climate challenge.
Correction: An earlier version of a graphic in this piece mistakenly indicated that renewables comprise 0.6% of global electricity generation. It has been corrected to 9.3%.
About the Author

Acknowledgments

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why are fossil fuels so hard to quit? | Brookings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Why are fossil fuels so hard to quit, even though we know that using them damages the planet? Samantha Gross explains how we became reliant on fossil fuels, why it has proven so hard to change course, and why the politics of blame won't solve our climate problem.

# data[].attributes.headline
The best estimate of the human contribution to modern warming is around 100%.Some uncertainty remains due to the role of natural variability, but researchers suggest that ocean fluctuations and similar factors are unlikely to be the cause of more than a small fraction of modern global warming.

# data[].attributes.subject
The best estimate of the human contribution to modern warming is around 100%.Some uncertainty remains due to the role of natural variability, but researchers suggest that ocean fluctuations and similar factors are unlikely to be the cause of more than a small fraction of modern global warming.

# data[].attributes.headline
The best estimate of the human contribution to modern warming is around 100%.Some uncertainty remains due to the role of natural variability, but researchers suggest that ocean fluctuations and similar factors are unlikely to be the cause of more than a small fraction of modern global warming.

# data[].attributes.subject
The best estimate of the human contribution to modern warming is around 100%.Some uncertainty remains due to the role of natural variability, but researchers suggest that ocean fluctuations and similar factors are unlikely to be the cause of more than a small fraction of modern global warming.

# data[].attributes.body
What we see is that in the early-to-mid 20th century, the annual death toll from disasters was high, often reaching over one million per year. In recent decades we have seen a substantial decline in deaths. Even in peak years with high-impact events, the death toll has not exceeded 500,000 since the mid-1960s.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Natural disasters - from earthquakes and floods to storms and droughts - affect millions of people every year. However, we are not defenseless against them, and the global death toll, especially from droughts and floods, has been reduced.

While natural disasters account for a small fraction of all deaths globally, they can have a large impact, especially on vulnerable populations in low-to-middle-income countries with insufficient infrastructure to protect and respond effectively​. Understanding the frequency, intensity, and impact of natural disasters is crucial if we want to be better prepared and protect people's lives and livelihoods.

On this page, you will find our complete collection of data, charts, and research on natural disasters and their human and economic costs.
See all charts on Natural Disasters ↓
Other research and writing on Natural Disasters on Our World in Data:

The number of deaths from natural disasters can be highly variable from year to year; some years pass with very few deaths before a large disaster event claims many lives. On average, over the past couple of decades, natural disasters have annually resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of individuals worldwide.

In the visualizations shown here, we see the annual variability in the number and share of deaths from natural disasters in recent decades.

What we see is that in many years, the number of deaths can be very low - often less than 10,000, and accounting for as low as 0.01% of total deaths. But we also see the devastating impact of shock events: the 1983-85 famine and drought in Ethiopia; the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami; Cyclone Nargis which struck Myanmar in 2008; and the 2010 Port-au-Prince earthquake which resulted in approximately 70% of all deaths that year in Haiti. All of these events pushed global disaster deaths to over 200,000 - more than 0.4% of deaths in these years.

Low-frequency, high-impact events such as earthquakes and tsunamis are not preventable, but such high losses of human life are. We know from historical data that the world has seen a significant reduction in disaster deaths through earlier prediction, more resilient infrastructure, emergency preparedness, and response systems. Those at low incomes are often the most vulnerable to disaster events: improving living standards, infrastructure, and response systems in these regions will be key to preventing deaths from natural disasters in the coming decades.

Annual deaths from natural disasters

In the visualization shown here, we see the long-term global trend in natural disaster deaths. This shows the estimated annual number of deaths from disasters from 1900 onwards from the EM-DAT International Disaster Database.

What we see is that in the early-to-mid 20th century, the annual death toll from disasters was high, often reaching over one million per year. In recent decades we have seen a substantial decline in deaths. Even in peak years with high-impact events, the death toll has not exceeded 500,000 since the mid-1960s.

This decline is even more impressive when we consider the rate of population growth over this period. When we correct for population - showing this data in terms of death rates (measured per 100,000 people) - we see an even greater decline over the past century. This chart can be viewed .

The annual number of deaths from natural disasters is also available by country since 1990. This can be explored in the interactive map.

Average number of deaths by decade

In the chart, we show global deaths from natural disasters since 1900, but rather than reporting annual deaths, we show the annual average by decade.

As we see, over the course of the 20th century there was a significant decline in global deaths from natural disasters. In the early 1900s, the annual average was often in the range of 400,000 to 500,000 deaths. In the second half of the century and into the early 2000s, we have seen a significant decline to less than 100,000 - at least five times lower than these peaks. This decline is even more impressive when we consider the rate of population growth over this period. When we correct for population - showing this data in terms of death rates (measured per 100,000 people) - then we see a more than 10-fold decline over the past century. This chart can be viewed .

Number of deaths by type of natural disaster

With almost minute-by-minute updates on what's happening in the world, we are constantly reminded of the latest disaster. These stories are, of course, important but they do not give us a sense of how the toll of disasters has changed over time.

For most of us, it is hard to know whether any given year was a particularly deadly one in the context of previous years.

To understand the devastating toll of disasters today, and in the past, we have built a Natural Disasters Data Explorer which provides estimates of fatalities, displacement, and economic damage for every country since 1900. This is based on data sourced from EM-DAT; a project that undertakes the important work of building these incredibly detailed histories of disasters.

In this visualization, I give a sense of how the global picture has evolved over the last century. It shows the estimated annual death toll - from all disasters at the top, followed by a breakdown by type. The size of the bubble represents the total death toll for that year.

I've labeled most of the years with the largest death tolls. This usually provokes the follow-up question: "Why? What event happened?". So I've also noted large-scale events that contributed to the majority - but not necessarily all - of the deaths in that year.

For example, the estimated global death toll from storms in 2008 was approximately 141,000. 138,366 of these deaths occurred in Cyclone Margis, which struck Myanmar and is labeled on the chart.

What we see is that in the 20th century, it was common to have years where the death toll was in the millions. This was usually the result of major droughts or floods. Often these would lead to famines. We look at the long history of famines here.

Improved food security, resilience to other disasters, and better national and international responses mean that the world has not experienced death tolls of this scale in many decades. Famines today are usually driven by civil war and political unrest.

In most years, the death toll from disasters is now in the range of 10,000 to 20,000 people. In the most fatal years - which tend to be those with major earthquakes or cyclones - this can reach tens to hundreds of thousands.

This trend does not mean that disasters have become less frequent, or less intense. It means the world today is much better at preventing deaths from disasters than in the past. This will become increasingly important in our response and adaptation to climate change.

Human impacts from natural disasters are not fully captured in mortality rates. Injury, homelessness, and displacement can all have a significant impact on populations.

The visualization below shows the number of people displaced internally (i.e. within a given country) from natural disasters. Note that these figures report on the basis of new cases of displaced persons: if someone is forced to flee their home from natural disasters more than once in any given year, they will be recorded only once within these statistics.

Interactive charts on the following global impacts are available using the links below:

Injuries: The number of people injured is defined as "People suffering from physical injuries, trauma, or an illness requiring immediate medical assistance as a direct result of a disaster."

Homelessness: The number of people homeless is defined as the "Number of people whose house is destroyed or heavily damaged and therefore need shelter after an event."

Requiring assistance: The number of people requiring assistance is defined as "People requiring immediate assistance during a period of emergency, i.e. requiring basic survival needs such as food, water, shelter, sanitation, and immediate medical assistance."

Total number affected: The total number of people affected is defined as "the sum of the injured, affected, and left homeless after a disaster."

Earthquakes

Earthquake events

Earthquake events occur across the world every day. The US Geological Survey (USGS) tracks and reports global earthquakes, with (close to) real-time updates which you can find here.

However, the earthquakes that occur most frequently are often too small to cause significant damage (whether to human life or in economic terms).

In the chart below we show the long history of known earthquakes classified by the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) of the NOAA as 'significant' earthquakes. Significant earthquakes are those which are large enough to cause notable damage. They must meet at least one of the following criteria: caused deaths, moderate damage ($1 million or more), a magnitude 7.5 or greater, Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) X or greater, or generated a tsunami.

Available data - which you can explore in the chart below - extends back to 2150 BC. But we should be aware that the most recent records will be much more complete than our long-run historical estimates. An increase in the number of recorded earthquakes doesn't necessarily mean this was the true trend over time. By clicking on a country in the map below, you can view its full series of known significant earthquakes.

Deaths from earthquakes

Alongside estimates of the number of earthquake events, the National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC) of the NOAA also publishes estimates of the number of deaths over this long-term series. In the chart below we see the estimated mortality numbers extending back to 1500.

These figures can be found for specific countries using the "change country" function in the bottom-left of the chart, or by selecting the "map" on the bottom right.

At the global level, we see that earthquake deaths have been a persistent human risk through time.

What were the world's deadliest earthquakes?

The number of people dying in natural disasters is lower today than it was in the past, and the world has become more resilient.

Earthquakes, however, can still claim a large number of lives. Whilst historically floods, droughts, and epidemics dominated disaster deaths, a high annual death toll now often results from a major earthquake and possibly a tsunami caused by them. Since 2000, the two peak years in annual death tolls (reaching 100s of thousands) were 2004 and 2010. Both events (the Sumatra earthquake and tsunami of 2004, and the Port-au-Prince earthquake in 2010) are in the deadliest earthquake rankings below.

What have been the most deadly earthquakes in human history? In the visualization, we have mapped the top 10 rankings of known earthquakes which resulted in the largest number of deaths. This ranking is based on mortality estimates from the NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center (NGDC).

Clicking on the visualization will open it in higher resolution. This ranking is also summarized in table form.

The most deadly earthquake in history was in Shaanxi, China in 1556. It's estimated to have killed 830,000 people. This is more than twice that of the second most fatal: the recent Port-au-Prince earthquake in Haiti in 2010. It's reported that 316,000 people died as a result.

Two very recent earthquakes - the Sumatra earthquake and tsunami of 2004, and the 2010 Port-au-Prince earthquake - feature amongst the most deadly in human history. But equally, some of the most fatal occurred in the very distant past. Making the top three was the earthquake in Antakya (Turkey) in the year 115. Both old and very recent features are near the top of the list. The deadly nature of earthquakes has been a persistent threat throughout our history.

Volcanoes

Number of significant volcanic eruptions

There are a large number of volcanoes across the world that are volcanically active but display little or only very low-level activity. In the map, we see the number of significant volcanic eruptions that occur in each country in a given year. A significant eruption is classified as one that meets at least one of the following criteria: caused fatalities, caused moderate damage (approximately $1 million or more), with a Volcanic Explosivity Index of 6 or larger, caused a tsunami, or was associated with a major earthquake.

Estimates of volcanic eruptions are available dating back as early as 1750 BCE, however, the data completeness for long historic events will be much lower than in the recent past.

Deaths from volcanic eruptions

In the visualization, we see the number of deaths from significant volcanic eruptions across the world. Using the timeline on the map we can see the frequency of volcanic activity deaths over time. If we look at deaths over the past century we see several high-impact events: the Nevado del Ruiz eruption in Colombia in 1985; the Mount Pelée eruption in Martinique in 1902; and the 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia.

Landslides

This visualization - sourced from the NASA Socioeconomic Data And Applications Center (SEDAC) - shows the distribution of mortality risk from landslides across the world. As we would expect, the risks of landslides are much greater close to highly mountainous regions with dense neighboring populations. This makes the mortality risk highest across the Andes region in South America, and the Himalayas across Asia.

Famines & Droughts

We cover the history of Famines in detail in our dedicated entry here. For this research, we assembled a global dataset on famines dating back to the 1860s.

In the visualization shown here, we see trends in drought severity in the United States. Given is the annual data of drought severity, plus the 9-year average. This is measured by the Palmer Drought Severity Index: the average moisture conditions observed between 1931 and 1990 at a given location are given an index value of zero. A positive value means conditions are wetter than average, while a negative value is drier than average. A value between -2 and -3 indicates moderate drought, -3 to -4 is severe drought, and -4 or below indicates extreme drought.

Hurricanes, Tornados, and Cyclones

Long-term trends in deaths from US weather events

Trends in the US provide some of the most complete data on impacts and deaths from weather events over time. This chart shows death rates from lightning and other weather events in the United States over time. Death rates are given as the number of deaths per million individuals. Over this period, we see that on average each has seen a significant decline in death rates. This is primarily the result of improved infrastructure and predicted and response systems to disaster events.

Intensity of North Atlantic Hurricanes

A key metric for assessing hurricane severity is their intensity and the power they carry. The visualizations here use two metrics to define this: the accumulated cyclone energy (ACE), an index that measures the activity of a cyclone season; and the power dissipation index of cyclones.

Extreme precipitation and flooding

Precipitation anomalies

In the visualization shown, we see the global precipitation anomaly each year; trends in the US-specific anomaly can be found here.

This precipitation anomaly is measured relative to the century average from 1901 to 2000. Positive values indicate a wetter year than normal; negative values indicate a drier year.

Also shown is US-specific data on the share of land area that experiences unusually high precipitation in any given year.

Precipitation extremes

We can look at precipitation anomalies over the course of the year, however, flooding events are often caused by intense rainfall over much shorter periods. Flooding events tend to occur when there is extremely high rainfall for hours or days.

The visualization here shows the extent of extreme one-day precipitation in the US. What we see is a general upward trend in the extent of extreme rainfall in recent decades.

Extreme Temperature (Heat & Cold)

Extreme temperature risks to human health and mortality can result from exposure to extreme heat and cold.

Heatwaves and high temperatures

In the visualizations shown here, we see long-term data on heatwaves and unusually high temperatures in the United States.

Overall we see there is significant year-to-year variability in the extent of heatwave events. What stands out over the past century of data was the 1936 North American heatwave - one of the most extreme heat wave events in modern history, which coincided with the Great Depression and Dust Bowl of the 1930s.

When we look at the trajectory of unusually high summer temperatures over time (defined as 'unusually high' in the context of historical records) we see an upward trend in recent decades.

Cold temperatures

Whilst we often focus on the heatwaves and warm temperatures in relation to weather extremes, extremely low temperatures can often have a high toll on human health and mortality. In the visualization here we show trends in the share of US land area experiencing unusually low winter temperatures. In recent years there appears to have been a declining trend in the extent of the US experiencing particularly cold winters.

Wildfires

US Wildfires

How are the frequency and extent of wildfires in the United States changing over time?

In the charts below we provide three overviews: the number of wildfires, the total acres burned, and the average acres burned per wildfire. This data is shown from 1983 onwards when comparable data recording began.

Over the past 30-35 years we notice three general trends in the charts below (although there is significant year-to-year variability):

on average, the annual number of wildfires has not changed much;

on average, the total acres burned has increased from the 1980s and 1990s into the 21st century;

The combination of these two factors suggests that the average number of acres burned per wildfire has increased.

There has been significant media coverage of the long-run statistics of US wildfires reported by the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). The original statistics are available back to the year 1926. When we look at this long-term series it suggests there has been a significant decline in acres burned over the past century. However, the NIFC explicitly states:
Prior to 1983, sources of these figures were not known, or could not be confirmed, and were not derived from the current situation reporting process. As a result, the figures prior to 1983 should not be compared to later data.
Representatives from the NIFC have again confirmed (see the Carbon Brief's coverage here) that these historic statistics are not comparable to those since 1983. The lack of reliable methods of measurement and reporting means some historical statistics may in fact be double or triple-counted in national statistics.

This means we cannot compare the recent data below with old, historic records. But it also doesn't confirm that acres burned today are higher than in the first half of the 20th century. Historically, fires were an often-used method of clearing land for agriculture, for example. It's not implausible to expect that wildfires of the past may have been larger than today but the available data is not reliable enough to confirm this.

Lightning

Long-term trends in US lightning strikes

This chart shows the declining death rate due to lightning strikes in the US. In the first decade of the 20th century, the average annual rate of deaths was 4.5 per million people in the US. In the first 15 years of the 21st century, the death rate had declined to an average of 0.12 deaths per million. This is a 37-fold reduction in the likelihood of being killed by lightning in the US.

Lightning strikes across the world

The map here shows the distribution of lightning strikes across the world. This is given as the lightning strike density - the average number of strikes per square kilometer each year. In particular, we see the high frequency of strikes across the Equatorial regions, especially across central Africa.

Global disaster costs

Natural disasters not only have devastating impacts in terms of the loss of human life but can also cause severe destruction with economic costs. When we look at global economic costs over time in absolute terms we tend to see rising costs. But, importantly, the world - and most countries - have also gotten richer. Global gross domestic product has increased more than four-fold since 1970. We might therefore expect that for any given disaster, the absolute economic costs could be higher than in the past.

A more appropriate metric to compare economic costs over time is to look at them in relation to GDP. This is the indicator adopted by all countries as part of the UN Sustainable Development Goals to monitor progress on resilience to disaster costs.

In the chart, we see global direct disaster losses given as a share of GDP.

Disaster costs by country

Since economic losses from disasters in relation to GDP is the indicator adopted by all countries within the UN Sustainable Development Goals, this data is also now reported for each country.

The map shows direct disaster costs for each country as a share of its GDP. Here we see large variations by country. This data can be found in absolute terms here.

One of the major successes over the past century has been the dramatic decline in global deaths from natural disasters - this is despite the fact that the human population has increased rapidly over this period.

Behind this improvement has been the improvement in living standards; access to and development of resilient infrastructure; and effective response systems. These factors have been driven by an increase in incomes across the world.

What remains true today is that populations in low-income countries - those where a large percentage of the population still lives in extreme poverty or score low on the Human Development Index - are more vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters.

We see this effect in the visualization shown. This chart shows the death rates from natural disasters - the number of deaths per 100,000 population - of countries grouped by their socio-demographic index (SDI). SDI is a metric of development, where low SDI denotes countries with low standards of living.

What we see is that the large spikes in death rates occur almost exclusively for countries with a low or low-middle SDI. Highly developed countries are much more resilient to disaster events and therefore have a consistently low death rate from natural disasters.

Note that this does not mean low-income countries have high death tolls from disasters year-to-year: the data here shows that in most years they also have very low death rates. But when low-frequency, high-impact events do occur they are particularly vulnerable to its effects.

Overall development, poverty alleviation, and knowledge-sharing of how to increase resilience to natural disasters will therefore be key to reducing the toll of disasters in the decades to come.

Hurricanes, cyclones & typhoons

There are multiple terms used to describe extreme weather events: hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones, and tornadoes. What is the difference between these terms, and how are they defined?

The terms hurricane, cyclone, and typhoon all refer to the same thing; they can be used interchangeably. Hurricanes and typhoons are both described as the weather phenomenon 'tropical cyclone'. A tropical cyclone is a weather event that originates over tropical or subtropical waters and results in a rotating, organized system of clouds and thunderstorms. Its circulation patterns should be closed and low-level.

The choice of terminology is location-specific and depends on where the storm originates. The term hurricane is used to describe a tropical cyclone that originates in the North Atlantic, central North Pacific, and eastern North Pacific. When it originates in the Northwest Pacific, we call it a typhoon. In the South Pacific and Indian Ocean the general term tropical cyclone is used.

In other words, the only difference between a hurricane and a typhoon is where it occurs.

When does a storm become a hurricane?

The characteristics of a hurricane are described in detail on the NASA website.

A hurricane evolves from a tropical disturbance or storm based on a threshold of wind speed.

A tropical disturbance arises over warm ocean waters. It can grow into a tropical depression which is an area of rotating thunderstorms with winds up to 62 kilometers (38 miles) per hour. From there, a depression evolves into a tropical storm if its wind speed reaches 63 km/hr (39 mph).

Finally, a hurricane is formed when a tropical storm reaches a wind speed of 119 km/hr (74 mph).

Difference between hurricanes and tornadoes

But, hurricanes/typhoons/cyclones are distinctly different from tornadoes.

Whilst hurricanes and tornadoes have a characteristic circulatory wind pattern, they are very different weather systems. The main difference between the systems is scale (tornadoes are small-scale circulatory systems; hurricanes are large-scale). These differences are highlighted in the table below:

Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI)

The intensity or size of volcanic eruptions is most commonly defined by a metric termed the 'volcanic explosivity index (VEI)'. The VEI is derived based on the erupted mass or deposit of an eruption. The scale for VEI was outlined by Newhall & Self (1982) but is now commonly adopted in geophysical reporting.

The table below provides a summary (from the NOAA's National Geophysical Data Center) of the characteristics of eruptions of different VEI values. A 'Significant Volcanic Eruption' is often defined as an eruption with a VEI value of 6 or greater. Historic eruptions that were definitely explosive, but carry no other descriptive information are assigned a default VEI of 2.

Number of reported disaster events

A key issue of data quality is the consistency of even reporting over time. For long-term trends in natural disaster events, we know that reporting and recording of events today is much more advanced and complete than in the past. This can lead to significant underreporting or uncertainty of events in the distant past. In the chart here we show data on the number of reported natural disasters over time.

This change over time can be influenced by several factors, namely the increased coverage of reporting over time. The increase over time is therefore not directly reflective of the actual trend in disaster events.

Number of reported disasters by type

This same data is shown here as the number of reported disaster events by type. Again, the incompleteness of historical data can lead to significant underreporting in the past. The increase over time is therefore not directly reflective of the actual trend in disaster events.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Where and from which disasters do people die? What can we do to prevent deaths from natural disasters?

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
Are there positive benefits from global warming?

# data[].attributes.body
Also, studies show that, up to a certain point, crops and other plants grow better in the presence of higher carbon dioxide levels and seem to be more drought-tolerant. [1] But this benefit is a two-edged sword: weeds, many invasive plant species, and insect pests will also thrive in a warmer world.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Yes, there will probably be some short-term and long-term benefits from global warming. For example, the flip side of increased mortality from heat waves may be decreased mortality from cold waves.

In the short term, farmers in some regions may benefit from the earlier onset of spring and from a longer warm season that is suitable for growing crops. Also, studies show that, up to a certain point, crops and other plants grow better in the presence of higher carbon dioxide levels and seem to be more drought-tolerant. [1] But this benefit is a two-edged sword: weeds, many invasive plant species, and insect pests will also thrive in a warmer world. Water availability will be impacted in drier agricultural areas that need irrigation. At some point, the benefits to crops of increased carbon dioxide will likely be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of heat stress and drought.

In the long term, shipping commerce will benefit from the opening of the Northwest Passage for longer periods of the year due to the loss of Arctic sea ice. However, in the long run, if a "business as usual" approach to emitting heat-trapping gases is maintained at the present rate, or faster, then the negative costs and impacts of global warming are very likely to far outweigh the benefits over the course of this century, with increased potential for catastrophic impacts from more extreme events. [17] In part, this is because any substantial change, whether warmer or colder, would challenge the societal infrastructure that has developed under the current climate.

References

IPCC (2012): Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.

USGCRP (2017). Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume 1 [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., D. Jacob, M. Taylor, M. Bindi, S. Brown, I. Camilloni, A. Diedhiou, R. Djalante, K.L. Ebi, F. Engelbrecht, J.Guiot, Y. Hijioka, S. Mehrotra, A. Payne, S.I. Seneviratne, A. Thomas, R. Warren, and G. Zhou. (2018). Impacts of 1.5°C Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W.

Yes, there will probably be some short-term and long-term benefits from global warming. For example, the flip side of increased mortality from heat waves may be decreased mortality from cold waves.

In the short term, farmers in some regions may benefit from the earlier onset of spring and from a longer warm season that is suitable for growing crops. Also, studies show that, up to a certain point, crops and other plants grow better in the presence of higher carbon dioxide levels and seem to be more drought-tolerant. [1] But this benefit is a two-edged sword: weeds, many invasive plant species, and insect pests will also thrive in a warmer world. Water availability will be impacted in drier agricultural areas that need irrigation. At some point, the benefits to crops of increased carbon dioxide will likely be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of heat stress and drought.

In the long term, shipping commerce will benefit from the opening of the Northwest Passage for longer periods of the year due to the loss of Arctic sea ice. However, in the long run, if a "business as usual" approach to emitting heat-trapping gases is maintained at the present rate, or faster, then the negative costs and impacts of global warming are very likely to far outweigh the benefits over the course of this century, with increased potential for catastrophic impacts from more extreme events. [17] In part, this is because any substantial change, whether warmer or colder, would challenge the societal infrastructure that has developed under the current climate.

References

IPCC (2012): Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation. A Special Report of Working Groups I and II of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V. Barros, T.F. Stocker, D. Qin, D.J. Dokken, K.L. Ebi, M.D. Mastrandrea, K.J. Mach, G.-K. Plattner, S.K. Allen, M. Tignor, and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA, 582 pp.

USGCRP (2017). Climate Science Special Report: Fourth National Climate Assessment, Volume 1 [Wuebbles, D.J., D.W. Fahey, K.A. Hibbard, D.J. Dokken, B.C. Stewart, and T.K. Maycock (eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O., D. Jacob, M. Taylor, M. Bindi, S. Brown, I. Camilloni, A. Diedhiou, R. Djalante, K.L. Ebi, F. Engelbrecht, J.Guiot, Y. Hijioka, S. Mehrotra, A. Payne, S.I. Seneviratne, A. Thomas, R. Warren, and G. Zhou. (2018). Impacts of 1.5°C Global Warming on Natural and Human Systems. In: Global Warming of 1.5°C. An IPCC Special Report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels and related global greenhouse gas emission pathways, in the context of strengthening the global response to the threat of climate change, sustainable development, and efforts to eradicate poverty. [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, H.-O. Pörtner, D. Roberts, J. Skea, P.R. Shukla, A. Pirani, W.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are there positive benefits from global warming?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Yes, there will probably be some short-term and long-term benefits from global warming. For example, the flip side of increased mortality from heat waves may be decreased mortality from cold waves. In the short term, farmers in some regions may benefit from the earlier onset of spring and from a longer warm season that is suitable for growing crops.

# data[].attributes.headline
Climate change affects both existing and future jobs.

# data[].attributes.subject
Climate change affects both existing and future jobs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Chad, Somalia and Syria are currently dealing with extreme heat.

# data[].attributes.subject
Chad, Somalia and Syria are currently dealing with extreme heat.

# data[].attributes.headline
1% of people use electric cars, 0.54% of people only bike, and 9% of people try to walk when possible.

# data[].attributes.subject
1% of people use electric cars, 0.54% of people only bike, and 9% of people try to walk when possible.

# data[].attributes.headline
Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.11° Fahrenheit (0.06° Celsius) per decade since 1850, or about 2° F in total.

# data[].attributes.subject
Earth’s temperature has risen by an average of 0.11° Fahrenheit (0.06° Celsius) per decade since 1850, or about 2° F in total.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
What the data says about Americans’ views of climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A recent report from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has underscored the need for international action to avoid increasingly severe climate impacts in the years to come. Steps outlined in the report, and by climate experts, include major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from sectors such as energy production and transportation.

But how do Americans feel about climate change, and what steps do they think the United States should take to address it? Here are eight charts that illustrate Americans' views on the issue, based on recent Pew Research Center surveys.

Pew Research Center published this collection of survey findings as part of its ongoing work to understand attitudes about climate change and energy issues. The most recent survey was conducted May 30-June 4, 2023, among 10,329 U.S. adults. Earlier findings have been previously published, and methodological information, including the sample sizes and field dates, can be found by following the links in the text.

Everyone who took part in the June 2023 survey is a member of the Center's American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way, nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the ATP's methodology.

Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology.

A majority of Americans support prioritizing the development of renewable energy sources. Two-thirds of U.S. adults say the country should prioritize developing renewable energy sources, such as wind and solar, over expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas, according to a survey conducted in June 2023.

In a previous Center survey conducted in 2022, nearly the same share of Americans (69%) favored the U.S. taking steps to become carbon neutral by 2050, a goal outlined by President Joe Biden at the outset of his administration. Carbon neutrality means releasing no more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than is removed.

Nine-in-ten Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say the U.S. should prioritize developing alternative energy sources to address America's energy supply. Among Republicans and Republican leaners, 42% support developing alternative energy sources, while 58% say the country should prioritize expanding exploration and production of oil, coal and natural gas.

There are important differences by age within the GOP. Two-thirds of Republicans under age 30 (67%) prioritize the development of alternative energy sources. By contrast, 75% of Republicans ages 65 and older prioritize expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas.

Americans are reluctant to phase out fossil fuels altogether, but younger adults are more open to it. Overall, about three-in-ten adults (31%) say the U.S. should completely phase out oil, coal and natural gas. More than twice as many (68%) say the country should use a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels and renewables.

While the public is generally reluctant to phase out fossil fuels altogether, younger adults are more supportive of this idea. Among Americans ages 18 to 29, 48% say the U.S. should exclusively use renewables, compared with 52% who say the U.S. should use a mix of energy sources, including fossil fuels.

There are age differences within both political parties on this question. Among Democrats and Democratic leaners, 58% of those ages 18 to 29 favor phasing out fossil fuels entirely, compared with 42% of Democrats 65 and older. Republicans of all age groups back continuing to use a mix of energy sources, including oil, coal and natural gas. However, about three-in-ten (29%) Republicans ages 18 to 29 say the U.S. should phase out fossil fuels altogether, compared with fewer than one-in-ten Republicans 50 and older.

There are multiple potential routes to carbon neutrality in the U.S. All involve major reductions to carbon emissions in sectors such as energy and transportation by increasing the use of things like wind and solar power and electric vehicles. There are also ways to potentially remove carbon from the atmosphere and store it, such as capturing it directly from the air or using trees and algae to facilitate carbon sequestration.

The public supports the federal government incentivizing wind and solar energy production. In many sectors, including energy and transportation, federal incentives and regulations significantly influence investment and development.

Two-thirds of Americans think the federal government should encourage domestic production of wind and solar power. Just 7% say the government should discourage this, while 26% think it should neither encourage nor discourage it.

Views are more mixed on how the federal government should approach other activities that would reduce carbon emissions. On balance, more Americans think the government should encourage than discourage the use of electric vehicles and nuclear power production, though sizable shares say it should not exert an influence either way.

When it comes to oil and gas drilling, Americans' views are also closely divided: 34% think the government should encourage drilling, while 30% say it should discourage this and 35% say it should do neither. Coal mining is the one activity included in the survey where public sentiment is negative on balance: More say the federal government should discourage than encourage coal mining (39% vs. 21%), while 39% say it should do neither.

Americans see room for multiple actors - including corporations and the federal government - to do more to address the impacts of climate change. Two-thirds of adults say large businesses and corporations are doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change. Far fewer say they are doing about the right amount (21%) or too much (10%).

Majorities also say their state elected officials (58%) and the energy industry (55%) are doing too little to address climate change, according to a March 2023 survey.

In a separate Center survey conducted in June 2023, a similar share of Americans (56%) said the federal government should do more to reduce the effects of global climate change.

When it comes to their own efforts, about half of Americans (51%) think they are doing about the right amount as an individual to help reduce the effects of climate change, according to the March 2023 survey. However, about four-in-ten (43%) say they are doing too little.

Democrats and Republicans have grown further apart over the last decade in their assessments of the threat posed by climate change. Overall, a majority of U.S. adults (54%) describe climate change as a major threat to the country's well-being. This share is down slightly from 2020 but remains higher than in the early 2010s.

Nearly eight-in-ten Democrats (78%) describe climate change as a major threat to the country's well-being, up from about six-in-ten (58%) a decade ago. By contrast, about one-in-four Republicans (23%) consider climate change a major threat, a share that's almost identical to 10 years ago.

Concern over climate change has also risen internationally, as shown by separate Pew Research Center polling across 19 countries in 2022. People in many advanced economies express higher levels of concern than Americans. For instance, 81% of French adults and 73% of Germans describe climate change as a major threat.

Climate change is a lower priority for Americans than other national issues. While a majority of adults view climate change as a major threat, it is a lower priority than issues such as strengthening the economy and reducing health care costs.

Overall, 37% of Americans say addressing climate change should be a top priority for the president and Congress in 2023, and another 34% say it's an important but lower priority. This ranks climate change 17th out of 21 national issues included in a Center survey from January.

As with views of the threat that climate change poses, there's a striking contrast between how Republicans and Democrats prioritize the issue. For Democrats, it falls in the top half of priority issues, and 59% call it a top priority. By comparison, among Republicans, it ranks second to last, and just 13% describe it as a top priority.

Our analyses have found that partisan gaps on climate change are often widest on questions - such as this one - that measure the salience or importance of the issue. The gaps are more modest when it comes to some specific climate policies. For example, majorities of Republicans and Democrats alike say they would favor a proposal to provide a tax credit to businesses for developing technologies for carbon capture and storage.

Perceptions of local climate impacts vary by Americans' political affiliation and whether they believe that climate change is a serious problem. A majority of Americans (61%) say that global climate change is affecting their local community either a great deal or some. About four-in-ten (39%) see little or no impact in their own community.

The perception that the effects of climate change are happening close to home is one factor that could drive public concern and calls for action on the issue. But perceptions are tied more strongly to people's beliefs about climate change - and their partisan affiliation - than to local conditions.

For example, Americans living in the Pacific region - California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii and Alaska - are more likely than those in other areas of the country to say that climate change is having a great deal of impact locally. But only Democrats in the Pacific region are more likely to say they are seeing effects of climate change where they live. Republicans in this region are no more likely than Republicans in other areas to say that climate change is affecting their local community.

Our previous surveys show that nearly all Democrats believe climate change is at least a somewhat serious problem, and a large majority believe that humans play a role in it. Republicans are much less likely to hold these beliefs, but views within the GOP do vary significantly by age and ideology. Younger Republicans and those who describe their views as moderate or liberal are much more likely than older and more conservative Republicans to describe climate change as at least a somewhat serious problem and to say human activity plays a role.

Democrats are also more likely than Republicans to report experiencing extreme weather events in their area over the past year - such as intense storms and floods, long periods of hot weather or droughts - and to see these events as connected with climate change.

About three-quarters of Americans support U.S. participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change. Americans offer broad support for international engagement on climate change: 74% say they support U.S. participation in international efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.

Still, there's little consensus on how current U.S. efforts stack up against those of other large economies. About one-in-three Americans (36%) think the U.S. is doing more than other large economies to reduce the effects of global climate change, while 30% say the U.S. is doing less than other large economies and 32% think it is doing about as much as others. The U.S. is the second-largest carbon dioxide emitter, contributing about 13.5% of the global total.

When asked what they think the right balance of responsibility is, a majority of Americans (56%) say the U.S. should do about as much as other large economies to reduce the effects of climate change, while 27% think it should do more than others.

A previous Center survey found that while Americans favor international cooperation on climate change in general terms, their support has its limits. In January 2022, 59% of Americans said that the U.S. does not have a responsibility to provide financial assistance to developing countries to help them build renewable energy sources.

In recent years, the UN conference on climate change has grappled with how wealthier nations should assist developing countries in dealing with climate change. The most recent convening in fall 2022, known as COP27, established a "loss and damage" fund for vulnerable countries impacted by climate change.
Note: This is an update of a post originally published April 22, 2022. Here are the questions used for this analysis, along with responses, and its methodology.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What the data says about Americans' views of climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two-thirds of Americans say the United States should prioritize developing renewable energy sources over expanding the production of fossil fuels.

# data[].attributes.headline
Corals. ...Chinook salmon. ...Green sea turtle. ...Polar bear. ...Adélie penguin. ...Bumblebee. ...Whales….asian elephant ….. . Sharks …. 

# data[].attributes.subject
Corals. ...Chinook salmon. ...Green sea turtle. ...Polar bear. ...Adélie penguin. ...Bumblebee. ...Whales….asian elephant ….. . Sharks …. 

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.ifaw.org/journal/animals-most-impacted-climate-change

# data[].attributes.headline
With increasing global surface temperatures the possibility of more droughts and increased intensity of storms will likely occur

# data[].attributes.subject
With increasing global surface temperatures the possibility of more droughts and increased intensity of storms will likely occur

# data[].attributes.body
The Arctic Is most impacted.

# data[].attributes.attachment_caption
11 Arctic species affected by climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
11 Arctic species affected by climate change

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Climate change affects us all, but the Arctic is "ground zero". Here are the stories of some of the species on the front line of climate change.

# data[].attributes.headline
The ozone layer, which lies high in the atmosphere, shields us from harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays that come from the Sun. Human activities effectively punched a hole in it, through the use of gases like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in spray cans and refrigerants, which break down ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.subject
The ozone layer, which lies high in the atmosphere, shields us from harmful ultraviolet (UV) rays that come from the Sun. Human activities effectively punched a hole in it, through the use of gases like chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in spray cans and refrigerants, which break down ozone molecules in the upper atmosphere.

# data[].attributes.body
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-the-ozone-hole-causing-climate-change/