# data[].attributes.body
October 31, 2019

Keystone pipeline spills more than 350,000 gallons of oil in North Dakota

By Owen Daugherty

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Keystone pipeline has spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into North Dakota this week, The New York Times reports.

The pipeline has leaked roughly 383,000 gallons of crude oil, impacting an estimated half-acre of wetland, according to state environmental regulators.

The leak has been contained, according to Karl Rockeman, the director of the state Department of Environmental Quality's division of water quality.

"It is one of the larger spills in the state," he told the Times.

He added that there are no homes near the site of the spill and the wetland that was impacted is not a source of drinking water. Pipeline owner TC Energy shut down the pipeline after the leak was detected.

Rockeman did not indicate whether cleanup of the spill had begun yet.

In a statement to the Times, TC Energy said it did not know the cause of the leak and that an internal investigation is underway.

"We are establishing air quality, water and wildlife monitoring and will continue monitoring throughout the response," the statement reads.

The Hill has reached out to TC Energy for comment.

An addition to the pipeline, which carries crude oil from Canada through seven states, was at the center of prolonged environmental protests.

The incident occurred along a part of the existing Keystone pipeline system, not the 1,179-mile addition known as the Keystone XL pipeline, Rockeman noted.

President Trump Donald John Trump US reimposes UN sanctions on Iran amid increasing tensions Jeff Flake: Republicans 'should hold the same position' on SCOTUS vacancy as 2016 Trump supporters chant 'Fill that seat' at North Carolina rally MORE , just days into his term, opened the door for TC Energy to continue its construction of the pipeline extension after former President Obama denied it a permit in 2015.

This is not the first oil spill along the Keystone pipeline system; an incident in 2017 caused more than 407,000 gallons of crude oil to cover agricultural land in South Dakota in a rural area near the North Dakota border.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keystone pipeline spills more than 350,000 gallons of oil in North Dakota

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Keystone pipeline has spilled hundreds of thousands of gallons of crude oil into North Dakota this week, The New York Times reports. The pipeline has leaked roughly 383,000 gallons of crude oil, impacting an estimated half-acre of wetland, according to state environmental regulators.

# data[].attributes.body
November 11, 2019

Scientists rediscover mammalian oddity in remote Vietnam

by Jeremy Hance

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Scientists rediscover mammalian oddity in remote Vietnam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
VIETNAM, July 2019 - I'm chasing a ghost, I think not for the first time, as night falls and I gather up my gear in a hotel in a village in southern Vietnam. I pack my camera, a bottle of water, and a poncho; outside the window I can see a light rain.

# data[].attributes.body
Nov. 20, 2019

Bangladesh could be the first to cultivate Golden Rice, genetically altered to fight blindness

By Erik Stokstad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Soon. That has long been scientists' answer when asked about the approval of Golden Rice, a genetically modified (GM) crop that could help prevent childhood blindness and deaths in the developing world. Ever since Golden Rice first made headlines nearly 20 years ago, it has been a flashpoint in debates over GM crops. Advocates touted it as an example of their potential benefit to humanity, while opponents of transgenic crops criticized it as a risky and unnecessary approach to improve health in the developing world.

Now, Bangladesh appears about to become the first country to approve Golden Rice for planting. "It is really important to say we got this over the line," says Johnathan Napier, a plant biotechnologist at Rothamsted Research in Harpenden, U.K., who was not involved in the crop's development. He says approval would show that agricultural biotechnology can be successfully developed by publicly funded research centers for the public good. Still, environmental groups haven't dropped their opposition-and the first harvest isn't expected until at least 2021. And more research will be needed to show the extent of real-world benefits from Golden Rice.

Golden Rice was developed in the late 1990s by German plant scientists Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer to combat vitamin A deficiency, the leading cause of childhood blindness. Low levels of vitamin A also contribute to deaths from infectious diseases such as measles. Spinach, sweet potato, and other vegetables supply ample amounts of the vitamin, but in some countries, particularly those where rice is a major part of the diet, vitamin A deficiency is still widespread; in Bangladesh it affects about 21% of children.

To create Golden Rice, Potrykus and Beyer collaborated with agrochemical giant Syngenta to equip the plant with beta-carotene genes from maize. They donated their transgenic plants to public-sector agricultural institutes, paving the way for other researchers to breed the golden rice genes into varieties that suit local tastes and growing conditions.

Over the past 2 years, regulators in the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia approved Golden Rice for consumption. There are no plans to grow the crop in these countries, but approval will prevent problems if Golden Rice somehow accidentally turns up in food supplies.

The Golden Rice under review in Bangladesh was created at the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) in Los Baños, Philippines. Researchers bred the beta-carotene genes into a rice variety named dhan 29, which is grown widely during the dry season in Bangladesh and contributes about 14% of the national harvest. In tests of dhan 29 Golden Rice at multiple locations, researchers at the Bangladesh Rice Research Institute (BRRI) in Gazipur found no new farming challenges and no significant differences in quality-except for the presence of vitamin A.

BRRI submitted data to the Bangladeshi Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change in November 2017. The Biosafety Core Committee, a group of eight officials and scientists, has since been reviewing environmental risks, such as the plant's potential to become a weed, as well as food safety. The review is nearing completion; on 28 October, the Dhaka Tribune reported that a decision would be made by 15 November.

That date has come and gone; the holdup appears to be due to the death of a committee member. But a source familiar with the committee's deliberations says some members remain skeptical of Golden Rice, wondering for example why it is needed when people could also eat more vegetables.

Proponents are optimistic, however. The scientific evidence is strong, the committee previously approved another transgenic crop, and Golden Rice enjoys high-level political support in Bangladesh, they say. "We are hopeful that Golden Rice might get the green light soon," says Arif Hossain, director of Farming Future Bangladesh in Dhaka, which is funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to inform policymakers and others about biotechnology.

After the environment ministry signs off, Golden Rice must be registered by a seed certification agency within the Ministry of Agriculture, which requires field trials in multiple places to test for seed quality. If all goes smoothly, farmers might have Golden Rice seed to plant by 2021.

How popular it will be is uncertain. Farmers in Bangladesh quickly adopted an eggplant variety engineered to kill certain insect pests after its 2014 introduction, but that crop offered an immediate benefit: Farmers need fewer insecticides. Golden Rice's health benefits will emerge more slowly, says agricultural economist Justus Wesseler of Wageningen University & Research in the Netherlands, so adoption may be slower as well. The government may need to promote Golden Rice and, Hossain says, even subsidize farmers to grow it.

Consumer acceptance may be another challenge, given the golden hue, says Sherry Tanumihardjo, who studies vitamin A and global health at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. "People have a difficult time changing the color of food they eat," and many people in Bangladesh prefer to eat white rice. On the other hand, cooked Golden Rice resembles khichuri, a popular dish of rice and lentils cooked with turmeric, which may increase its appeal. With Gates Foundation support, IRRI and BRRI are developing a strategy for directing farmers' harvest to rural regions and cities with high poverty and malnutrition rates.

Opposition from nongovernmental organizations could still hobble the introduction. Last month, two groups in Bangladesh-the Agricultural Farm Labour Federation and the National Women Farmers & Workers Association-called for a ban on both Golden Rice and transgenic eggplant.

If Golden Rice does make inroads in Bangladesh, additional varieties better adapted to other seasons or locations may follow. Bred at BRRI, they are now in greenhouse trials. Like all local versions of Golden Rice, these varieties were created not with genetic engineering, but by traditional backcrossing, so they will likely not need biosafety approval. "There will be no problem for a year-round supply of biofortified rice," says Partha Biswas, a plant breeder at BRRI.

But for now, all eyes are on dhan 29. "It would be great to see it approved," Napier says. "It's been a long time coming."

Erik is a reporter at Science, covering environmental issues.

More from News

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Bangladesh could be the first to cultivate Golden Rice, genetically altered to fight blindness

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Soon. That has long been scientists' answer when asked about the approval of Golden Rice, a genetically modified (GM) crop that could help prevent childhood blindness and deaths in the developing world. Ever since Golden Rice first made headlines nearly 20 years ago, it has been a flashpoint in debates over GM crops.

# data[].attributes.body
September 14, 2020

At least 35 people have died in the West Coast wildfires

From CNN's Hollie Silverman

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Millions of acres in the western United States continue to burn as a result of nearly 90 large wildfires.

There are 87 active large fires that have burned more than 4.6 million acres in 10 states, according to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC).

California has the most fires with at least 25, the NIFC said.

Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee strongly criticized President Trump on Monday in an open letter after the President's visit to the West Coast to discuss wildfires ravaging multiple states.

"Your refusal to address climate change - and your active steps to enable even more carbon pollution - will accelerate devastating wildfires like those you're seeing today," Inslee wrote in a Medium post.

Trump was part of a meeting earlier in the day, and dismissed a mention of hotter temperatures playing a key role in the wildfires. "It'll start getting cooler," Trump told state officials. "You just watch."

"That is false," Inslee responded in the open letter. "This abandonment of leadership has once again left the states on their own to fight this existential threat to our people."

"Climate change is doing more damage to our communities faster than anyone thought," Inslee added.

Nearly two dozen people are unaccounted for in Oregon's devastating wildfires.

"As of today, there have been 22 individuals reported missing associated with these fires," Emergency Management Director Andrew Phelps said Monday.

"If you're concerned for missing family, please report that concern to the local law enforcement entity," Phelps added.

He also encouraged people who are evacuating to register with the American Red Cross so that officials and loved ones will know that they are safe.

Anderson Cooper talks to Oregon family who escaped a wildfire

CNN's Anderson Cooper talks to a family who escaped a wildfire in Oregon on today's Full Circle, which starts at 6 p.m. ET.

Allison Hargett, her husband Tyler, and their 6-year-old daughter Lilly were camping at Detroit Lake State Park in Oregon last Tuesday when they received evacuation orders stemming from the Beachie Creek Fire. As they fled the fire, their vehicle ran out of gas.

Cooper will also talk to CNN's Kyung Lah about California's devastating wildfires.

Watch the full episode of Anderson Cooper Full Circle:

Ten people have died in the state of Oregon as a result of wildfires, according to Gov. Kate Brown.

The deaths were confirmed by the state medical examiner, the governor said.

Brown said they are also asking for federal assistance to deal with the fires.

"I sent a letter to the President asking that he declare a major disaster in the state of Oregon," she said in a news conference.

USPS closes some post offices because of the wildfires

The United States Postal Service has temporarily closed some post offices in California, Oregon and Washington because of the wildfires along the US West Coast.

USPS made the announcement on Twitter.

The announcement comes as some states begin the process of sending out mail-in ballots ahead of the November election. Election officials are bracing for historic levels of voting by mail as the coronavirus pandemic continues to grip the country.

The National Women's Soccer League match between Portland Thorns FC and OL Reign scheduled for tomorrow night has been postponed until Sept. 30.

The decision was made following concerns about air quality in Portland, caused by wildfires in Oregon.

Three major US cities now have the worst air quality of any big cities in the world thanks to the smoke from massive wildfires, according to a monitoring group.

Portland, Seattle and San Francisco have the worst air quality of any major cities around the world, according to IQAir, a group which tracks global air quality. But things are even worse outside of the big cities, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's own air quality index trackers.

Large swathes of Oregon, Washington state and even parts of British Columbia in Canada, are experiencing "hazardous" air quality. The EPA says the air quality in Salem, Oregon's capital, is so bad that people need to stay indoors and reduce activity levels.

Ahead of his meeting to discuss the ongoing forest fires in California, President Trump declined to say that climate change is playing a role in the destructive wildfires taking place across the west coast.

Trump was asked on the airport tarmac on Monday what role climate change was playing in the fires, answering, "Well I think this is more of a management situation. If you look at other countries, if you go to other countries in Europe, Austria, Finland and numerous countries, I talk to the heads. They're forest nations. They're in forests and they don't have problems like this. They have very explosive trees, but they don't have problems like this."

The President also suggested that other nations need to take responsibility for their levels of pollution more than the US, because the US is "just a small speck."

"When you get into climate change, well, is India gonna change its ways? And is China gonna change its ways? And Russia? Is Russia gonna change its ways? So, you have a lot of countries that are going to have to change, because they make up, we're just a small speck. They make up a big preponderance of the pollution and so you have to get them to do it. And nobody ever talks about that," Trump said.

When asked if California has a climate change issue, Trump said he didn't want to step on the toes of California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Newsom declared Friday that the debate over climate change is over, saying, "We are in the midst of a climate emergency. We are in the midst of a climate crisis. We are experiencing weather conditions the likes of which we've never experienced in our lifetime."

What you need to know

The latest: At least 35 people have died in the West Coast wildfires, including 24 in California, 10 in Oregon and a child in Washington state.

The forecast: Weather conditions are not scheduled to improve any time soon as high winds of up to 40 mph are forecast in the coming days in parts of California.

What's behind this fire season: Both California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti have attributed the intensity of this season's fires to climate change.

"Climate change is doing more damage to our communities faster than anyone thought," Inslee added.

"As of today, there have been 22 individuals reported missing associated with these fires," Emergency Management Director Andrew Phelps said Monday.

Anderson Cooper talks to Oregon family who escaped a wildfire

USPS closes some post offices because of the wildfires

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
By Mike Hayes and Meg Wagner, CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millions of acres in the western United States continue to burn as a result of nearly 90 large wildfires. There are 87 active large fires that have burned more than 4.6 million acres in 10 states, according to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). California has the most fires with at least 25, the NIFC said.

# data[].attributes.body
September 14, 2020

Climate crisis intensified the West Coast fire season, officials say — and scientists say it could get worse

From CNN's Drew Kann and Brandon Miller

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Millions of acres in the western United States continue to burn as a result of nearly 90 large wildfires.

There are 87 active large fires that have burned more than 4.6 million acres in 10 states, according to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC).

California has the most fires with at least 25, the NIFC said.

Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee strongly criticized President Trump on Monday in an open letter after the President's visit to the West Coast to discuss wildfires ravaging multiple states.

"Your refusal to address climate change - and your active steps to enable even more carbon pollution - will accelerate devastating wildfires like those you're seeing today," Inslee wrote in a Medium post.

Trump was part of a meeting earlier in the day, and dismissed a mention of hotter temperatures playing a key role in the wildfires. "It'll start getting cooler," Trump told state officials. "You just watch."

"That is false," Inslee responded in the open letter. "This abandonment of leadership has once again left the states on their own to fight this existential threat to our people."

"Climate change is doing more damage to our communities faster than anyone thought," Inslee added.

Nearly two dozen people are unaccounted for in Oregon's devastating wildfires.

"As of today, there have been 22 individuals reported missing associated with these fires," Emergency Management Director Andrew Phelps said Monday.

"If you're concerned for missing family, please report that concern to the local law enforcement entity," Phelps added.

He also encouraged people who are evacuating to register with the American Red Cross so that officials and loved ones will know that they are safe.

Anderson Cooper talks to Oregon family who escaped a wildfire

CNN's Anderson Cooper talks to a family who escaped a wildfire in Oregon on today's Full Circle, which starts at 6 p.m. ET.

Allison Hargett, her husband Tyler, and their 6-year-old daughter Lilly were camping at Detroit Lake State Park in Oregon last Tuesday when they received evacuation orders stemming from the Beachie Creek Fire. As they fled the fire, their vehicle ran out of gas.

Cooper will also talk to CNN's Kyung Lah about California's devastating wildfires.

Watch the full episode of Anderson Cooper Full Circle:

Ten people have died in the state of Oregon as a result of wildfires, according to Gov. Kate Brown.

The deaths were confirmed by the state medical examiner, the governor said.

Brown said they are also asking for federal assistance to deal with the fires.

"I sent a letter to the President asking that he declare a major disaster in the state of Oregon," she said in a news conference.

USPS closes some post offices because of the wildfires

The United States Postal Service has temporarily closed some post offices in California, Oregon and Washington because of the wildfires along the US West Coast.

USPS made the announcement on Twitter.

The announcement comes as some states begin the process of sending out mail-in ballots ahead of the November election. Election officials are bracing for historic levels of voting by mail as the coronavirus pandemic continues to grip the country.

The National Women's Soccer League match between Portland Thorns FC and OL Reign scheduled for tomorrow night has been postponed until Sept. 30.

The decision was made following concerns about air quality in Portland, caused by wildfires in Oregon.

Three major US cities now have the worst air quality of any big cities in the world thanks to the smoke from massive wildfires, according to a monitoring group.

Portland, Seattle and San Francisco have the worst air quality of any major cities around the world, according to IQAir, a group which tracks global air quality. But things are even worse outside of the big cities, according to the Environmental Protection Agency's own air quality index trackers.

Large swathes of Oregon, Washington state and even parts of British Columbia in Canada, are experiencing "hazardous" air quality. The EPA says the air quality in Salem, Oregon's capital, is so bad that people need to stay indoors and reduce activity levels.

Ahead of his meeting to discuss the ongoing forest fires in California, President Trump declined to say that climate change is playing a role in the destructive wildfires taking place across the west coast.

Trump was asked on the airport tarmac on Monday what role climate change was playing in the fires, answering, "Well I think this is more of a management situation. If you look at other countries, if you go to other countries in Europe, Austria, Finland and numerous countries, I talk to the heads. They're forest nations. They're in forests and they don't have problems like this. They have very explosive trees, but they don't have problems like this."

The President also suggested that other nations need to take responsibility for their levels of pollution more than the US, because the US is "just a small speck."

"When you get into climate change, well, is India gonna change its ways? And is China gonna change its ways? And Russia? Is Russia gonna change its ways? So, you have a lot of countries that are going to have to change, because they make up, we're just a small speck. They make up a big preponderance of the pollution and so you have to get them to do it. And nobody ever talks about that," Trump said.

When asked if California has a climate change issue, Trump said he didn't want to step on the toes of California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Newsom declared Friday that the debate over climate change is over, saying, "We are in the midst of a climate emergency. We are in the midst of a climate crisis. We are experiencing weather conditions the likes of which we've never experienced in our lifetime."

What you need to know

The latest: At least 35 people have died in the West Coast wildfires, including 24 in California, 10 in Oregon and a child in Washington state.

The forecast: Weather conditions are not scheduled to improve any time soon as high winds of up to 40 mph are forecast in the coming days in parts of California.

What's behind this fire season: Both California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti have attributed the intensity of this season's fires to climate change.

"Climate change is doing more damage to our communities faster than anyone thought," Inslee added.

"As of today, there have been 22 individuals reported missing associated with these fires," Emergency Management Director Andrew Phelps said Monday.

Anderson Cooper talks to Oregon family who escaped a wildfire

USPS closes some post offices because of the wildfires

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
By Mike Hayes and Meg Wagner, CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Millions of acres in the western United States continue to burn as a result of nearly 90 large wildfires. There are 87 active large fires that have burned more than 4.6 million acres in 10 states, according to the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC). California has the most fires with at least 25, the NIFC said.

# data[].attributes.body
September 2020
How Climate Migration Will Reshape America Millions will be displaced. Where will they go?

By Abrahm Lustgarten | Photographs by Meridith Kohut

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How Climate Migration Will Reshape America Millions will be displaced. Where will they go?

By Abrahm Lustgarten | Photographs by Meridith Kohut

Over the next two weeks, 900 blazes incinerated six times as much land as all the state's 2019 wildfires combined, forcing 100,000 people from their homes. Three of the largest fires in history burned simultaneously in a ring around the San Francisco Bay Area. Another fire burned just 12 miles from my home in Marin County. I watched as towering plumes of smoke billowed from distant hills in all directions and air tankers crisscrossed the skies. Like many Californians, I spent those weeks worrying about what might happen next, wondering how long it would be before an inferno of 60-foot flames swept up the steep, grassy hillside on its way toward my own house, rehearsing in my mind what my family would do to escape.

But I also had a longer-term question, about what would happen once this unprecedented fire season ended. Was it finally time to leave for good?

I had an unusual perspective on the matter. For two years, I have been studying how climate change will influence global migration. My sense was that of all the devastating consequences of a warming planet - changing landscapes, pandemics, mass extinctions - the potential movement of hundreds of millions of climate refugees across the planet stands to be among the most important. I traveled across four countries to witness how rising temperatures were driving climate refugees away from some of the poorest and hottest parts of the world. I had also helped create an enormous computer simulation to analyze how global demographics might shift, and now I was working on a data-mapping project about migration here in the United States.

So it was with some sense of recognition that I faced the fires these last few weeks. In recent years, summer has brought a season of fear to California, with ever-worsening wildfires closing in. But this year felt different. The hopelessness of the pattern was now clear, and the pandemic had already uprooted so many Americans. Relocation no longer seemed like such a distant prospect. Like the subjects of my reporting, climate change had found me, its indiscriminate forces erasing all semblance of normalcy. Suddenly I had to ask myself the very question I'd been asking others: Was it time to move?

I am far from the only American facing such questions. This summer has seen more fires, more heat, more storms - all of it making life increasingly untenable in larger areas of the nation. Already, droughts regularly threaten food crops across the West, while destructive floods inundate towns and fields from the Dakotas to Maryland, collapsing dams in Michigan and raising the shorelines of the Great Lakes. Rising seas and increasingly violent hurricanes are making thousands of miles of American shoreline nearly uninhabitable. As California burned, Hurricane Laura pounded the Louisiana coast with 150-mile-an-hour winds, killing at least 25 people; it was the 12th named storm to form by that point in 2020, another record. Phoenix, meanwhile, endured 53 days of 110-degree heat - 20 more days than the previous record.

For years, Americans have avoided confronting these changes in their own backyards. The decisions we make about where to live are distorted not just by politics that play down climate risks, but also by expensive subsidies and incentives aimed at defying nature. In much of the developing world, vulnerable people will attempt to flee the emerging perils of global warming, seeking cooler temperatures, more fresh water and safety. But here in the United States, people have largely gravitated toward environmental danger, building along coastlines from New Jersey to Florida and settling across the cloudless deserts of the Southwest.

I wanted to know if this was beginning to change. Might Americans finally be waking up to how climate is about to transform their lives? And if so - if a great domestic relocation might be in the offing - was it possible to project where we might go? To answer these questions, I interviewed more than four dozen experts: economists and demographers, climate scientists and insurance executives, architects and urban planners, and I mapped out the danger zones that will close in on Americans over the next 30 years. The maps for the first time combined exclusive climate data from the Rhodium Group, an independent data-analytics firm; wildfire projections modeled by United States Forest Service researchers and others; and data about America's shifting climate niches, an evolution of work first published by The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last spring. ( See a detailed analysis of the maps.)

What I found was a nation on the cusp of a great transformation. Across the United States, some 162 million people - nearly one in two - will most likely experience a decline in the quality of their environment, namely more heat and less water. For 93 million of them, the changes could be particularly severe, and by 2070, our analysis suggests, if carbon emissions rise at extreme levels, at least four million Americans could find themselves living at the fringe, in places decidedly outside the ideal niche for human life. The cost of resisting the new climate reality is mounting. Florida officials have already acknowledged that defending some roadways against the sea will be unaffordable. And the nation's federal flood-insurance program is for the first time requiring that some of its payouts be used to retreat from climate threats across the country. It will soon prove too expensive to maintain the status quo.

Then what? One influential 2018 study, published in The Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, suggests that one in 12 Americans in the Southern half of the country will move toward California, the Mountain West or the Northwest over the next 45 years because of climate influences alone. Such a shift in population is likely to increase poverty and widen the gulf between the rich and the poor. It will accelerate rapid, perhaps chaotic, urbanization of cities ill-equipped for the burden, testing their capacity to provide basic services and amplifying existing inequities. It will eat away at prosperity, dealing repeated economic blows to coastal, rural and Southern regions, which could in turn push entire communities to the brink of collapse. This process has already begun in rural Louisiana and coastal Georgia, where low-income and Black and Indigenous communities face environmental change on top of poor health and extreme poverty. Mobility itself, global-migration experts point out, is often a reflection of relative wealth, and as some move, many others will be left behind. Those who stay risk becoming trapped as the land and the society around them ceases to offer any more support.

There are signs that the message is breaking through. Half of Americans now rank climate as a top political priority, up from roughly one-third in 2016, and three out of four now describe climate change as either "a crisis" or "a major problem." This year, Democratic caucusgoers in Iowa, where tens of thousands of acres of farmland flooded in 2019, ranked climate second only to health care as an issue. A poll by researchers at Yale and George Mason Universities found that even Republicans' views are shifting: One in three now think climate change should be declared a national emergency.

Policymakers, having left America unprepared for what's next, now face brutal choices about which communities to save - often at exorbitant costs - and which to sacrifice. Their decisions will almost inevitably make the nation more divided, with those worst off relegated to a nightmare future in which they are left to fend for themselves. Nor will these disruptions wait for the worst environmental changes to occur. The wave begins when individual perception of risk starts to shift, when the environmental threat reaches past the least fortunate and rattles the physical and financial security of broader, wealthier parts of the population. It begins when even places like California's suburbs are no longer safe.

It has already begun.

It can be difficult to see the challenges clearly because so many factors are in play. At least 28 million Americans are likely to face megafires like the ones we are now seeing in California, in places like Texas and Florida and Georgia. At the same time, 100 million Americans - largely in the Mississippi River Basin from Louisiana to Wisconsin - will increasingly face humidity so extreme that working outside or playing school sports could cause heatstroke. Crop yields will be decimated from Texas to Alabama and all the way north through Oklahoma and Kansas and into Nebraska.

By 2060 in Missouri and throughout the Midwest, people will experience weeks of "wet-bulb" temperatures above 82 degrees, a humidity threshold that makes outdoor labor dangerous.

Wet-bulb temperature above 82 degrees ...

15-18 days

5-15 days

0-5 days

*High Emissions scenario

The challenges are so widespread and so interrelated that Americans seeking to flee one could well run into another. I live on a hilltop, 400 feet above sea level, and my home will never be touched by rising waters. But by the end of this century, if the more extreme projections of eight to 10 feet of sea-level rise come to fruition, the shoreline of San Francisco Bay will move three miles closer to my house, as it subsumes some 166 square miles of land, including a high school, a new county hospital and the store where I buy groceries. The freeway to San Francisco will need to be raised, and to the east, a new bridge will be required to connect the community of Point Richmond to the city of Berkeley. The Latino, Asian and Black communities who live in the most-vulnerable low-lying districts will be displaced first, but research from Mathew Hauer, a sociologist at Florida State University who published some of the first modeling of American climate migration in the journal Nature Climate Change in 2017, suggests that the toll will eventually be far more widespread: Nearly one in three people here in Marin County will leave, part of the roughly 700,000 who his models suggest may abandon the broader Bay Area as a result of sea-level rise alone.

From Maine to North Carolina to Texas, rising sea levels are not just chewing up shorelines but also raising rivers and swamping the subterranean infrastructure of coastal communities, making a stable life there all but impossible. Coastal high points will be cut off from roadways, amenities and escape routes, and even far inland, saltwater will seep into underground drinking-water supplies. Eight of the nation's 20 largest metropolitan areas - Miami, New York and Boston among them - will be profoundly altered, indirectly affecting some 50 million people. Imagine large concrete walls separating Fort Lauderdale condominiums from a beachless waterfront, or dozens of new bridges connecting the islands of Philadelphia. Not every city can spend $100 billion on a sea wall, as New York most likely will. Barrier islands? Rural areas along the coast without a strong tax base? They are likely, in the long term, unsalvageable.

In all, Hauer projects that 13 million Americans will be forced to move away from submerged coastlines. Add to that the people contending with wildfires and other risks, and the number of Americans who might move - though difficult to predict precisely - could easily be tens of millions larger. Even 13 million climate migrants, though, would rank as the largest migration in North American history. The Great Migration - of six million Black Americans out of the South from 1916 to 1970 - transformed almost everything we know about America, from the fate of its labor movement to the shape of its cities to the sound of its music. What would it look like when twice that many people moved? What might change?

By comparison, Americans are richer, often much richer, and more insulated from the shocks of climate change. They are distanced from the food and water sources they depend on, and they are part of a culture that sees every problem as capable of being solved by money. So even as the average flow of the Colorado River - the water supply for 40 million Western Americans and the backbone of the nation's vegetable and cattle farming - has declined for most of the last 33 years, the population of Nevada has doubled. At the same time, more than 1.5 million people have moved to the Phoenix metro area, despite its dependence on that same river (and the fact that temperatures there now regularly hit 115 degrees). Since Hurricane Andrew devastated Florida in 1992 - and even as that state has become a global example of the threat of sea-level rise - more than five million people have moved to Florida's shorelines, driving a historic boom in building and real estate.

Similar patterns are evident across the country. Census data show us how Americans move: toward heat, toward coastlines, toward drought, regardless of evidence of increasing storms and flooding and other disasters.

The sense that money and technology can overcome nature has emboldened Americans. Where money and technology fail, though, it inevitably falls to government policies - and government subsidies - to pick up the slack. Thanks to federally subsidized canals, for example, water in part of the Desert Southwest costs less than it does in Philadelphia. The federal National Flood Insurance Program has paid to rebuild houses that have flooded six times over in the same spot. And federal agriculture aid withholds subsidies from farmers who switch to drought-resistant crops, while paying growers to replant the same ones that failed. Farmers, seed manufacturers, real estate developers and a few homeowners benefit, at least momentarily, but the gap between what the climate can destroy and what money can replace is growing.

Perhaps no market force has proved more influential - and more misguided - than the nation's property-insurance system. From state to state, readily available and affordable policies have made it attractive to buy or replace homes even where they are at high risk of disasters, systematically obscuring the reality of the climate threat and fooling many Americans into thinking that their decisions are safer than they actually are. Part of the problem is that most policies look only 12 months into the future, ignoring long-term trends even as insurance availability influences development and drives people's long-term decision-making.

Even where insurers have tried to withdraw policies or raise rates to reduce climate-related liabilities, state regulators have forced them to provide affordable coverage anyway, simply subsidizing the cost of underwriting such a risky policy or, in some cases, offering it themselves. The regulations - called Fair Access to Insurance Requirements - are justified by developers and local politicians alike as economic lifeboats "of last resort" in regions where climate change threatens to interrupt economic growth. While they do protect some entrenched and vulnerable communities, the laws also satisfy the demand of wealthier homeowners who still want to be able to buy insurance.

At least 30 states, including Louisiana, Massachusetts, North Carolina and Texas, have developed so-called FAIR plans, and today they serve as a market backstop in the places facing the highest risks of climate-driven disasters, including coastal flooding, hurricanes and wildfires.

In an era of climate change, though, such policies amount to a sort of shell game, meant to keep growth going even when other obvious signs and scientific research suggest that it should stop.

That's what happened in Florida. Hurricane Andrew reduced parts of cities to landfill and cost insurers nearly $16 billion in payouts. Many insurance companies, recognizing the likelihood that it would happen again, declined to renew policies and left the state. So the Florida Legislature created a state-run company to insure properties itself, preventing both an exodus and an economic collapse by essentially pretending that the climate vulnerabilities didn't exist.

As a result, Florida's taxpayers by 2012 had assumed liabilities worth some $511 billion - more than seven times the state's total budget - as the value of coastal property topped $2.8 trillion. Another direct hurricane risked bankrupting the state. Florida, concerned that it had taken on too much risk, has since scaled back its self-insurance plan. But the development that resulted is still in place.

with the skies above me full of wildfire smoke, I called Jesse Keenan, an urban-planning and climate-change specialist then at Harvard's Graduate School of Design, who advises the federal Commodity Futures Trading Commission on market hazards from climate change. Keenan, who is now an associate professor of real estate at Tulane University's School of Architecture, had been in the news last year for projecting where people might move to - suggesting that Duluth, Minn., for instance, should brace for a coming real estate boom as climate migrants move north. But like other scientists I'd spoken with, Keenan had been reluctant to draw conclusions about where these migrants would be driven from.

Last fall, though, as the previous round of fires ravaged California, his phone began to ring, with private-equity investors and bankers all looking for his read on the state's future. Their interest suggested a growing investor-grade nervousness about swiftly mounting environmental risk in the hottest real estate markets in the country. It's an early sign, he told me, that the momentum is about to switch directions. "And once this flips," he added, "it's likely to flip very quickly."

In fact, the correction - a newfound respect for the destructive power of nature, coupled with a sudden disavowal of Americans' appetite for reckless development - had begun two years earlier, when a frightening surge in disasters offered a jolting preview of how the climate crisis was changing the rules.

On October 9, 2017, a wildfire blazed through the suburban blue-collar neighborhood of Coffey Park in Santa Rosa, Calif., virtually in my own backyard. I awoke to learn that more than 1,800 buildings were reduced to ashes, less than 35 miles from where I slept. Inchlong cinders had piled on my windowsills like falling snow.

The Tubbs Fire, as it was called, shouldn't have been possible. Coffey Park is surrounded not by vegetation but by concrete and malls and freeways. So insurers had rated it as "basically zero risk," according to Kevin Van Leer, then a risk modeler from the global insurance liability firm Risk Management Solutions. (He now does similar work for Cape Analytics.) But Van Leer, who had spent seven years picking through the debris left by disasters to understand how insurers could anticipate - and price - the risk of their happening again, had begun to see other "impossible" fires. After a 2016 fire tornado ripped through northern Canada and a firestorm consumed Gatlinburg, Tenn., he said, "alarm bells started going off" for the insurance industry.

What Van Leer saw when he walked through Coffey Park a week after the Tubbs Fire changed the way he would model and project fire risk forever. Typically, fire would spread along the ground, burning maybe 50 percent of structures. In Santa Rosa, more than 90 percent had been leveled. "The destruction was complete," he told me. Van Leer determined that the fire had jumped through the forest canopy, spawning 70-mile-per-hour winds that kicked a storm of embers into the modest homes of Coffey Park, which burned at an acre a second as homes ignited spontaneously from the radiant heat. It was the kind of thing that might never have been possible if California's autumn winds weren't getting fiercer and drier every year, colliding with intensifying, climate-driven heat and ever-expanding development. "It's hard to forecast something you've never seen before," he said.

For me, the awakening to imminent climate risk came with California's rolling power blackouts last fall - an effort to pre-emptively avoid the risk of a live wire sparking a fire - which showed me that all my notional perspective about climate risk and my own life choices were on a collision course. After the first one, all the food in our refrigerator was lost. When power was interrupted six more times in three weeks, we stopped trying to keep it stocked. All around us, small fires burned. Thick smoke produced fits of coughing. Then, as now, I packed an ax and a go-bag in my car, ready to evacuate. As former Gov. Jerry Brown said, it was beginning to feel like the "new abnormal."

It was no surprise, then, that California's property insurers - having watched 26 years' worth of profits dissolve over 24 months - began dropping policies, or that California's insurance commissioner, trying to slow the slide, placed a moratorium on insurance cancellations for parts of the state in 2020. In February, the Legislature introduced a bill compelling California to, in the words of one consumer advocacy group, "follow the lead of Florida" by mandating that insurance remain available, in this case with a requirement that homeowners first harden their properties against fire. At the same time, participation in California's FAIR plan for catastrophic fires has grown by at least 180 percent since 2015, and in Santa Rosa, houses are being rebuilt in the very same wildfire-vulnerable zones that proved so deadly in 2017. Given that a new study projects a 20 percent increase in extreme-fire-weather days by 2035, such practices suggest a special form of climate negligence.

It's only a matter of time before homeowners begin to recognize the unsustainability of this approach. Market shock, when driven by the sort of cultural awakening to risk that Keenan observes, can strike a neighborhood like an infectious disease, with fear spreading doubt - and devaluation - from door to door. It happened that way in the foreclosure crisis.

Keenan calls the practice of drawing arbitrary lending boundaries around areas of perceived environmental risk "bluelining," and indeed many of the neighborhoods that banks are bluelining are the same as the ones that were hit by the racist redlining practice in days past. This summer, climate-data analysts at the First Street Foundation released maps showing that 70 percent more buildings in the United States were vulnerable to flood risk than previously thought; most of the underestimated risk was in low-income neighborhoods.

Such neighborhoods see little in the way of flood-prevention investment. My Bay Area neighborhood, on the other hand, has benefited from consistent investment in efforts to defend it against the ravages of climate change. That questions of livability had reached me, here, were testament to Keenan's belief that the bluelining phenomenon will eventually affect large majorities of equity-holding middle-class Americans too, with broad implications for the overall economy, starting in the nation's largest state.

Under the radar, a new class of dangerous debt - climate-distressed mortgage loans - might already be threatening the financial system. Lending data analyzed by Keenan and his co-author, Jacob Bradt, for a study published in the journal Climatic Change in June shows that small banks are liberally making loans on environmentally threatened homes, but then quickly passing them along to federal mortgage backers. At the same time, they have all but stopped lending money for the higher-end properties worth too much for the government to accept, suggesting that the banks are knowingly passing climate liabilities along to taxpayers as stranded assets.

Once home values begin a one-way plummet, it's easy for economists to see how entire communities spin out of control. The tax base declines and the school system and civic services falter, creating a negative feedback loop that pushes more people to leave. Rising insurance costs and the perception of risk force credit-rating agencies to downgrade towns, making it more difficult for them to issue bonds and plug the springing financial leaks. Local banks, meanwhile, keep securitizing their mortgage debt, sloughing off their own liabilities.

Keenan, though, had a bigger point: All the structural disincentives that had built Americans' irrational response to the climate risk were now reaching their logical endpoint. A pandemic-induced economic collapse will only heighten the vulnerabilities and speed the transition, reducing to nothing whatever thin margin of financial protection has kept people in place. Until now, the market mechanisms had essentially socialized the consequences of high-risk development. But as the costs rise - and the insurers quit, and the bankers divest, and the farm subsidies prove too wasteful, and so on - the full weight of responsibility will fall on individual people.

And that's when the real migration might begin.

As I spoke with Keenan last year, I looked out my own kitchen window onto hillsides of parkland, singed brown by months of dry summer heat. This was precisely the land that my utility, Pacific Gas & Electric, had three times identified as such an imperiled tinderbox that it had to shut off power to avoid fire. It was precisely the kind of wildland-urban interface that all the studies I read blamed for heightening Californians' exposure to climate risks. I mentioned this on the phone and then asked Keenan, "Should I be selling my house and getting - "

The places migrants left behind never fully recovered. Eighty years later, Dust Bowl towns still have slower economic growth and lower per capita income than the rest of the country. Dust Bowl survivors and their children are less likely to go to college and more likely to live in poverty. Climatic change made them poor, and it has kept them poor ever since.

A Dust Bowl event will most likely happen again. The Great Plains states today provide nearly half of the nation's wheat, sorghum and cattle and much of its corn; the farmers and ranchers there export that food to Africa, South America and Asia. Crop yields, though, will drop sharply with every degree of warming. By 2050, researchers at the University of Chicago and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies found, Dust Bowl-era yields will be the norm, even as demand for scarce water jumps by as much as 20 percent. Another extreme drought would drive near-total crop losses worse than the Dust Bowl, kneecapping the broader economy. At that point, the authors write, "abandonment is one option."

Projections are inherently imprecise, but the gradual changes to America's cropland - plus the steady baking and burning and flooding - suggest that we are already witnessing a slower-forming but much larger replay of the Dust Bowl that will destroy more than just crops. In 2017, Solomon Hsiang, a climate economist at the University of California, Berkeley, led an analysis of the economic impact of climate-driven changes like rising mortality and rising energy costs, finding that the poorest counties in the United States - mostly across the South and the Southwest - will in some extreme cases face damages equal to more than a third of their gross domestic products. The 2018 National Climate Assessment also warns that the U.S. economy over all could contract by 10 percent.

That kind of loss typically drives people toward cities, and researchers expect that trend to continue after the Covid-19 pandemic ends. In 1950, less than 65 percent of Americans lived in cities. By 2050, only 10 percent will live outside them, in part because of climatic change. By 2100, Hauer estimates, Atlanta, Orlando, Houston and Austin could each receive more than a quarter million new residents as a result of sea-level displacement alone, meaning it may be those cities - not the places that empty out - that wind up bearing the brunt of America's reshuffling. The World Bank warns that fast-moving climate urbanization leads to rising unemployment, competition for services and deepening poverty.

So what will happen to Atlanta - a metro area of 5.8 million people that may lose its water supply to drought and that our data also shows will face an increase in heat-driven wildfires? Hauer estimates that hundreds of thousands of climate refugees will move into the city by 2100, swelling its population and stressing its infrastructure. Atlanta - where poor transportation and water systems contributed to the state's C+ infrastructure grade last year - already suffers greater income inequality than any other large American city, making it a virtual tinderbox for social conflict. One in 10 households earns less than $10,000 a year, and rings of extreme poverty are growing on its outskirts even as the city center grows wealthier.

Atlanta has started bolstering its defenses against climate change, but in some cases this has only exacerbated divisions. When the city converted an old Westside rock quarry into a reservoir, part of a larger greenbelt to expand parkland, clean the air and protect against drought, the project also fueled rapid upscale growth, driving the poorest Black communities further into impoverished suburbs. That Atlanta hasn't "fully grappled with" such challenges now, says Na'Taki Osborne Jelks, chair of the West Atlanta Watershed Alliance, means that with more people and higher temperatures, "the city might be pushed to what's manageable."

So might Philadelphia, Chicago, Washington, Boston and other cities with long-neglected systems suddenly pressed to expand under increasingly adverse conditions.

In these places, heat alone will cause as many as 80 additional deaths per 100,000 people - the nation's opioid crisis, by comparison, produces 15 additional deaths per 100,000. The most affected people, meanwhile, will pay 20 percent more for energy, and their crops will yield half as much food or in some cases virtually none at all. That collective burden will drag down regional incomes by roughly 10 percent, amounting to one of the largest transfers of wealth in American history, as people who live farther north will benefit from that change and see their fortunes rise.

The millions of people moving north will mostly head to the cities of the Northeast and Northwest, which will see their populations grow by roughly 10 percent, according to one model. Once-chilly places like Minnesota and Michigan and Vermont will become more temperate, verdant and inviting. Vast regions will prosper; just as Hsiang's research forecast that Southern counties could see a tenth of their economy dry up, he projects that others as far as North Dakota and Minnesota will enjoy a corresponding expansion. Cities like Detroit, Rochester, Buffalo and Milwaukee will see a renaissance, with their excess capacity in infrastructure, water supplies and highways once again put to good use. One day, it's possible that a high-speed rail line could race across the Dakotas, through Idaho's up-and-coming wine country and the country's new breadbasket along the Canadian border, to the megalopolis of Seattle, which by then has nearly merged with Vancouver to its north.

Sitting in my own backyard one afternoon this summer, my wife and I talked through the implications of this looming American future. The facts were clear and increasingly foreboding. Yet there were so many intangibles - a love of nature, the busy pace of life, the high cost of moving - that conspired to keep us from leaving. Nobody wants to migrate away from home, even when an inexorable danger is inching ever closer. They do it when there is no longer any other choice.

Abrahm Lustgarten is a senior environmental reporter at ProPublica. His last article for the magazine was the first in a series about how climate change is driving a wave of global migration with unsettling consequences. Meridith Kohut is a photojournalist who has earned a Courage in Journalism award for her decade of work documenting international humanitarian crises for The Times. She was a finalist for the 2018 Pulitzer Prize in feature photography. She last photographed migrants from Central America for the first part of the climate-migration series.

Maps by Jeremy Goldsmith. Al Shaw contributed reporting. All maps based on the RCP 8.5 scenario used by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. ( Explore them in more detail here.) Wet bulb, sea level rise, crop yield and economic damage data are sourced from the Rhodium Group/Climate Impact Lab and represent ranges of median probabilities for each county modeled for the high emissions climate scenario RCP 8.5 between 2040 and 2060. Wildfire data comes from John Abatzoglou, University of California, Merced.

Additional design and development by Jacky Myint.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Climate Migration Will Reshape America

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Abrahm Lustgarten | Photographs by Meridith Kohut Over the next two weeks, 900 blazes incinerated six times as much land as all the state's 2019 wildfires combined, forcing 100,000 people from their homes. Three of the largest fires in history burned simultaneously in a ring around the San Francisco Bay Area.