Connect with us

Published

on

Ten days of extreme heat killed 2,305 people in a sample of 12 European cities last month, with almost two-thirds of those deaths caused by climate change’s intensifying effect on heatwaves, new research estimated on Wednesday.

The early summer heatwave, which sparked wildfires and health warnings from Spain to Turkey, was between 2 and 4 degrees Celsius hotter than it would have been without climate change, according to the study by the Grantham Institute at Imperial College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (LSHTM).

“These numbers represent real people who have lost their lives in the last days due to the extreme heat”, said Imperial College London climate scientist Friederike Otto.

“If we continue to follow the wishes of the fossil fuel industry and delay serious mitigation [emissions-cutting] further, more and more people will lose their lives for the financial benefit of only a tiny rich influential minority,” she told reporters during a conference call.

Separately, a report by the European Union’s Copernicus Climate Change Service said last month was the hottest June on record in Western Europe.

Otto highlighted the researchers’ rapid work in calculating the role of climate change in the overall death toll, which she hailed as a first.

Rapid attribution study

Previously, such research has taken months. A study into Europe’s 2022 heatwave, which found that climate change was responsible for just over half of the 68,000 deaths, was published a year later.

The new study has not been peer-reviewed, a sometimes lengthy process where other scientists evaluate the research, Otto said, adding that the methods it used to attribute deaths had undergone peer review and been approved.

She said publishing studies quickly is important because the immediate aftermath of a heatwave is “when people talk about it”. That is also why the researchers focused on a sample of just 12 cities, she said, making their analysis more manageable.

People hold umbrellas to protect themselves from the sun during an ongoing heat wave with temperatures reaching 40 degrees, in Rome, Italy, on July 6, 2025, at the Colosseo area. (Photo by Massimo Valicchia/NurPhoto)

Previous studies from the World Weather Attribution group, which Otto co-leads, have only estimated how much hotter climate change has made a heatwave. Otto said she wanted to translate this into numbers of additional deaths because a temperature increase of a few degrees Celsius “might not sound very much”.

Otto said the reason the first study like this was carried out in Europe is because scientists have established the relationship between heat and deaths better in Europe than elsewhere. But there are parts of southern Africa, Asia and the USA where this relationship has been established by scientists, she said, so “we will probably do this again in other parts of the world”.

But LSHTM climate professor Malcolm Mistry, warned that carrying out this kind of study across the world would be “very challenging because not every public health authority wants to give out the mortality record reports for research purposes”. This data on deaths is key to establishing how many people are killed by a certain increase in temperature.

Silent killer

The study did not attribute any individual death to climate change and heat is generally not listed on death certificates. Most people who died had health problems exacerbated by the heat, and more than half of them were aged over 85.

Construction workers use an umbrella on their boom lift to cover from the sun during a heatwave in the city center in Vienna, Austria, July 2, 2025. REUTERS/Lisa Leutner

Heatwaves are a “silent killer” because the deaths mostly take place in homes and hospitals, away from public view, and are rarely reported, said Pierre Masselot from the LSHTM.

But media reports have blamed last month’s soaring temperatures in some specific cases, such as the death of 48-year old builder who collapsed while laying concrete in 35C heat in the Italian city of Bologna, and a 53-year old woman with a heart condition who died in Palermo. Climate Home has spoken to relatives of people who died during extreme heat in Saudi Arabia and the Gaza Strip.

Otto said that too many media reports about heatwaves include photographs of children eating ice cream and happy people playing on the beach. “That’s a massive problem”, she said, although she added that more articles were now referring to the role of climate change in driving heatwaves.

The researchers behind the study said ways to cope with extreme heat included installing air conditioning, improving government heatwave warnings, planting more trees, building more parks, insulating buildings and painting roofs white.

“But at the end of the day,” said Masselot, “all these measures won’t probably be as efficient as just reducing climate change altogether [by] reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.”

The post Scientists hail rapid estimate of climate change’s role in heat deaths as a first appeared first on Climate Home News.

Scientists hail rapid estimate of climate change’s role in heat deaths as a first

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners

Published

on

Jackie Chesnutt, who lives outside San Angelo, is tired of pollution from wells she says should have been plugged years ago. Experts say Texas rules allow companies to defer plugging wells for far too long.

Reporting for this story was supported by a grant from the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

Low-Producing Oil Wells in Texas Cause Headaches for Landowners

Continue Reading

Climate Change

America’s Dirty Secret

Published

on

An interview with author Catherine Coleman Flowers.

The fourth installment in our special Earth Day series

America’s Dirty Secret

Continue Reading

Climate Change

With love: Love to the researchers

Published

on

Greenpeace activists investigate the consequences of the severe explosions at the Nord Stream Pipelines. © Gregor Fischer / Greenpeace

When the sciences and the humanities; democracy and ecology, are all under common and increasing attack, the efforts of independent experts and researchers matter more than ever.

David Ritter

So often in life, our most authentic moments of joy are the result of years of shared effort, and the culmination of a kind of deep faith in what is possible.

A few weeks ago, I had the honour of being in Canberra, along with some fellow environmentalists and scientists, to witness the enactment of the High Seas Biodiversity Bill 2026 by our federal parliament.

This was the moment that the Global Ocean Treaty—one of the most significant environmental agreements of our time—was given force through a domestic Australian law

If you are part of the great Greenpeace family, you will know exactly why this was such a huge deal. The high seas make up around 60 per cent of the Earth’s surface and for too long, they have been subjected to open plunder. Now, for the first time in human history, there is an international instrument that enables the creation of massive high seas sanctuaries within which the ocean can be protected. This is a monumental collective achievement by Greenpeace and all the other groups who have campaigned for high seas marine sanctuaries for many years.

But as momentous as the ratification was, the parliamentary proceedings were distinctly lacking in drama or fanfare–so much so, that Labor MP backbencher Renee Coffey felt the need to gesture to those of us in the gallery with a grin, to indicate that the process was over and done.

The modesty of the moment had me thinking about the decades of quiet dedication by many hands that are invariably required to achieve great social change. In particular, I found myself thinking about researchers. So much of the expert academic work that underpins achievements like the Global Ocean Treaty is slow, painstaking, solitary—and often out of sight.

I think of the persistence and tenacity of researchers as an expression of love, founded in an authentic sense of wonder and curiosity about the world—and frequently linked to a deep ethical desire to protect that source of wonderment.

Crew operates underwater drone to document Woodside’s sunken oil tower. © Greenpeace

In 2007, one of the very first things I was given to read after starting with Greenpeace as an oceans campaigner in London was a report entitled Roadmap to Recovery: A global network of marine reserves. Specific physical sensations can tend to stick in the mind from periods of personally significant transitions, and the tactile reminiscence of holding the thin cardboard of the modest grey cover of that report is deeply embedded in my memory. I suspect I still even have that original copy in a box somewhere.

Written by a team of scientists led by Professor Callum Roberts, a marine conservation biologist from the University of York, the Roadmap provided the first scientifically informed vision of a large-scale global network of high seas marine sanctuaries, protecting the world’s oceans at scale. Of course, twenty years ago, this idea felt more like utopian science fiction, because there was no Global Oceans Treaty. But what seemed fanciful at the start of this century is now possible-–and I have every confidence the creation of large scale high seas marine sanctuaries will now happen through the application of ongoing campaigning effort—but we would never have gotten this far without the dedication of researchers, driven by their love of the oceans. And now here we are, with the ability for humanity to legally protect the high seas for the first time.

Campaigning and research so often work hand in hand like this: the one identifying the need and the solutions; the other driving the change. Because in a world of powerful vested interests, good science alone doesn’t shift decision makers—that takes activism and campaigning—but equally, there must be a basis of evidence and reason on which to build our public advocacy.

So, I want to take a moment to think with love and appreciation for everyone who has contributed to making this possible. I’ve never met the team of scientists who authored the original Roadmap, so belatedly but sincerely, then, to Leanne Mason, Julie P. Hawkins, Elizabeth Masden, Gwilym Rowlands, Jenny Storey and Anna Swift—and to every other researcher and scientist who has been involved in demonstrating why the Global Oceans Treaty has been so badly needed over the years—thank you for your commitment and devotion.

And to everyone out there who continues to believe that evidence and truth matter, and that our magnificent, fragile world deserves our respectful curiosity and study as an expression of our awe and enchantment, thank you for your conscientiousness.

When the sciences and the humanities; democracy and ecology, are all under common and increasing attack, the efforts of independent experts and researchers matter more than ever. You have Greenpeace’s deepest gratitude. Every day, we build on the foundations of your work and dedication. Thank you. 


Q & A

I have been asked several times in recent weeks what the ongoing war means for the renewable energy transition in Australia.

While some corners of the fossil fuel lobby and the politicians captured by these vested interests have been very quick to use this crisis to call for more oil exploration and gas pipelines, the reality is that the current energy crisis has revealed the commonsense case for renewable energy

As many, including climate and energy minister Chris Bowen have noted, renewable energy is affordable, inexhaustible, and sovereign—its supply cannot be blocked by warmongers or conflict. People intuitively know this; it’s why sales of electric cars have climbed to an all-time high, it’s why interest in rooftop solar and batteries has skyrocketed in recent months.

The reality is that oil and gas are to blame for much of the cost-of-living pain we’re feeling right now; fossil fuels are the disease, not the cure. If Australia were further along in our renewable energy transition and EV uptake, we would be much better insulated from petrol and gas price shocks and supply chain disruptions.

Yes, we need short-term solutions to ease the very real cost-of-living pressures that Australian communities and workers are facing as a result of fuel shortages. While replacement supplies is no doubt a valid step for now—Greenpeace is also backing taxes on the war profits of gas corporations to fund relief measures for Australians—in the long term, we will only get off the rollercoaster of fossil fuel dependency and price volatility if we break free from fossil fuels and accelerate progress towards an energy system built on 100% renewable energy, backed by storage.

With love: Love to the researchers

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com