Warming driven by deforestation caused an extra 28,000 heat-related deaths per year across Africa, South America and Asia over 2001-20, new research finds.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change, is the first to look at human health impacts of warming caused specifically by tropical deforestation, as opposed to the burning of fossil fuels, its lead author tells Carbon Brief.
The authors find that deforestation alone drove, on average, 0.45C of warming in the tropics over 2001-20, accounting for 64% of the total warming in regions with tropical forest loss.
They also find that tropical deforestation over 2001-20 exposed 345 million people to “local warming”, in addition to the warming they were already facing due to global warming.
Six out of every 100,000 people living in deforested areas died as a result of deforestation-induced warming during this time, they warn.
This number is higher in south-east Asia, with Vietnam setting a record of, on average, 29 deaths per 100,000 people.
A researcher who was not involved with the study tells Carbon Brief that the “sobering” paper “reframes tropical deforestation as not only a carbon emissions and ecological issue, but also a critical public health concern”.
Tropical deforestation
Tropical forests, mainly distributed across South America, Africa and Asia, account for 45% of global forest cover.
These regions are well-known for their high biodiversity and the crucial ecosystem services that they provide, such as carbon storage.
However, tropical forest loss is on the rise.
A record 6.7m hectares of previously intact tropical forest was lost last year, mainly due to fires and land clearing for agriculture. As the planet warms, worsening heat and drought extremes are also causing trees to become less resilient to change, resulting in forest degradation.
The new study uses data from the Global Land Analysis and Discovery laboratory at the University of Maryland to assess how tropical forest cover has changed year on year. The authors find that over 2001-20, a total of 1.6m square kilometres (160m hectares) of tropical forest was lost globally. This is shown on the map below, where blue indicates high forest loss and yellow indicates low loss.
The authors find the largest forest loss was in central and South America, but also highlight “extensive” loss in south-east Asia and tropical Africa.
Forest warming
Tropical deforestation has a wide range of negative consequences, including decreasing biodiversity, releasing carbon into the atmosphere and threatening the safety of Indigenous communities.
Loss of tree cover can also affect local temperatures by influencing the water cycle.
Water is constantly moving from the surface of the land into the atmosphere through a process called evapotranspiration. Plants play a crucial part in this process by moving water from the soil up through their roots and into their leaves, where it evaporates, cooling the air above. When trees are cut down, this cooling effect is reduced.
The authors use data of land surface temperatures from the NASA MODIS satellite to map warming in tropical regions over 2001-20. These results are shown in the map below, where red indicates warming and blue indicates cooling.
The authors find that between 2001-03 and 2018-20, surface temperatures increased by 0.34C in tropical central and South America, 0.1C in tropical Africa and 0.72C in south-east Asia. They add that “areas of forest loss coincide with areas of strong positive change in temperature across many regions of the tropics”.
By comparing their deforestation and surface warming maps, the authors find that deforested regions of the tropics saw an average of 0.7C warming over 2001-20, while areas that “maintained forest cover” saw an increase of only 0.2C.
By comparing the change in temperature in deforested regions with that in neighbouring locations without forest loss, they find that deforestation alone caused 0.45C of warming in the tropics over 2001-20 – accounting for 64% of total warming experienced over those regions.
Heat exposure
High temperatures can be deadly.
During periods of extreme heat, people can suffer from heat stroke and exhaustion – and even die. Those with underlying health conditions are at higher risk of fatal complications.
The authors use data from Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s LandScan to map where people live in the tropics. They estimate that 425 million people live in regions that were exposed to tropical deforestation over 2001-20, and just over three-quarters of them were exposed to warming as a result of the loss of forest cover.
Finally, the authors estimated “heat-related excess mortality” due to nearby tropical deforestation.
Using data from the 2019 Global Burden of Disease study, they determine the number of “non-accidental” deaths in each deforested tropical area. This excludes deaths from “external” causes, such as accidents and suicides, but includes “internal” causes, such as disease.
The researchers then used previously published “temperature-mortality” relationships for different countries. These relationships show the link between temperature and excess mortality rate, indicating the percentage increase in mortality for every degree of warming.
These relationships vary between countries, as people in hotter regions are generally better adapted to extreme heat.
By combining the data on local warming due to deforestation, temperature-mortality relationships and the non-accidental mortality data, the authors calculated how many non-accidental deaths would have been expected in deforested regions if they had not warmed due to the loss of forest cover.
By comparing the real and counterfactual mortality rates, the authors were able to calculate the total mortality burden due to tropical deforestation-induced warming.
Overall, the authors find that tropical deforestation drove an additional 28,300 deaths every year over 2001-20, accounting for 39% of the total heat-related mortality from global climate change and deforestation combined over locations of forest loss.
The study finds that, on average, six out of every 100,000 people living in deforested areas died as a result of deforestation-induced warming. However, these numbers vary by country.
The chart below shows the average annual deaths due to deforestation-induced heat per 100,000 people living in areas of forest loss.
Dr Carly Reddington is a research fellow at the University of Leeds and lead author of the study. She tells Carbon Brief that it is the “first study to look at human health impacts of tropical deforestation-induced warming”.
Dr Nicholas Wolff, a climate change scientist at the Nature Conservancy who was not involved with the study, tells Carbon Brief that the paper is “sobering”. He adds that it “reframes tropical deforestation as not only a carbon emissions and ecological issue, but also a critical public health concern”.
Data-scarce
The authors note that there are no country-specific heat vulnerability indices available for African countries. To develop their data for African countries, they used the average heat vulnerability index for South America.
Reddington tells Carbon Brief that Africa is the most “uncertain region” in the study and tells Carbon Brief that “more data is really crucial” to develop more accurate estimates.
Wolff tells Carbon Brief that extrapolating heat-mortality relationships “from data-rich regions to data-poor ones” is a “common practice in global-scale climate-health research”.
He praises the overall methodology as “innovative, transparent and scientifically sound, with appropriate caveats”.
Dr Luke Parsons, a climate modelling scientist at the Nature Conservancy, tells Carbon Brief that the conclusions are “robust”. However, he notes some “methodological issues” with the paper, such as the fact that all results are modelled, rather than measured.
He tells Carbon Brief that future work could assess “near-surface air temperature and humidity changes associated with deforestation, as well as study regional air temperature changes beyond deforested areas”.
While the new study focuses on warming within one square kilometre of forest loss, Reddington tells Carbon Brief that “deforestation is associated with warming up to 100km away”.
Furthermore, the study notes that the increase in deaths due to excess heat is likely to affect the most vulnerable members of society the most. It says:
“Vulnerable populations, particularly traditional and Indigenous communities, often live near deforested areas and face limited access to resources and infrastructure needed to cope with the combination of rising temperatures and environmental changes caused by deforestation and climate change.”
Wolff also stresses this disparity, adding that “many of these communities depend on forest clearing for agriculture, income and survival, and are forced to make difficult choices between short-term economic needs and long-term health and environmental stability”.
The authors also note that deforestation can drive a range of other interacting health problems, which were not considered in this study. For example, deforestation is linked to a rise in zoonotic diseases, such as malaria.
Dr Vikki Thompson, a climate scientist at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute who was not involved in the study, says that the findings of the paper are “relevant to everyone”. She continues:
“We can reduce impacts of extreme heat by planting more trees and reducing deforestation everywhere, on both local and international scales.”
The post Warming due to tropical deforestation linked to 28,000 ‘excess’ deaths per year appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Warming due to tropical deforestation linked to 28,000 ‘excess’ deaths per year
The US is expected to resume its attempt to sink measures for a greener global shipping sector at closed-door talks between governments at the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in early September.
The US and oil-producing allies like Saudi Arabia want to weaken a proposed plan for cleaner fuels that aims to reduce planet-heating emissions from the industry, which relies heavily on dirty bunker fuels. Shipping currently represents 3% of global emissions.
Those that want a softer system are likely to back a Liberian proposal which expert analysis suggests would see emissions fall by only half at most by 2050, far short of the sector’s agreed climate goals.
After several years of debate, governments provisionally agreed in April 2025 on the “Net Zero Framework” (NZF), a series of emissions reduction targets for shipowners, backed up with financial rewards for meeting the targets and fees for missing them.
But in October 2025, after a high-profile intervention from US President Donald Trump and threats of sanctions and visa restrictions, the US convinced a majority of voting nations to postpone the adoption of the NZF for a year.
Ralph Regenvanu, climate minister for the Pacific nation of Vanuatu, called the delay “unacceptable” given the urgency of accelerating climate change.
After a round of low-profile talks in May, the first of three further sets of talks on how to clean up shipping will begin at the IMO’s riverside headquarters in London on Tuesday, culminating in a final public session in November.
Em Fenton, who follows the talks as senior director of climate diplomacy at Opportunity Green, an NGO focused on aviation and shipping, said governments should not be sidetracked by alternative proposals to the NZF, calling them “a distraction from a hard-fought multilateral compromise”.
“If countries want to deliver a just and fair maritime transition, there is really only one choice: back the NZF and stand together in solidarity against those who would tear it apart,” Fenton added.
Five proposals on the table
Governments will discuss five different proposals submitted in advance of next week’s meeting. The most ambitious of these is from the Pacific island nation of Tuvalu, which has proposed a levy on the entirety of a ship’s emissions rather than just those above a certain level, as the NZF envisions.
That had been the original demand of Pacific nations before the NZF was provisionally adopted in April 2025. At the time, Tuvalu’s transport minister Simon Kofe described the NZF as disappointing and not ambitious enough.
For this reason, six Pacific countries abstained in the vote on the NZF. While they supported the original plan for its adoption in October 2025, they have used the delay to push again for more ambition.
John Kautoke, advisor to a group of Pacific nations called 6PAC+, told Climate Home News that the NZF “cannot diminish its already inadequate ambition. If anything, the NZF must increase in ambition if we are going to renegotiate its parameters.”
-
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
A new bill prevents corporations being sued for the climate damage their emissions cause, as the government says climate action should be handled at the national level not in court -
Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry
The government is restricting nickel production to push up prices but producing more sustainable nickel for a premium requires addressing the industry’s coal issue -
As marine heat breaks records, countries seek ocean roadmap at COP31
Africa and the EU are leading a push for COP31 to deliver a roadmap that lays out measures to protect fast-warming oceans
Analysis by the Institute of Marine Engineering, Science and Technology (IMarEST) suggests that, of the five proposals, only Tuvalu’s would meet the 2030 and 2040 emissions reduction targets for global shipping that were agreed by governments in 2023. Those were for cuts of 20% between 2008 and 2030, 70% by 2040 and then reaching net zero “by or around, i.e. close to 2050”.
Despite this, the UK, Australia, Canada and South Africa have formally proposed that governments adopt the NZF, which won support in a 63-13 vote among governments at the April 2025 talks. Trump’s US walked out halfway through.
According to IMarEst’s analysis, while the NZF proposal will not be enough to meet the industry’s targets, it will reduce emissions more cheaply than the Pacific proposal.
A proposal by Brazil – which fought hard for the NZF last October – suggests tweaking the framework to make meeting targets easier in the short term and harder in the long term.
While this compromise will make it more appealing to the owners of polluting ships and countries that support them, IMarEst estimates it would lead to higher cumulative emissions than either the NZF or Pacific proposals.
The NZF stipulates that fees for high-polluting shipowners should be be put into a Net Zero Fund and used to promote clean shipping fuels and a fairer transition. The Brazilian proposal would delay raising and spending these funds by two years, from 2029 to 2031.
Liberia’s proposal weakens emissions cuts
The US and Saudi Arabia are likely to swing behind a new proposal from Liberia, whose government makes millions of dollars a year selling the right for shipowners to register their vessels in the small West African nation via a US-based company.
This proposal would weaken the emissions reduction targets. IMarEst says it would cut the industry’s emissions at most by a half by 2050, falling far short of the target agreed in 2023 for international shipping to reach net zero “close to 2050”.
It would also replace the NZF’s fees for missing targets with a carbon trading system. As a result, there would be no Net Zero Fund and therefore less money available to incentivise green fuels and make the transition more equitable for poorer nations.
Pacific advisor Kautoke said that, as well as preventing shipping from reaching zero emissions by 2050, Liberia’s proposal would mean the Pacific “will not receive any support to deal with the disproportionately negative impacts created by the cost of the transition”.
“We get a double blow if we adopt the Liberian proposal,” he warned. “We get all the cost of a transition without any support, and we have an industry that continues to burn fossil fuels to an unforeseen point.”
Japanese proposal favours shipowners
Japan has submitted a late proposal to amend the NZF so that shipowners have more control over how the fees they would pay for emitting above a set threshold are spent.
University College London professor Tristan Smith has argued that this change means there will be no central mechanism to incentivise investments in clean fuels. He wrote on LinkedIn that under the system put forward by Japan, shipowners would be able to select which green projects their fees would go to. They could choose their own or those of a sister company or other shipowners, rather than funding broader just transition projects that would benefit marine workers or developing countries hit by rising shipping costs.
Despite its flaws, Smith added that Japan’s proposal “could still get taken seriously by some, given how appealing it may seem to shipowners who have consistently demanded control of revenues, and given how the US and other member states have pushed back against the IMO Net Zero Fund and [greenhouse gas] pricing.”
Tacit or explicit approval?
Next week, governments are expected to make statements saying which proposals – or which aspects of proposals – they prefer. Another set of talks will be held from November 23-27 before a potentially final round from November 30-December 4.
A new framework to tackle shipping emissions could be adopted at those talks if two-thirds of countries that are present and signed up to a regulation called Marpol Annex VI – endorsed by just over 100 states – vote in favour of it, as they did in April 2025.
The US and its allies are also trying to change the rules to make the next stage more difficult. Decisions that have been adopted at IMO meetings usually take effect automatically unless a certain number of countries object within a certain time period decided by governments, a system known as tacit approval.
But the US wants that to require explicit approval instead, so that any new emissions standard would not come into force unless enough governments – representing a certain percentage of the world’s shipping fleet – actively indicate support for it.
Critics say this change would give a small number of countries with large shipping registries the power to block implementation. Liberia has the world’s biggest shipping registry, run by an American company, followed by Panama and the Republic of the Marshall Islands.
Liberia and Panama have supported the US at the talks on the Net Zero Framework. The Marshall Islands has long been one of the most vocal supporters of climate action in shipping but, with its officials and shipping registry income vulnerable to US retaliation, did not sign on to the recent Pacific proposal vowing to strengthen the NZF if it is re-opened.
Brazilian negotiator Adriana de Medeiros Gabinio warned in April that the NZF’s opponents are trying to change the rules by which it comes into force as a “safety net to block” it.
The post Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks appeared first on Climate Home News.
Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks
SYDNEY, Wednesday 26 August 2026 — New 2026 Sustainability Reports released by supermarket giants Coles and Woolworths this week demonstrate the retailers are failing on their commitments to end deforestation in their supply chains.
Adele Chasson, Nature Policy Lead at Greenpeace Australia Pacific said:
“These so-called sustainability reports are revealing. Despite their public commitments in 2024 and 2025, neither Coles nor Woolworths have taken deforestation-linked beef off their shelves. Meanwhile, bulldozers continue to tear up forests and bushland, pushing wildlife closer to extinction and causing mass toxic runoff to flow into the Great Barrier Reef. Millions of native animals like koalas are losing their homes to beef pastures each year, while the big supermarkets put off action.
“Australians would be shocked to know that beef on the shelves of our biggest supermarkets could be pushing threatened species to the brink of extinction. Collectively Coles and Woolworths have made more than $2 billion in profits in the last year, profiting from the destruction of wildlife and precious Australian nature. Coles and Woolworths owe it to shoppers to deliver on their promises and end deforestation in their supply chains now.
“As big beef buyers, Coles and Woolworths have an essential role to play in keeping Australia’s unique forests standing. They can help stop the Great Barrier Reef from being poisoned by runoff and protect iconic forest wildlife by taking deforestation off their shelves. It’s time these big companies put their money where their mouths are and follow through on their promise of sourcing and supplying deforestation-free beef.”
New Zealand’s parliament has adopted a controversial new law blocking a whole avenue of climate litigation and shutting down its most advanced corporate lawsuit, which has been blamed by the government for shaking business confidence and investment.
The Climate Change Response (Tort Liability) Amendment Bill, expected to take effect in the coming days after it is formally signed by the Governor-General, prevents all current and future civil claims for climate loss or harm under tort law.
Justice minister Paul Goldsmith said last week that the aim was to give businesses “certainty around their climate change obligations”, noting it would not alter the government’s responsibilities under the Climate Change Response Act 2002 nor business obligations under the Emissions Trading Scheme.
“Our response to climate change is best managed by the Government at a national level and not through piece-meal litigation in the courts,” he added in a statement.
Such litigation, he said, “risks developing a new regime that contradicts the framework Parliament has already enacted” to tackle climate change.
South Africa’s top court blocks Shell’s offshore oil exploration right
Constitutional Court rules that Shell and its partners failed to consult affected communities and did not properly consider environmental risksPeruvian farmer loses climate case against RWE – but paves way for future action
Experts say that despite dismissing the lawsuit, the ruling sets a precedent by confirming that climate science can establish legal liability for the damage caused by emissions
Goldsmith singled out a key domestic climate lawsuit brought by Northland iwi leader and activist Mike Smith against six big companies: dairy firms Fonterra and Dairy Holdings, energy firms Genesis Energy and Z Energy, New Zealand Steel and coal mining firm BT Mining. A seventh original defendant, Channel Infrastructure, was dropped after it permanently decommissioned its Marsden Point oil refinery.
Smith argued that these companies had caused him harm under public nuisance and negligence law, as well as a third breach of a duty to cease contributing to climate change that has yet to be tested domestically. He did not seek financial compensation, instead asking for the companies to immediately stop emitting or contributing to net greenhouse gas emissions.
In one of the most advanced corporate climate accountability lawsuits in the world, a trial had been scheduled for April 2027 after the Supreme Court unanimously allowed the case to continue.
Corporate lobbying in the shadows
Smith described the passing of the bill as “deeply concerning”, particularly as it coincided with the Supreme Court hearing another of his climate lawsuits. In that case, Smith v Attorney-General, he argues that the government’s response to climate change and its impacts on Māori communities in particular breaches rights to life and culture.
“That timing raises profound questions about the separation of powers and the rule of law,” said Smith. “Whatever one’s view of the merits of these cases, it is deeply troubling when parliament intervenes to remove a legal pathway while the courts are actively considering fundamental questions about climate responsibility, rights and the crown’s obligations.”
The bill – which says that no person (including the government) can be found liable in tort for emissions-related climate change effects – followed major lobbying efforts by the companies defending themselves in Smith’s lawsuit. They outlined a proposed legal amendment in a briefing note to the government in 2024.
The centre-right government has been fiercely criticised over its lack of transparency in relation to this lobbying activity. The national ombudsman recently found that the Prime Minister’s Office effectively withheld information requested by the Environmental Law Initiative about meetings, discussions and conversations regarding Smith’s case.
Green groups fail to stop bill
The bill sparked huge concern among environmental campaigners in New Zealand and elsewhere. Greenpeace Aotearoa called it a “shocking abuse of executive power” and the vast majority of submissions to a parliamentary inquiry said it should be rejected.
But in the end, it was adopted with little resistance, moving relatively smoothly through parliament, passing its third reading by 67 votes to 53. Sam Bookman, climate law lecturer at Melbourne Law School, told Climate Home News he was not surprised by this, given that the coalition government has a secure majority.
A complaint has been made to the UN special rapporteur on climate change and human rights by Smith, the National Iwi Chairs Forum Pou Tikanga and youth coalition Climate Clinic Aotearoa over what they see as the government’s heavy-handed approach. Smith is also challenging the new law in yet another lawsuit.
“Pathetic”: New Zealand plans to barely cut emissions between 2030 and 2035
Bookman thinks it “very unlikely” that such a challenge will succeed, noting that New Zealand’s constitution is firmly anchored in parliamentary sovereignty.
But the expert in climate law does not see the bill as the end of legal action in the country, noting that New Zealand has a “sophisticated climate litigation landscape with a growing number of specialist and experienced lawyers and NGOs”.
The country is also approaching its next general election in November, and some opposition parties have pledged to restore access to the courts if elected.
Amanda Larsson, global project lead on agriculture for Greenpeace International, said: “This law deserves to be tested, and I strongly encourage the international climate litigation community to unite and help defend New Zealanders’ fundamental right to hold polluters accountable before this becomes a global blueprint.”
Copycat legislation on the rise
New Zealand’s move is part of a small but growing legislative effort to shut down climate litigation around the world.
In the US, Republican politicians introduced legislation in the House and Senate in April that would shield fossil fuel firms from climate liability lawsuits. Similar laws have already been passed at state level in Tennessee, Utah, Iowa and Louisiana.
The German state of Bavaria has put forward a similar proposal to the Federal Council, aiming to block private climate claims as well as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments imposing such liability. There are also proposals to limit available remedies and actions in the Netherlands and Belgium.
UN General Assembly backs “climate obligations” set by world’s top court
Bookman said he expects more efforts to counter climate damages litigation and advised plaintiffs to think about how to respond, including drawing on broader support in opposing them.
“Even though it’s very hard for plaintiffs to win these types of cases, companies are very eager to avoid the expense, embarrassment and political accountability that come even with unsuccessful lawsuits,” he said.
The post New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation appeared first on Climate Home News.
New Zealand moves to protect business with law curtailing climate litigation
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits