Hurricane Beryl, which made landfall at the beginning of July this year broke records as the earliest Category 5 Atlantic hurricane ever which was attributed to warmer early-season ocean temperatures. This storm was another reminder of climate change and served to warn hurricane-prone communities that these storm seasons are becoming longer and more dangerous. These extreme weather events pose significant threats to society’s health, homes, and livelihoods in unforeseen ways.
While we can clearly see the catastrophic destruction caused by hurricanes like Katrina which devastated 800,000 US homes and left over a million people homeless for at least a month, hurricanes leave other damages that are not always addressed but are sometimes just as dangerous as the initial disaster. Immediate disaster response usually focuses on restoring power an access to food, housing, and water, as relief organizations come together to aid afflicted communities.
But what about the other damages that are left for hurricane survivors to face after the initial storm response?
For those individuals who can return home, the next step is to survey damages. A Sense of relief may come when a home appears to have survived the storm with little visible water damage. But, it is important not to write off water damage or to save it for a later home improvement project. Water damage and moisture left unchecked leave the opportunity for mold spores to grow and wreak havoc on your health.
Mold, which starts out as Mildew, will begin to grow only 24 to 48 hours after water exposure. Because it grows so quickly, and because it is often not immediately acted on by hurricane and flooding victims, it is safe to ‘assume that mold is already present in homes’ that have endured hurricanes and flooding events, according to the CDC. While this initial period is critical for homeowners, it is often very difficult to actually prevent. And, because mold is sneaky and often undetectable to our senses, it may grow unnoticed in our homes, in our cars, at our work, or amongst our belongings, for years, which can cause various health issues.
So what health issues may occur from mold?
Mold exposure is detrimental to our health and may cause and exacerbate health conditions. Acute exposure may lead people to have wheezing, coughing, itchy eyes, and other common cold symptoms. Prolonged exposure, however, may cause severe allergic responses, skin infections, asthma, and chronic respiratory illnesses. This makes it important to be aware of small changes to our health, particularly in the period coming out of hurricanes and flood events. Still, some types of mold and infections have long incubation periods, making it difficult for individuals and clinicians to connect its symptoms to an actual mold exposure event which slowly manifests after water damage has occurred.
Increases in severe hurricanes and flooding events and subsequent mold exposures have recently brought a lesser-known health condition, Invasive mold Infections (IMI)s, into the spotlight as well. Infection rates of IMI’s have markedly increased particularly in areas hit by extreme weather. After Hurricane Harvey hit Texas in 2023, IMI rates increased by 17.5% during the period after the hurricane. Infectious disease epidemiologists from the CDC who surveyed this disease emergence, attributed this rise in cases to mold exposure in homes impacted by the hurricane. While most of those who contracted an IMI were immunocompromised and at a greater risk of illness, researchers have warned that these pathogens are becoming more ‘virulent and potent’ as warming climates offer them favorable conditions for adaptation. IMI’s may soon pose a risk to healthier populations of people as well, and, as climate change continues to spread to areas that historically may face fewer threats of extreme weather events, the risk of mold exposure and contracting these IMI’s may also rise.
Experiences from contemporary pandemics like COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR), have shown us that overlooking potential threats to emerging diseases leaves societies unprepared to effectively manage or respond to their future consequences. Climate change is a threat that will continue to impact societies in unprecedented ways, and it is unrealistic to assume immunity from its effects simply for living far away from those areas experiencing more extreme weather.
So, what is currently being done to prevent mold exposure after hurricanes?
The simple answer is: not enough. Without a ‘systematic surveillance’ system for mold exposure in the US, it is difficult to track down sources of mold exposure and those individuals who may be unknowingly exposed. Because rates of mold exposure have been shown to be connected to extreme weather events it could make sense for Disaster relief organizations to develop mold assessment and surveillance systems. For those, disaster-struck communities this would be particularly beneficial, especially since emergency assistance would extend past immediate and urgent needs as well as recognize the delayed, or secondary damages, like mold, which homes and victims often face.
Unfortunately, it is unlikely that aid or surveillance by these organizations will improve, or be offered even amidst the growing threat of climate change and subsequent mold exposure. FEMA, the main emergency response agency in the US, recently announced that there is not enough funds to cover this season’s projected relief needs because of record-breaking natural disasters. While this had only been speculatory, those communities hit by Hurricane Beryl in July saw this concern become a reality; FEMA began ‘denying requests for aid’ because of their limited budget and projected finances for this season. Although these disaster relief organizations have an ever-increasing need in our societies, the increasing cost of climate disasters is making it harder for them to provide aid and manage effective response.
It is essential for individuals to know how to prevent mold growth and to manage mold exposure when it happens in your home. To prepare for a hurricane or for a flooding event, protect areas of the home that may be vulnerable to water damage, especially where there are unsealed barriers. If your house is prone to flooding, protect or cover those belongings that might be in contact with water or mold growth.
After the hurricane, it’s important to remember that mold can grow within 24-48 hours in places where there was water exposure. For those individuals returning to their homes after the storm has passed, it is vitally important to check for signs of water damage and to take photos of any potentially affected areas of damage! This is often necessary for individuals hoping to file insurance claims.
When inspecting your home, look for warps in the walls, check your roof for leaks or damage, inspect those areas in your home with little light exposure, and take notice of discolorations or damages to your carpets, floors, and walls.
If you end up finding mold and plan to remove it yourself, make sure to use personal protective equipment to prevent skin contact, inhalation, or ingestion of mold. Additionally, use dehumidifiers and air conditioning units to dry up moisture in the air immediately after a hurricane, and open windows when cleaning out mold.
If you are unsure whether there is mold in your home, or if you notice small changes in your home or to your health in the time after a flooding event, it is best to contact professional mold remediation services to get it checked out and cleaned properly.
As extreme weather events are becoming more frequent across the US, we can learn how to protect ourselves and our homes from mold. By educating friends and family about the risks and prevention measures for mold exposure communities can be more resilient against the long-term impacts of these weather events, which can be just as devastating as the initial storm itself.
Mold exposure and IMI’s are yet another facet of climate change. As the climate crisis grows increasingly complex, it is even more necessary that we shift our focus beyond immediate disasters and prioritize long-term strategies that safeguard the health of communities today and in the future.
Alyssa is a graduate Public Health Student at Lund University in Sweden. Originally from New England, USA, she grew up in the mountains and is passionate about making sustainable systems in public health.
The post Amidst a record-breaking hurricane season, mold may be in your homes. What does that mean for you? appeared first on Climate Generation.
Amidst a record-breaking hurricane season, mold may be in your homes. What does that mean for you?
Governments at the COP17 nature summit in Armenia agreed on Saturday to scale up their policies to protect the planet’s shrinking biodiversity, and for the first time invited large emerging economies like China and Gulf states to take on donor responsibilities to help fund those efforts.
For the past two weeks, countries held talks in Yerevan under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity to outline a plan to ramp up currently “insufficient” policies to conserve land and marine ecosystems. A recent UN progress report found the world is off track to meet 22 out of 23 global targets aimed at reversing species loss and protecting 30% of land and seas by 2030.
While a response plan, called the “Global Review of Collective Progress”, was expected to be the main outcome of COP17, negotiations struggled to advance amid a deadlock over the controversial subject of how to finance the boost in conservation measures needed.
After an all-night session on Friday, delegates agreed to invite developing countries to voluntarily signal their interest in assuming donor funding obligations alongside developed nations. Negotiators repeatedly warned that any stronger provisions on expanding the donor base would collapse the deal.
COP president: Results beat expectations
An exhausted COP17 president Hambardzum Matevosyan, Armenia’s environment minister, told journalists in the early hours of Saturday that “we’ve achieved more than we could’ve expected” given the “importance” of the decisions being taken.
“It was 100% possible that those items did not made it through. 100% possible,” he said, adding that the conference had made progress on “all the most important items”.
Speaking at the closing plenary, the group of Pacific Islands said that, while the summit had achieved “great outcomes”, delegates are also departing Yerevan “with realities not reflected in the official text”, such as the low replenishment of the Global Environment Facility (GEF), a key funder of nature projects.
-
Lula’s election win in Brazil raises hopes for zero deforestation drive
Lula’s re-election makes it more likely Brazil can meet a key goal to end forest loss in the Amazon and builds confidence in a new fund to protect the world’s rainforests, experts say
Some observers also said the deal did not go far enough. Steven Guilbeault, a former Canadian environment minister who helped broker the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), said the Yerevan package of action is “an important step forward”, but still “falls short of what is needed to meet our 2030 commitments”.
An Lambrechts, biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International, said COP17 had kept things moving forward and set well-intentioned promises, but added that these “won’t remove major roadblocks to implementation” such as insufficient finance and debt constraints in developing countries.
WWF chief conservation officer Daudi Sumba noted that financial issues were not fully resolved. Despite the deal in Yerevan, “I fear finance will remain the key issue that continues to haunt the UN biodiversity summits,” he said in a statement.
‘Yerevan Pathway’ tackles nature plans and subsidies
In the lead-up to the summit, the UN assessment report showed countries are falling short on virtually all targets in the GBF, the 2022 global deal often referred to as the ‘Paris Agreement for nature’.
They include a landmark target to protect at least 30% of the planet’s land and sea by 2030. If countries all stick to their current national goals, about 26% of land would be protected and only about 12% of marine ecosystems would be under conservation measures.
The main COP17 decision – named the Yerevan Pathway by the presidency – calls for countries to revise their biodiversity plans, subject to available funding, with a particular focus on addressing the gap in coverage of “marine, coastal and inland water ecosystems”.
It also urges the over 60 countries who have not submitted a biodiversity plan yet to finalise them “as soon as possible” and taking into account the gaps identified by the UN progress report.
Countries also agreed to tackle the drivers of biodiversity loss by “accelerating” the reduction of subsidies for activities that damage nature. Subsidy reform, covered by Target 18 of the GBF, is where countries have made the least progress so far, according to the assessment report.
Jill Hepp, director of nature and marine policy and incentives at green group Conservation International, said singling out subsidies in the Yerevan Pathway “gives a strong signal” that closing the gap for biodiversity action requires “more urgent efforts to reform harmful incentives and scale up positive incentives”.
“Timid” steps to expand base of donors
Having failed to meet a target to channel $20 billion for biodiversity conservation by 2025 and faced with shrinking aid budgets, the EU pushed a proposal to expand the list of which countries count as donors, so that wealthy emerging economies like China and Saudi Arabia could also voluntarily contribute. The group of Arab nations strongly opposed this.
During the talks, Irish minister of state for nature, Christopher O’Sullivan, whose country holds the EU presidency, said the bloc wanted the world’s “new realities” to be reflected in the donor list.
Negotiations remained gridlocked for most of the two-week talks, until a last-day compromise was struck to invite developing countries that may want donor status “to indicate to the [Convention on Biological Diversity] secretariat their interest in being included in the corresponding list”.
Countries also asked the secretariat to send an invitation to emerging economies wanting donor status at each subsequent COP, and requested a technical report on “the implications of inclusion in the list” for emerging economies.
Swiss lead negotiator Gabriela Blatter said during one of the sessions that her country had expected greater steps towards expanding the base of contributing countries, but added that “if we’re mutually unhappy, it’s probably the closest we can get on these very delicate political compromises”. Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, also noted their dissatisfaction but said it had expected “a lot less”.
The fragile deal was approved in a package of decisions together with the Global Review, after some delegations including Brazil and China appealed to the plenary not to make further changes to the text at the risk of collapsing the whole agreement.
In a statement delivered to the closing plenary, the EU said the finance outcome had delivered “timid” progress towards fully broadening the base of donors.
Cali Fund still not operational
Adopted two years ago at COP16, the Cali Fund was seen by some observers as a way to channel private-sector finance into biodiversity conservation, as governments struggle to find public funds. But it is still struggling to get up on its feet.
The fund allows big corporations to access certificates for the use of genetic material found in biodiversity in return for a financial contribution, which experts estimate has the potential to raise up to $6.9bn for biodiversity. While voluntary, companies are encouraged to pay 1% of their profits or 0.1% of revenue into the fund.
But since its creation, the fund has received little more than $10,000, which Guilbeault argued is because the rules for disbursements to local communities and the operation of the fund had yet to be fleshed out. This was due to happen at COP17.
Yet, while the final decision on the fund laid out some of the rules – including how companies can earn “Cali Fund certificates” – some key technical details were left to the next COP in 2028 in Ecuador. This includes the issue of whether companies can pay a lower rate if they use genetic data for only a small portion of their products.
“By punting essential decisions to two years from now, parties have all but ensured the fund remains empty until then,” said Pakhi Das, a public policy advisor at NGO Plant-for-the-Planet.
The post COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature appeared first on Climate Home News.
COP17 delivers fragile deal to boost conservation and funding for nature
SYDNEY, Thursday 30 October 2026 — In response to reports that the Albanese government is set to introduce draft legislation this year that would seek to ban data centres in Australia’s suburbs, Joe Rafalowicz, Head of Climate and Energy at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said:
“These reports are a testament to the growing community opposition to these completely inappropriate AI factories that have sprung up across our suburbs, and Big Tech corporations should take heed — the data centre build-out must not happen without the endorsement of the Australian people.
“But the government can’t simply ship this problem out to regional Australia without addressing the fundamental issues with this extractive new industry.
“We’re already seeing a trend of AI data centre proposals moving to the regions, in areas that are more water-scarce, more environmentally sensitive, and next to sources of fracked and coal seam gas to support their massive BYO gas-fired power plans — a pattern we’ve seen play out in the United States.
“From the Beetaloo Basin in the NT to the Western Downs in Qld, we’re seeing a wave of AI data centre proposals that would see new gas fast-tracked to support their massive energy demand, and threaten to completely derail Australia’s energy transition.
“Just as suburban Australians are asking, “what for?”, regional communities like Berry Springs and Dalby do not want dirty data centres setting up shop with absolutely no benefit to their communities. Greenpeace is calling for a moratorium on AI data centre developments until strict and enforceable safeguards are in place to protect our climate and our communities.”
-ENDS-
Media contact
Kate O’Callaghan on +61 406 231 892 or kate.ocallaghan@greenpeace.org
AI data centre ban in suburbs would not address fundamental issues: Greenpeace
In the thick of the COP29 climate summit in Azerbaijan in 2024, the UN climate talks were rattled by what can only be described as a major PR disaster. The BBC, Reuters and The Guardian all carried headlines, attributed to leading climate policy experts, that the COPs were “no longer fit for purpose”.
The articles outlined a series of reforms called for in an open letter signed by 22 eminent scientists and politicians, including a former UN secretary-general and previous UN climate chief, with a further 150 lending their support. The headlines shook confidence in the COP process, just as governments were wrestling over a new climate finance goal.
The Club of Rome – which handled the media relations for the letter – hurried to say that its “constructive, supportive ideas” had been “misinterpreted”. Negotiators kept calm(ish) and carried on, in the end landing the finance goal after some high-stakes drama on the final day.
-
Early speakers’ list suggests few powerful leaders will attend COP31
Just 77 heads of state or government are scheduled to address the COP31 climate summit in Antalya, a third less than the COP28 peak -
Africa wants adaptation finance on COP31 agenda, raising risk of a fight
The African Group wants dedicated space on tripling adaptation finance, the Green Climate Fund and trade, setting up a possible clash
To my surprise, when I went back this week to read the letter again, I could not find the offending line about the COPs not being fit for purpose. The Club of Rome has yet to respond to my query about its disappearance.
Whatever happened to the wording, that sentiment has been widely shared. COPs have ballooned in size while the importance of their outcomes seems to have diminished since the 2015 Paris Agreement (with the exception of the 2023 COP in Dubai where countries agreed to transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems).
The same on the surface
Two years on from those painful headlines in Baku, has anything changed for the better? You might be forgiven for thinking not. Official decisions are still made by consensus rather than the majority voting some have called for to stop blockers.
Tens of thousands of officials, activists and business execs still scurry around the halls to an ever-growing list of side events, roundtables and dialogues, while deals still come down to rows, all-nighters and jargon-filled texts adopted to rounds of applause.
But it would not be true to say that COPs have completely failed to respond to the very real need to translate the words of the Paris Agreement into action in the outside world.
Global warming is projected to be around 1.3C lower this century than it would have been if the world had not committed to tackle the climate crisis under that accord. Developing countries have a valued space at COPs in which their voices have equal weight in decision-making, unlike in many other international fora. And most importantly, perhaps, there has been a subtle shift, tipping the balance away from negotiating towards doing.
Brazil branded last year’s summit in Belém as the “COP of Implementation”, corralling the sprawling Action Agenda into six axes. This was a bid to impose some structure on the mushrooming efforts between governments, UN agencies, cities, businesses and civil society to set targets and spur faster results on their pet issues, from methane emissions to health and adaptation in conflict zones. COP30 alone saw the launch of