Children born in 2020 will face “unprecedented exposure” to extreme weather events, including heatwaves, droughts and wildfires, even if warming is limited to 1.5C above pre-industrial temperatures.
That is according to a new study, published in Nature, which calculates the number of unprecedented extreme events that people born in different decades and countries might live through.
Using a case study focused on Brussels, the researchers find that people born in 2020 will experience an “unprecedented” 11 heatwaves in their lifetime – even if global warming is limited to 1.5C by the end of the century.
In contrast, in a pre-industrial climate, a person living in the Belgian capital would likely experience just three such heatwaves, according to the study.
More than half of children born in 2020 – around 62 million people – will experience “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to heatwaves, even if warming is limited to 1.5C, the study finds.
However, this number nearly doubles to 111 million under a scenario where warming hits 3.5C.
The study also analyses crop failures, river floods, tropical cyclones, wildfires and droughts.
The research “helps the climate community build new narratives that better clarify the impacts [of climate change] on younger generations and vulnerable populations”, one expert who was not involved in the study tells Carbon Brief.
Intergenerational justice
As the planet warms, extreme weather events such as heatwaves, floods and droughts are becoming more intense, more frequent and lasting longer.
A popular 2021 study found that children born in the 21st century will be exposed to more extreme weather events in their lifetimes than their parents and grandparents.
The paper found that in a scenario of 3C of warming above pre-industrial levels, a child who turns six in 2020 will experience twice as many wildfires and tropical cyclones, three times more river floods, four times more crop failures, five times more droughts and 36 times more heatwaves over their lifetime than a six-year-old living in a pre-industrial climate.
The authors also found a “particularly strong increase” in children’s future exposure to extremes in the Middle East and North Africa.
The lead author of the study – Prof Wim Thiery from Vrije Universiteit Brussel – told Carbon Brief at the time that today’s youth will live “an unprecedented life”, in which they will “face conditions which older generations have never experienced”.
Four years later, Dr Luke Grant – a researcher in Thiery’s team – has led a new study building on the ideas of the 2021 paper.
Grant tells Carbon Brief that rather than counting the number of extreme events that an individual might experience, his new study counts the number of people that reach an “unprecedented state” of exposure to extremes.
Prof Kaveh Madani is the director of the UN University Institute for Water, Environment and Health and was not involved in the study. He tells Carbon Brief that the paper “helps the climate community build new narratives that better clarify the impacts [of climate change] on younger generations and vulnerable populations”.
The authors define “exposure” as the number of extreme events that a person experiences in their lifetime, relative to the number they would have experienced in a pre-industrial climate.
“Unprecedented lifetime exposure” is defined as exposure so high that it has only a one-in-10,000 chance of happening in a world without any greenhouse gas emissions.
‘Unprecedented lifetime exposure’
The authors present a case study of extreme heat in Brussels, Belgium, to explain their method.
They define a heatwave as a three-day extreme heat event, which reaches average temperatures that would be expected once per century in a pre-industrial climate.
Using models from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP), the authors calculate heatwave frequency in a world without climate change. They also assess scenarios in which warming is limited to 1.5C, 2.5C and 3.5C by the end of the century.
They combine this data with demographic information, including how many people are born in the country each year and their average life expectancy, using data from sources including the ISIMIP database and UN population estimates and projections.
In a world without climate change, the study finds that a person born in 1960 in Brussels would have a one-in-10,000 chance of experiencing six of the pre-defined heatwaves in their lifetime. Any member of this “birth cohort” who experiences more than six heatwaves in their lifetime has therefore faced “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to extreme heat, according to the study.
The authors find that a person born in Brussels in 1960 is likely to experience three heatwaves on average during their lives under all of the three future warming pathways– meaning that they are unlikely to face “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to heat.
By contrast, the researchers find that many younger age cohorts will experience unprecedented heatwave exposure. For many younger age cohorts, lifetime exposure to heatwaves is greater for higher warming pathways.
For example, people born in Brussels in 2020 will experience 11 heatwaves in their lifetime if global warming is limited to 1.5C by the end of the century. If warming rises to 2.5C or 3.5C, they could experience 18 or 26 heatwaves, respectively.
The graphic below shows heat exposure since birth in Brussels for three “birth cohorts” of 1960 (bottom row), 1990 (middle row) and 2020 (top row). It presents three future scenarios, in which warming is limited to 1.5C (blue), 2.5C (yellow) and 3.5C (red) by 2100. The dotted line shows the threshold for an “unprecedented” lifetime exposure to extreme heat.
Heat exposure
The authors repeat their analysis across the Earth’s entire land surface, by dividing it into grid cells and using location-specific temperature and demographic data.
Of the 81 million people born in 1960, they find that 13 million are likely to face unprecedented exposure to heatwaves in their lifetimes. They add that for this age cohort, lifetime exposure to unprecedented extremes does not vary depending on the warming scenario.
However, 21st century warming has a significant effect on exposure for younger generations. Under a 1.5C warming pathway, 52% of people born in 2020 will face unprecedented exposure to heatwaves. This rises to 92% under a 3.5C warming scenario.
The study adds:
“This implies that 111 million children born in 2020 will live an unprecedented life in terms of heatwave exposure in a world that warms to 3.5C versus 62 million in a 1.5C pathway.”
The charity Save the Children has published a report which unpacks the findings of the study. The graphic below, from the report, shows the percentage of people from different countries born in 2020 who will face unprecedented lifetime exposure to heatwaves under the 1.5C (top), 2.5C (middle) and 3.5C (bottom) warming scenarios.
Each circle shows a country, indicated by its three-letter countries code. The size of the circle indicates the number of people in the country. Darker circles indicate higher-income countries.
Circles on the right hand side of the graphic indicate that more than half of the country’s 2020 cohort will be exposed to unprecedented heatwaves in their lifetime.
“The evidence is now inescapable that heatwaves impact every community around the world,” Dr Luke Harrington, a senior lecturer in environmental science at the University of Waikato, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief. He adds:
“This paper offers the clearest view that climate change is verifiably unfair: those who have done the least to contribute to rising global temperatures will experience the most extreme impacts.”
From floods to fires
The authors apply the same method to five other climate extremes – crop failure, wildfires, droughts, floods and tropical cyclones.
The graphic below shows the key findings. The coloured portion of the bar shows the number of people born in 2020 who will face unprecedented exposure to each extreme under a 1.5C warming pathway. The dark green and light green bars show the additional exposure under 2.7C and 3.5C warming.
The authors find that unprecedented lifetime exposure to heatwaves will affect the most people, with 62 million people born in 2020 likely to face unprecedented exposure to heat in their lifetimes if warming is limited to 1.5C.
This is followed by crop failures and river floods, which will impact 23 million and 10 million people from the 2020 birth cohort under the 1.5C warming pathway, respectively.
Lead author Grant tells Carbon Brief that he is “most confident” about his heatwave findings because temperature is a “basic” metric for climate models to “get right”.
Meanwhile, extremes such as crop failure depend on a range of factors including soil moisture, land-atmosphere interactions and rainfall, which can make it harder for the models to accurately capture changes, Grant explains.
Vulnerability
The authors also assess how “socioeconomic vulnerability” affects their findings using a global deprivation index – a tool which measures the level of disadvantage and hardship experienced by individuals or communities in a particular geographic area.
The authors use the index to identify the 20% most and least vulnerable people in each age cohort. They find that the most vulnerable groups are overwhelmingly from African countries.
The authors also conclude that “socioeconomically vulnerable people have a consistently higher chance of facing unprecedented lifetime heatwave exposure compared to the least vulnerable members of their generation”.
The graph below, taken from a news and views article about the study, shows the percentage of high vulnerability (red) and low vulnerability (pink) people in each age cohort who would be exposed to unprecedented heat, under a 2.7C warming scenario.
Dr Marina Romanello, a research fellow at the University College London and research director of the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the paper “is an important addition to the scientific literature, showing how our delays in tackling climate change are putting the future of our children at risk”.
She adds:
“The authors have used well-established models to project future health threats, framing them around what matters the most: the wellbeing, health and survival of present and future generations.”
The post Children born in 2020 will face ‘unprecedented exposure’ to climate extremes appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Children born in 2020 will face ‘unprecedented exposure’ to climate extremes
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