Human-caused emissions of aerosols – tiny, light‑scattering particles produced mainly by burning fossil fuels – have long acted as an invisible brake on global warming.
This is largely because they absorb or reflect incoming sunlight and influence the formation and brightness of clouds.
These combined effects act to lower regional and global temperatures.
Aerosols also have a substantial impact on human health, with poor outdoor air quality from particulate matter contributing to millions of premature deaths per year.
Efforts to improve air quality around the world in recent decades have reduced aerosol emissions, bringing widespread benefits for health.
However, while cutting aerosols clears the air, it also unmasks the warming caused by carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs).
In this explainer, Carbon Brief unpacks the climate effects of aerosols, how their emissions have changed over time and how they could impact the pace of future warming.
Key points include:
- Clean air rules are driving a rapid decline in sulphur emissions around the world. Global sulphur dioxide (SO2) emissions have fallen by around 40% since the mid‑2000s.
- There is around half a degree of warming today that is “hidden” by aerosols. Without the cooling from sulphate and other aerosols, today’s global temperature would already be close to 2C above pre‑industrial levels, rather than the approximately 1.4C the world is currently experiencing.
- Chinese SO2 emissions have fallen by more than 70% between 2006 and 2017 as the national government has brought in a series of air-pollution measures. These declines have added around 0.06C to global warming since 2006.
- Shipping’s low‑sulphur fuel rules have added to recent warming. The International Maritime Organization’s (IMO’s) 2020 cap on marine‑fuel sulphur has already warmed the planet by an estimated 0.04C, albeit with a wide range of estimates across published studies.
- Roughly one‑quarter of the increase in global temperature over the past two decades stems from this unmasking of human-caused heat. Altogether, recent aerosol cuts may have contributed ~0.14C of the ~0.5C of warming the world has experienced since 2007.
- By unmasking warming from CO2 and other GHGs, aerosols have flipped from reducing the rate of decadal warming (as emissions increased) to increasing the rate of warming (as emissions decreased) after 2005.
- Sulphate and other aerosols are a major component of PM2.5 air pollution, which has been linked to millions of premature deaths each year.
- Most future‑emissions pathways project continued aerosol declines. Unless methane and other short-lived GHGs fall at the same time, the rate of warming could accelerate in the coming decades even if CO2 emissions plateau.
Aerosol emissions
The term “aerosols” can be a source of confusion as it often evokes images of spray cans and concerns over depletion of the ozone layer. However, aerosols are a broad category that refer to solid or liquid particles that are fine enough to remain suspended in the atmosphere for extended periods of time.
The major climate-relevant aerosols include SO2, nitrate (NO3), ammonia (NH4), mineral dust, sea spray and carbonaceous aerosols, such as black carbon and organic aerosols.
They vary in size – from nanometres to tens of micrometres – and generally have a short residence time in the lower atmosphere, lasting days to weeks before drifting back to the surface or being washed out in rain.
This means that unlike long-lived GHGs, such as CO2 or nitrous oxide (N2O), aerosols only continue to impact the climate while they are being released. If emissions stop, their climate impacts quickly dissipate.
Aerosols affect the climate by absorbing or reflecting incoming sunlight, or by influencing the formation and brightness of clouds. Most aerosols have a cooling impact because they scatter sunlight away from the Earth and back to space. However, others, including black carbon, cause warming by absorbing incoming sunlight and heating the lower atmosphere.
The figure below shows climate model output looking at the global temperature impact of each different driver of climate change (referred to as “climate forcings” or “radiative forcings”) individually. It includes GHGs, aerosols and other human-caused drivers (such as land albedo changes or tropospheric ozone), as well as natural factors (such as volcanoes and variations in solar output).
Lines above zero show forcings that have an overall warming impact, while those below zero have a cooling effect.
Global average surface temperature changes between 1850 and 2024 caused by each category of climate forcing. Calculated based on the FaIR climate model by comparing all-forcing model simulations to those with an individual forcing removed, following an approach developed by Dr Chris Smith. Observed surface temperatures (using the WMO average of six groups) are shown by the dashed black line.
The warming associated with GHG emissions and cooling associated with aerosol emissions are the largest factors driving the global temperature changes, particularly over the past 70 years.
In the absence of aerosol emissions, the best estimate of current warming would be approximately 0.5C higher, with the world approaching 2C rather than the 1.4C that the world is experiencing today.
Cooling from aerosols has likely masked a substantial portion of the warming that the world would otherwise have experienced.
Different aerosols and their climate effects
There are a number of different types of aerosols, whose climate impacts vary based on both the properties of the particles and the magnitude of human emissions. Of these, SO2 – often referred to as just “sulphur” – has the largest climate impact and is responsible for the bulk of aerosol masking (around -0.5C) that is occurring today.
Black carbon has a modest warming effect on the climate globally (~0.1C), but a much larger impact on Arctic temperatures where it can darken snow and ice, increasing the sunlight they absorb from the sun.
Organic carbon emissions have a modest cooling effect (around -0.1C), while emissions of ammonia and nitrate have an even-smaller cooling effect (around -0.02C). Others, such as dust and sea salt, are primarily natural and changes have had negligible effects on global temperatures.
The table below, adapted from the IPCC AR6 climate science report, provides details on the major aerosols, including their primary sources, effective radiative forcing and temperature impacts over the 1750-2019 period.
| Aerosol type | Primary sources | Effective radiative forcing in watts per metre squared (w/m2), 1750-2019 | Temperature impact, 1750-2019 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sulphur / Sulphate (SO4) | Fossil fuel and biomass SO2 | -0.9 (-1.6 to -0.3) | Strong cooling with -0.5C (-0.1C to -0.9C) of offset warming globally. Dominant aerosol cooling component. |
| Black carbon (BC) | Incomplete combustion (diesel, coal, biomass) | 0.1 (-0.2 to 0.4) | Warming of 0.1C globally (-0.1C to 0.3C). Offsets some cooling; major regional Arctic impact. |
| Organic carbon (OC) | Biomass burning, biofuel and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) | -0.2 (-0.4 to 0.0) | Cooling of -0.1C globally (-0.2C to 0C). |
| Nitrate (NO3) and ammonia (NH3) | Nitrous oxide (NOX) from vehicles and industry and ammonia (NH3) from agriculture | -0.03 (-0.07 to 0.00) | Small global cooling effect of -0.02C (-0.05C to 0.01C). Regionally important where ammonia is abundant. |
| Dust (mineral) | Natural (deserts); some land-use change | ~0 (uncertain, ±0.1) | Small globally with an uncertain sign, but potentially larger regional effects. Anthropogenic fraction of dust forcing is small. |
| Sea salt | Ocean spray (natural) | 0 (natural baseline) | No trend or forcing attributable to human activity. |
Aerosol cooling was relatively modest until around 1950, after which SO2 emissions substantially increased worldwide, driven by a rapid increase in coal combustion and industrial activity.
The cooling effect of aerosols peaked around the year 2000 and has been declining over the past two decades. The figure below highlights the impact of aerosols on global temperature change over time.
Global average surface temperature changes over 1850-2024 caused by aerosols, based on the FaIR climate model.
However, the cooling effects of aerosols remain uncertain due both to their regional nature and the complex nature of interactions between aerosols and clouds.
There is also a relationship between aerosol forcing and climate sensitivity, which is a measure of how much warming is expected from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. In general, climate models with a higher sensitivity tend to have higher aerosol cooling that counterbalances the larger GHG-driven warming. The reduction of uncertainty in aerosol cooling – particularly the effects of aerosols on cloud formation – is a major focus of scientists in their attempts to reduce the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates.
The climate impacts of aerosols are broadly divided into two groups, shown in the chart below. The first is a direct effect (blue line), where they scatter and absorb incoming radiation from the sun, preventing it reaching the Earth’s surface. The second is an indirect effect (dark blue line) on cloud formation, where aerosols serve as “condensation nuclei” around which clouds form.
For example, aerosols can enhance the coverage, reflectance and lifetime of low-level clouds, causing a strong cooling effect.
Global average surface temperature changes between 1850 and 2024 caused by direct and indirect aerosol effects, based on the FaIR climate model.
Of the two, direct aerosol effects generally have the smaller effect, with less uncertainty around their impact. They cool the planet by around -0.13C (-0.31C to 0C) today.
Indirect aerosol effects have a larger magnitude and uncertainty, with a -0.42C (-1C to -0.11) cooling impact globally today.
The recent sixth assessment report (AR6) report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) increased the estimated magnitude of indirect aerosol forcing, compared to the fifth assessment report (AR5). This increase was based on an improved understanding and modelling of aerosol-cloud adjustments.
While global average temperature is the focus here, it is important to note that – unlike CO2 and other GHGs – aerosols in the lower atmosphere are not “well mixed”. That is, they are not spread evenly through the atmosphere.
Rather, their short lifetime results in strong regional variation in aerosol concentrations and associated climate effects, which can have a large impact on local temperature and rainfall extremes. Regions such as east or south-east Asia, which have high sulphur emissions, have experienced larger aerosol cooling than regions with lower emissions.
The one exception is when aerosols are injected higher up in the atmosphere in the stratosphere. There, they tend to have a much longer lifetime – measured in years rather than days – and are much more well-mixed.
(Today, meaningful increases in stratospheric aerosols only occur as a result of particularly explosive eruptions of sulphur-rich volcanoes, which cool the Earth for a few years after a major eruption. However, intentionally introducing sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere has been proposed as a potential “geoengineering” strategy to temporarily mask the effects of warming. These ideas have been controversial in the scientific community.)
Aerosol emissions have a huge impact on public health. The substances are generally considered to be conventional air pollutants and are precursors of fine particulate matter air pollution (PM2.5).
Outdoor air pollution associated with sulphur and other aerosol emissions contributes to millions of premature deaths annually. As a result, much of the impetus to rapidly cut aerosols arises from public health concerns. Despite the contribution to more rapid warming, a reduction in aerosols represents a massive improvement in health and welfare for people worldwide.
Rapid declines in global sulphur emissions
Global emissions of the most climatically important aerosol – SO2 – have declined precipitously since peaking around 50 years ago.
SO2 cuts were initially driven by clean air regulations adopted by the US, UK and EU in the 1970s and 1980s in response to the growing effects of SO2 on both air pollution and acid rain.
As the figure below illustrates, SO2 emissions across the US, UK and EU have subsequently fallen from 68m tonnes per year in 1973 to just 3.3m tonnes per year today.
Annual SO2 emissions by country and by international shipping and aviation, 1850-2022. Data from the Community Earth atmospheric Data System (CEDS).
In the first decade of the 21st century, SO2 cuts in the UK, US and EU were counterbalanced by growing SO2 emissions in China, driven by a rapid expansion of coal use and industrial activity.
Between 2000 and 2007, global SO2 emissions saw a renewed increase, as China’s SO2 emissions reached 38m tonnes per year by 2006.
However, following an international and domestic focus on air pollution in the aftermath of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, China embarked on an ambitious programme to clean up air pollution. The nation has since cut its SO2 emissions by more than 70% to around 10m tonnes of SO2 today.
Meanwhile, SO2 emissions from global shipping recently dropped by around 65%, after the IMO instituted regulations requiring the use of low-sulphur marine fuels from 2020.
Many other countries have also broadly seen aerosol declines since 1990, although there are exceptions. For example, India’s expansion of coal generation has driven increasing SO2 emissions.
Annual SO2 emissions from China, international shipping and the rest of the world. Data from the Community Earth atmospheric Data System (CEDS).
While global SO2 emissions started decreasing in the 1980s, these declines were relatively modest until around 2008, after which they have dropped precipitously.
Global SO2 emissions today are 48% lower than they were in 1979 and 40% lower than in 2006.
It is this recent rapid decline in global SO2 emissions that has driven the reduction in overall global aerosol cooling – and a subsequent decline in the associated masking of GHG warming – discussed earlier.
Effects of low-sulphur shipping fuel
The climate effects of the IMO’s 2020 phase-out of most of the sulphur content in shipping fuel has received a lot of attention over the past two years (see Carbon Brief’s earlier coverage of the topic).
This has been explored by researchers as a potential explanation for the record levels of warming the world has experienced in recent years.
Determining the climate effects of low-sulphur shipping fuel is less straightforward than simply assessing the reduction in global SO2 emissions.
The impact of additional SO2 emissions on cloud formation diminishes as emissions increase, meaning that reductions in SO2 over areas with low background sulphate concentrations, such as the ocean, could result in a proportionately larger warming effect than in highly polluted areas, such as south Asia.
This is somewhat countered by the concentration of shipping in specific “lanes” and by natural emissions of dimethyl sulphide produced by algae that are not present on land. Assessing the radiative forcing impact of the IMO’s 2020 regulations in greater detail requires the use of sophisticated climate models that can simulate these regional effects.
Carbon Brief conducted a survey of the literature on the climate impacts of the 2020 low-sulphur marine fuel regulations. Of eight studies published in peer-reviewed journals over the past two years, shown in the chart below, most determined a radiative forcing change of around 0.11 to 0.14 watts per meter squared (w/m2).
One estimate from Skeie et al. (2024) was a bit lower at around 0.08 w/m2 and another from Hansen et al. (2025) was substantially higher than all the others at 0.5 w/m2.
Estimates of global average radiative forcing changes from the IMO 2020 regulations published in the last two years. See the Methodology section for links to individual studies.
To account for these differing studies, Carbon Brief used the FaIR climate model emulator to simulate the effects of the radiative forcing estimated in each study on global average surface temperatures between 2020 and 2030. This includes 841 different simulations for each study to account for uncertainties in the climate response to aerosol forcing. (See: Methodology for further details.)
These estimates were then all combined to provide a central estimate (50th percentile) that gives each study equal weight, as well as a 5th to 95th percentile range across all the simulations for each different forcing estimate, as shown in the figure below.
Range (5th to 95th percentile) and central estimate (50th percentile) of simulated global average surface temperature responses to the IMO 2020 regulations across the radiative forcing estimates in the literature. Analysis by Carbon Brief using the FaIR model.
Overall, this approach provides a best estimate of 0.04C (0.02C to 0.16C) additional warming from the IMO’s 2020 regulations as of 2025, increasing to 0.05C (0.03C to 0.2C) by 2030.
These large uncertainty ranges are due to the inclusion of the Hansen et al. (2025) estimate, which represents something of an outlier relative to other published studies. Note that the warming of the climate system associated with the IMO 2020 regulations increases over time in the plot due to the ocean’s slow rate of warming buffering the climate response to forcing changes.
Declines in Chinese SO2 are unmasking warming
China’s reduction of SO2 emissions by more than 70% since 2007 represents a remarkable public health success story. It is estimated to have prevented hundreds of thousands of premature deaths from air pollution annually.
These rapid emissions cuts by China represent more than half the reduction in global SO2 emissions since 2007. They have been a major contributor to global temperature increases over the past two decades.
To determine the impact of Chinese SO2 reductions on global average surface temperatures, Carbon Brief used Chinese SO2 emissions data from the Community Emissions Data System (CEDS) combined with the FaIR climate model emulator.
The figure below shows the central estimate and 5th to 95th percentile across 841 different FaIR model simulations to account for uncertainties in the climate response to SO2 emissions.
Range (5th to 95th percentile) and median (50th percentile) of simulated global mean surface temperature responses to declines in Chinese SO2 emissions. Analysis by Carbon Brief using the FaIR model.
The figure above shows that Chinese SO2 declines were likely responsible for a global temperature increase of around 0.06C (0.02C to 0.13C) between 2007 and 2025, increasing to 0.7C (0.02C to 0.14C) by 2030.
Much of this increase occurred between 2007 and 2020, with a more modest contribution of Chinese aerosol changes to warming in recent years.
These results are nearly identical to those found in a study currently undergoing peer review by Dr Bjørn Samset and colleagues at CICERO, which finds a best estimate of 0.07C (0.02C to 0.12C) using a large set of simulations from eight different Earth system models.
This suggests that Chinese SO2 reductions are responsible for approximately 12% of the around 0.5C warming the world experienced between 2007 and 2024.
What aerosol cuts mean for current and future warming
It is clear that rapid reductions in global SO2 emissions have had a major impact on the global climate.
The combination of declines in emissions since 2007 in China and the rest of the world, along with declines in SO2 from shipping after 2020, have collectively unmasked a substantial amount of warming driven by GHGs.
While the reduction in SO2 emissions in other countries has been proportionately smaller than that seen in China, collectively it adds up to 0.03C (0.01C to 0.07C) of warming in 2025.
The figure below provides a best-estimate of all three factors: declines in SO2 emissions in shipping, China and the rest of the world.
Combined central (50th percentile) estimates of modeled global average surface temperature changes from IMO 2020, Chinese SO2 and rest-of-world SO2 declines between 2005 and 2030. Analysis by Carbon Brief using the FaIR model.
Taken together, these declines in SO2 emissions may represent around 0.14C additional warming today, or more than a quarter of the approximately 0.5C warming the world has experienced between 2007 and 2024.
However, the uncertainty in the climate response to changes in aerosol emissions remains large, particularly for changes in shipping emissions, so it is hard to rule out either a much smaller or much larger effect.
These results are in line with other recent analyses showing that changes in aerosol emissions are contributing to an increase in the rate of human-caused global warming in recent years.
The figure below uses a similar FaIR-based climate modeling approach to assess how different factors contributing to human-caused warming have changed over time.
Drivers of decadal warming rates between 1970-1979 and 2015-2024, excluding natural factors like volcanoes and solar cycle variation. From an analysis using the FaIR model at The Climate Brink, adapted from earlier work by Dr Chris Smith.
This shows that the rate of human-caused warming remained relatively flat at around 0.18C per decade from 1980 to 2005, before accelerating to around 0.27C over the past decade.
The primary driver of this recent acceleration in warming has been declining aerosol emissions.
Aerosols have flipped from reducing the rate of decadal warming (as emissions increased) to increasing the rate of warming (as emissions decreased) after 2005 by unmasking warming from CO2 and other GHGs.
The rate of warming from CO2 has increased over time as emissions have increased, though it has plateaued over the past decade as increases in global emissions have slowed.
However, the rate of warming from all GHG emissions – CO2, methane and others – has been relatively consistent since 1970. This is primarily due to the declining contribution of other GHGs to additional warming, likely associated with the phaseout of halocarbons after the Montreal Protocol.
Future declines in aerosols are expected in most of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs) used to simulate potential levels of future warming for the IPCC AR6 report, as shown in the figure below.
Modelled future SO2 emissions are generally dependent on broader mitigation trends – worlds with less fossil-fuel use result in less sulphur emissions – but are also highly variable across different models.
Observed SO2 emissions (black line) are broadly at the same level as (though slightly below) the SSP2-4.5 scenario (yellow line), which is the pathway that most closely matches current climate policies.
Observed SO2 emissions are also similar to those in the very-high emissions SSP5-8.5 scenario (lower grey line), while being higher than emissions in the most ambitious mitigation scenario (SSP1-1.9, green line) and below those in the SSP1-2.6 scenario (navy blue line).
Given differences across modeling groups, it is hard to infer too much about which SSP scenario is most in line with real-world SO2 emissions. However, it is worth noting that the current SSPs do not include a scenario where SO2 emissions continue to rapidly decline while emissions of CO2 and other GHGs increase.
Interestingly, the best-estimate cooling effect from sulphur dioxide is more or less counterbalanced by the warming effect of methane emissions today. As a result, scenarios where all GHG emissions are brought to zero do not result in sustained additional warming due to unmasking from declining aerosols.
However, if CO2 emissions alone were reduced to zero, while non-CO2 emissions were held constant, cutting global aerosol emissions to zero would result in between 0.2C and 1.2C of additional warming.
This means that aerosol emissions represent something of a wildcard for future warming over the 21st century. Continued rapid reductions in SO2 emissions will contribute to an acceleration in the rate of global warming in the coming years.
Methodology
Carbon Brief used the FaIR climate model to determine the effects of aerosol emissions on the climate, building on the work of Dr Chris Smith. Runs were done using the constrained ensemble approach using “fair-calibrate v1.4.”1 to be consistent with the IPCC AR6 parameter range. More details on the constrained ensemble approach can be found in Smith et al. (2024).
Figures showing the global mean surface temperature impact of different climate forcings in isolation were performed by calculating the difference between all-forcing runs and runs where a single forcing (e.g. from GHG emissions) was removed, following the approach used to generate Figure 7.8 in the IPCC AR6 climate science report.
IMO 2020 forcing estimates were taken from the following studies published in the peer-reviewed literature over the past two years:
- Yuan et al. (2024)
- Yoshika et al. (2024)
- Quaglia and Visioni (2024)
- Skeie et al. (2024)
- Gettelman et al. (2024)
- Jordan and Henry (2024)
- Watson-Parris et al. (2024)
- Hansen et al. (2025)
IMO 2020 global average surface temperature changes were calculated by running 841 different FaIR simulations for each of the different forcing estimates identified in the literature, which is the default setting for the FaiR constrained ensemble to provide a range of results consistent with the IPCC AR6 parameter range.
This produced 6,728 total simulations, from which a central (50th percentile) estimate and uncertainty range (5th to 95th percentile) were calculated.
These results were further validated by comparing them to the Earth system model-based estimates in individual studies where near-term global average surface temperature change estimates were provided (Yoshika et al. (2024); Quaglia and Visioni (2024); Gettelman et al. (2024); Jordan and Henry (2024); Watson-Parris et al. (2024); and Hansen et al. (2025).
The results of each of these studies were within the range of FaIR based estimates for the respective study’s radiative forcing – and generally quite close to FaIR’s median estimate for that study, as shown in the table below.
| Study | Carbon Brief’s Estimate (2025) | Published Estimate |
|---|---|---|
| Yoshika et al., 2024 | 0.041C (0.032C to 0.053C) | 0.04C |
| Quaglia and Visioni, 2024 | 0.044C (0.034C to 0.057C) | 0.08C (0.05C to 0.11C) |
| Gettelman et al., 2024 | 0.038C (0.029C to 0.049C) | 0.04C |
| Jordan and Henry 2024 | 0.044C (0.034C to 0.057C) | 0.046C (0.036C to 0.056C) |
| Watson-Parris et al., 2024 | 0.035C (0.027C to 0.045C) | 0.03C (-0.09C, 0.19C) |
| Hansen et al., 2025 | 0.157C (0.123C to 0.205C) | 0.2C |
It is worth noting that the uncertainties associated with converting SO2 forcing estimates to warming outcomes are generally much smaller than converting SO2 emissions into warming outcomes.
The effect of Chinese SO2 reductions were based on a comparison of two scenarios. The first is where Chinese SO2 emissions remained constant at their peak (2007) levels and did not decline. The second is where Chinese emissions followed observational estimates from CEDS between 2005 and 2022 and then remained constant at 2022 levels thereafter (which represents a conservative assumption that likely underestimates future effects of SO2 emissions declines on global temperatures given the strong downward trend). Global average surface temperature changes were calculated by running 841 different FaIR simulations in emissions mode for two scenarios and analysing the difference between the two.
The resulting estimate of 0.06C (0.02C to 0.13C) warming by 2025 was validated by comparing it to the Samset et al. (2025) preprint, which finds a nearly identical best estimate of 0.07C (0.02C to 0.12C) using a large set of simulations from eight different Earth system models.
The effects of the rest of the world’s SO2 declines were estimated using the same approach used for Chinese SO2 emissions, using CEDS emissions data. International shipping and aviation aerosols were excluded from the rest of the world estimate as to not double count IMO 2020 effects.
The post Explainer: How human-caused aerosols are ‘masking’ global warming appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Explainer: How human-caused aerosols are ‘masking’ global warming
Climate Change
DeBriefed 11 July 2025: Texas floods; Global warming ‘tripled’ Europe heat deaths; Ireland exits coal
Welcome to Carbon Brief’s DeBriefed.
An essential guide to the week’s key developments relating to climate change.
This week
Deadly Texas floods
EXTREME FLOODING: At least 120 people died and 173 remain missing one week after flash floods in Texas, NBC News reported. The floods were “one of the deadliest weather events in recent American history”, the New York Times said. The newspaper said it is “too early to say with certainty” the role of climate change, but this type of extreme rainfall is “precisely the kind of phenomenon that scientists say is becoming more common because of global warming”.
STORM CONDITIONS: Bloomberg noted that drought, the “abnormally hot Gulf of Mexico” and other factors fuelled the “storm that spawned the floods” in Kerr county. Climate scientists told Inside Climate News that the “torrential downpours on 4 July exemplify the devastating outcomes of weather intensified by a warming atmosphere”.
CUTS QUESTIONED: The Guardian reported on a warning from experts that such floods could become the “new normal” as “Donald Trump and his allies dismantle crucial federal agencies that help states prepare and respond to extreme weather and other hazards”. E&E News reported that “forecasts and warnings largely worked during the catastrophe in Texas”, but that “those systems are expected to degrade as Trump’s cuts take hold”.
HIMALAYAN FLOODS: Elsewhere, heavy rainfall “battered” two Himalayan states in India, “leading to widespread damage, disruption and loss of life”, India Today reported. Pakistan’s Dawn newspaper reported that “record high summer temperatures” have “accelerated the melting of glaciers”, leading to deadly flooding in some parts of the country.
Europe heat deaths
RAGING HEAT: Around 1,500 of the 2,300 heat deaths during the heatwave that “seared Europe at the end of June” can be attributed to climate change, according to World Weather Attribution analysis covered by the Guardian. The newspaper said that Milan was the “hardest-hit city” and that 88% of the “climate-driven deaths” were in people aged over 65.
MORE EXTREMES: Extreme heat continued to affect much of Europe this week. In Catalonia, Spain, more than 18,000 people were ordered to remain indoors as a “wildfire raged out of control, consuming almost 3,000 hectares of vegetation”, Reuters said. Marseille airport closed as a major wildfire encroached on the southern French city, Le Monde reported.
‘CLIMATE DELAYERS’: Meanwhile, a “far-right” political group successfully outbid other groups to lead negotiations for the EU’s next climate target on behalf of the European parliament, according to Politico. This role for the Patriots for Europe group “give[s] the far right unprecedented influence” over the 2040 target, the outlet said, adding that it “strongly opposes the EU’s climate policies”. An early attempt to curb the bloc’s influence failed, Reuters said.
Around the world
- LIBYAN OIL: BP and Shell have “signed agreements to assess new opportunities in Libya”, the Financial Times reported, joining several oil majors resuming exploration following the country’s civil war.
- SOLAR POWER: Trump issued an executive order targeting “unaffordable and unreliable ‘green’ energy sources”, reported Inside Climate News. But the outlet said it is unclear whether this will “have much of an effect”.
- CLIMATE MOTION: The UN Human Rights Council passed a motion on climate change and human rights – but only after the Marshall Islands withdrew a “divisive amendment” calling on states to recommit to a fossil fuel phase-out, Reuters said.
- BELÉM INCOMING: Meanwhile, the president of COP30 told Climate Home News that countries “already decided” to transition away from fossil fuels and climate negotiations can now focus on a “timeline or rules for how this transition will be made”.
- LAW: The International Court of Justice will issue a major opinion on the legal obligation of countries to address climate change on 23 July, reported Reuters. Although it is nonbinding, experts told the newswire that it “could set a precedent in climate change-driven lawsuits” around the world.
74%
The percentage of global wind and solar projects under construction that are located in China, according to a Global Energy Monitor report.
Latest climate research
- Annual meltwater from the Greenland ice sheet “significantly increased” in the past three decades | Nature Climate Change
- The wealthier and more democratic a nation, the less their citizens engage in climate activism | Journal of Environmental Psychology
- Climate change has “played an important role” in genetic and demographic changes in Tibetan macaques | Science Advances
(For more, see Carbon Brief’s in-depth daily summaries of the top climate news stories on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday.)
Captured
Water levels soared by more than eight metres in just over two hours on the Guadalupe River within an area known as “flash flood alley” in Texas on 4 July. The resulting floods caused devastation for people in nearby homes and summer camps. Satellite imagery in NBC News showed the scale of the impact. Carbon Brief examined the potential role of climate change in the flood and how it was covered by global media.
Spotlight
Ireland exits coal
This week, Carbon Brief looks at the significance of Ireland becoming the latest European country to end coal-powered electricity.
Ireland has joined the UK and a slew of other nations in burning its last lump of coal – the most polluting fossil fuel – to generate electricity.
Coal use ceased on 20 June at Moneypoint, the country’s last coal-burning power station, in line with a 2019 government pledge.
Spain and Italy are expected to become the next European countries to leave behind coal power, according to Beyond Fossil Fuels.
Ireland’s move offers an important “signal” for the country’s energy transition, said Margie McCarthy, the director of research and policy insights at the Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI). She told Carbon Brief:
“We’ve put in place a lot of really ambitious legislation and climate action plans, but we are still more than 80% reliant on fossil fuels across all of our energy demands…Coal is a particularly carbon-intensive fossil fuel, so any movement away from that is a good step forward.”
Coal controversies
Gas (42.1% in 2024) and renewables (39.6%) generate the vast majority of Ireland’s electricity. Coal, despite its overall decline, experienced a mini-comeback in 2021 and 2022 – broadly in line with EU trends when gas prices soared as Russia restricted supplies and countries later dropped Russian fossil fuels following the country’s invasion of Ukraine.
The share of Ireland’s electricity coming from coal increased from 4% in 2020 to 14% in 2021. This fluctuated again in recent years, dropping to 4.6% in May 2025.
The ESB, the state-owned energy company that runs Moneypoint, was criticised in 2022 for resuming shipments from a controversial Colombian mine as an alternative to Russian coal. The company had stopped buying coal from the Cerrejón mine in 2018.
Cerrejón is “Latin America’s largest open-pit coal mine” – six times the size of Manchester, a recent article from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism said. Ireland’s national broadcaster RTÉ reported in 2024:
“According to local communities, lawyers’ organisations and court rulings, in its four decades of operation it has driven an environmental crisis that has destroyed the health, lives and culture of many thousands of Indigenous people.”
An ESB spokesperson told Carbon Brief that it sourced a “limited amount of coal from Cerrejón between April 2022 and August 2023”.
Next steps
Now that coal use has wound down, Moneypoint will remain available to generate electricity using oil on a back-up basis until 2029.
The ESB “expects low levels of running of the plant going forward”, a spokesperson said.
The company plans to turn Moneypoint into a “green energy hub”, with a major offshore windfarm, a wind turbine construction hub and a green hydrogen facility on site.
Looking at Ireland’s ongoing energy transition, McCarthy said that, although gas still plays a “significant” role, increases in wind, solar and electricity interconnection are “good signals to move in the right direction”. She added:
“We just need to keep the pace going. We need to accelerate quicker…and that we make sure we’re managing demand while we are trying to accelerate that pace.”
Data centre dilemma
A major cause of Ireland’s growing electricity demand is data centres, which consumed more than one-fifth of the country’s electricity supplies in 2024 – more than all urban households.
Ireland has become an “EU pioneer of data centres” thanks to “its low taxes, temperate climate and fibre cable access to the US and Europe”, according to the Financial Times.
McCarthy highlighted the importance of ensuring that “data centre demand is not undoing the renewable energy share, or the final energy consumption reductions that are required as part of our targets and obligations”. She added:
“It’s very fair to say that the efficiency measures in data centres have been significant…But the issue is that the demand is outpacing any efficiency measures that are being introduced.”
Watch, read, listen
OIL TO LITHIUM: A Climate Home News article looked at the challenges facing Nigeria’s efforts to “supply refined lithium to the electric vehicle battery industry”.
PODCAST CHAT: The Rest is Politics podcast spoke to the UK Climate Change Committee chief executive, Emma Pinchbeck, about net-zero and the energy transition.
BRRR: A BBC News “in depth” article explored the growing “battle” for control over the Arctic, along with the security challenges from climate change and other issues in “one of the world’s coldest places”.
Coming up
- 7-25 July: 30th session of the International Seabed Authority (part II), Kingston, Jamaica
- 14-23 July: UN high-level political forum on sustainable development, New York
- 17 July: UN General Assembly third informal dialogue on the Pact for the Future, New York
- 14-18 July:20th ordinary session of the African ministerial conference on the environment, Nairobi, Kenya
Pick of the jobs
- New Scientist, environment news reporter | Salary: £40,000-£50,000 (pro rata). Location: London
- Environmental Defense Fund, senior analyst, mission finance | Salary: €56,000-£61,000. Location: Belgium, the Netherlands or UK
- Daily Telegraph, environment editor | Salary: Unknown. Location: London
- United Nations Human Settlements Programme, junior nature-based solutions and climate consultant | Salary: Unknown. Location: Kenya
- Brookline.News, freelance environmental reporter | Salary: Unknown. Location: Massachusetts, US
DeBriefed is edited by Daisy Dunne. Please send any tips or feedback to debriefed@carbonbrief.org.
This is an online version of Carbon Brief’s weekly DeBriefed email newsletter. Subscribe for free here.
The post DeBriefed 11 July 2025: Texas floods; Global warming ‘tripled’ Europe heat deaths; Ireland exits coal appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Wealthy nations risk undermining the loss and damage fund’s plan to deliver $250 million in aid next year to climate-vulnerable countries hit by extreme weather, board members from developing nations said this week.
While rich nations have pledged $789 million, they have only transferred $348 million so far to the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), which all governments agreed to set up two years ago and is now in its start-up phase.
Speaking on behalf of developing country board members, Honduras’s representative Elena Cristina Pereira Colindres expressed “concern” during a press briefing, adding that “transparency and predictability” on when the money would be paid is lacking.
Pereira did not name individual countries but Italy, the European Union and Luxembourg are the three donors that have promised money but not said when it will be given.
Other nations – like the United Arab Emirates, Australia and Sweden – are drip-feeding their promised pledges, only giving a part of them each year.
Pereira said that these “mutli-year disbursement schedules” severely limit the fund’s board’s ability to determine how much money they can spend and reduces “overall confidence in our partner’s commitments to long-term capitalisation of the fund”.
“Lemonade stand money”
While the fund’s board has agreed to spend $250 million next year, Pereira said that this “must not be used or considered as an indication of the future scale of the fund” because the needs are in the “hundreds of billions”.
A 2024 study in Nature found that climate change is causing $395 billion of loss and damage each year. Developing countries have called for developed nations to provide $100 billion of loss and damage finance per year by 2030.
Daniel Lund, Fiji’s representative to the fund, told an FRLD board meeting held in the Philippines on Wednesday that the amount the fund currently has is just “lemonade stand money”, adding that it was about a quarter of what it costs to build a coal-fired power plant.
Scientists hail rapid estimate of climate change’s role in heat deaths as a first
The fund’s board is drawing up a strategy to get more money – known as a resource mobilisation strategy – by the end of 2025. “It is of crucial importance to the constituency that this fund that was established for all developing countries serves their collective needs at the scale that is needed”, Pereira said.
In April, the fund approved a strategy for the initial $250 million start-up phase, in which it agreed to give out grants of between $5 million and $20 million to project proposals submitted by developing countries.
Priority for private finance?
With funds scarce, the secretariat which runs the FRLD has proposed that projects which bring in extra sources of funding like private-sector finance should be judged favourably by the fund’s board.
But some developing country board members and climate campaigners pushed back at the board meeting against adding this practice, known as leveraging, into the criteria.
Egypt’s representative Mohammed Nasr said he had “a very strong concern” about this. “This should not be part of any criteria when we deal with loss and damage funding”, he said.
The head of Climate Action Network (CAN) International Tasneem Essop said she was worried that the fund’s secretariat were pursuing “typical World Bank approaches”. The World Bank was chosen to host the fund – at least on an interim basis – despite opposition from some large NGOs like CAN.
Nigeria’s push to cash in on lithium rush gets off to a rocky start
Essop said she opposed leveraging and derisking. It’s “as if what we are setting up here is an investment fund,” she said, “no it’s not – this is a solidarity fund. This fund needs to benefit the people that are suffering from the climate crisis”.
Speaking after her, Nasr said he agreed. “A fund is not a bank. Solidarity is different to investment. Loss and damage is different to development”, he said.
When will funds be given out?
Despite funding constraints, board co-chair Richard Sherman said he expects the first projects to be approved early next year.
Sherman said he expects the fund to put out a call for proposals at the next board meeting in October and the first projects to be approved at the following meeting in February 2026.
The board is still working out the fund’s financial architecture, meaning how the money is banked and disbursed to countries, Sherman said. If done correctly, he added, a unique fund can be set up to deliver a “rapid disbursement in time of disaster or extreme event”.
“We are working wholeheartedly to make sure that (rapid disbursement) happens,” Sherman said during a press briefing, adding that he strives for the fund to “almost be a hotline for communities” facing loss and damage events.
In a statement read out by a minister before the board meeting, the president of the Philipines Ferdinand Marcos called for urgency, saying that “every delay means more families without shelter, more livelihood disrupted and worse – more lives lost”.
The post Wealthy nations accused of delaying loss and damage fund with slow payments appeared first on Climate Home News.
Wealthy nations accused of delaying loss and damage fund with slow payments
At least 120 people have died after a devastating flash flood swept through homes and holiday camps in central Texas in the early hours of 4 July.
The disaster unfolded after a severe rainstorm caused the Guadalupe River to swell to its second-greatest height on record.
Headlines have been dominated by the death of 27 children and counsellors from a summer camp for girls near the banks of the river.
In the aftermath of the flooding, many news outlets questioned whether the Trump administration’s decision to cut staff from the federal climate, weather and disaster response services may have impacted the emergency response to the disaster.
However, others defended the agency’s actions, saying that the appropriate warnings had been issued.
Scientists have been quick to point out the role of climate change in driving more intense rainfall events.
A rapid attribution analysis found “natural variability alone” could not explain the extreme rainfall observed during the “very exceptional meteorological event”.
Meanwhile, social media has also been awash with misinformation, including claims that the floods were caused by geoengineering – an argument that was quickly dismissed by officials.
In this article, Carbon Brief unpacks how the flood unfolded, the potential role of climate change and whether advanced warnings were affected by funding cuts to key agencies.
- How did the flooding develop?
- What impact did the flooding have?
- What role did climate change play?
- Were the forecasts and warnings affected by recent job cuts?
- What conspiracy theories have been circulating?
- How has the media responded?
How did the flooding develop?
The flash flooding began in the early hours of the morning on Friday 4 July, with early news coverage focusing on Guadalupe River in Kerr County.
According to BBC News, the US National Weather Service (NWS) reported a “swathe of around 5-10 inches (125-250mm) of rainfall in just three to six hours across south-central Kerr County”, equivalent to “around four months of rain [falling] in a matter of hours”.
The slow-moving weather system was fed by moisture from the remnants of Tropical Storm Barry, which had brought flooding to Mexico, before tracking north as it died out, the outlet explained.
Kerr County is a “hillier part of Texas than surrounding counties”, meaning that “moisture-laden air was forced upwards, building huge storm clouds”, the article noted:
“These storm clouds were so large they effectively became their own weather system, producing huge amounts of rain over a large area.”
Prof Hatin Sharif, a hydrologist and civil engineer at the University of Texas at San Antonio, explained in an article for the Conversation why Kerr County is part of an area known as “flash flood alley”:
“The hills are steep and the water moves quickly when it floods. This is a semi-arid area with soils that don’t soak up much water, so the water sheets off quickly and the shallow creeks can rise fast.”
He added that Texas as a whole “leads the nation in flood deaths” – by a “wide margin”.
As the rain lashed down, the “destructive, fast-moving waters” of Guadalupe River rose by 8 metres in just 45 minutes before daybreak on Friday, said the Associated Press, “washing away homes and vehicles”.
The Washington Post reported that the river reached its “second-greatest height on record…and higher than levels reached when floodwaters rose in 1987”. It added that “at least 1.8tn gallons of rain” fell over the region on Friday morning.
The floodwaters swept through camps, resorts and motorhome parks along the banks of Guadalupe River for the Fourth of July weekend.
A timeline of events by NPR reported that “boats and other equipment that was pre-positioned started responding immediately”.
The article quotes Texas lieutenant governor Dan Patrick, who said there were 14 helicopters, 12 drones and nine rescue teams in action – as well as “swimmers in the water rescuing adults and children out of trees”. He added that there were 400 to 500 people on the ground helping with the rescue effort.
By Saturday 5 July, more than 1,000 local, state and federal personnel were on the ground helping with the rescue operation, NPR said.
In the days that followed, further periods of heavy rainfall meant that flood watches remained in place for much of the weekend, said Bloomberg.
Newspapers and online outlets were filled with images from the area. For example, the Sunday Times carried photos and video footage of the floods, while BBC News had drone footage of the “catastrophic flooding”.
What impact did the flooding have?
The floods have killed at least 119 people, according to the latest count reports by the Guardian:
“In Kerr county, the area that was worst affected by last Friday’s flood, officials said on Wednesday morning that 95 people had died. The other 24 people who have died are from surrounding areas. The Kerr county sheriff said 59 adults and 36 children had died, with 27 bodies still unidentified.”
There are also 173 people believed to still be missing, the Guardian said, including 161 from Kerr County specifically.
Bloomberg noted that “some of the victims came from additional storms around the state capital Austin on 5 July”. It added that, according to officials, “no one had been found alive since 4 July, when the deluge arrived in the pre-dawn hours”.
BBC News reported that continuing rains following the initial flood “hamper[ed] rescue teams who are already facing venomous snakes as they sift through mud and debris”.
Headlines have been dominated by the death of 27 children and counsellors from Camp Mystic – a 700-acre summer camp for girls, which has been running for almost 100 years, noted the Guardian.
BBC News reported that “many of the hundreds of girls at the camp were sleeping in low-lying cabins less than 500ft (150 metres) from the riverbank”.
Lieutenant governor Patrick “told of one heroic camp counsellor who smashed a window so girls in their pyjamas could swim out through neck-high water”, the outlet reported. He added that “these little girls, they swam for about 10 or 15 minutes” before reaching safety.
The Associated Press reported:
“Dozens of families shared in local Facebook groups that they received devastating phone calls from safety officials informing them that their daughters had not yet been located among the washed-away camp cabins and downed trees. Camp Mystic said in an email to parents of the roughly 750 campers that if they have not been contacted directly, their child is accounted for.”
The New York Times published images and videos of the aftermath at the summer camp.
Visiting the site on Sunday 6 July, Texas governor Greg Abbott tweeted that the camp was “horrendously ravaged in ways unlike I’ve seen in any natural disaster”.
In the immediate aftermath of the floods, US president Donald Trump, at his golf club in Bedminster in New Jersey, signed a major disaster declaration that freed up resources for the state, reported France24.
A preliminary estimate by the private weather service AccuWeather put the damage and economic loss at $18bn-$22bn (£13.2bn-£16.2bn), the Guardian reported.
Former president Barack Obama described the events as “absolutely heartbreaking”, reported the Hill. In a statement, former president George W Bush and his wife Laura – who was once a counselor at the camp – said that they “are heartbroken by the loss of life and the agony so many are feeling”, another Hill article reported.
American-born pontiff Pope Leo XIV also “voiced his sympathies”, reported another Guardian article. Speaking at the Vatican, he said:
“I would like to express sincere condolences to all the families who have lost loved ones, in particular their daughters who were in a summer camp in the disaster caused by flooding of the Guadalupe River in Texas.”
What role did climate change play?
As the planet warms, extreme rainfall events are becoming more intense in many parts of the world.
This is principally because, according to the Clausius-Clapeyron (C-C) equation, the air is able to hold 7% more moisture for every 1C that the atmosphere warms, which means warmer air can release more liquid water when it rains.
For example, a recent study of the US found that the frequency of heavy rainfall at “durations from hourly to daily increased in 1949-2020”. It added that this was “likely inconsistent with natural climate variability”.
In addition, research indicates that, in some parts of the world, increases in the intensity of extreme rainfall over 1-3 hours are “stronger” than would be expected from the C-C scaling.
However, many other factors – such as local weather patterns and land use – affect whether extreme rainfall leads to flooding.
Local meteorologist Cary Burgess told Newsweek that “this part of the Texas Hill Country is very prone to flash flooding because of the rugged terrain and rocky landscape”. For example, the outlet notes, 10 teenagers died in flash floods in July 1987.
In the aftermath of the flooding in Texas, Dr Daniel Swain, a climate scientist at the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, told ABC News that there is “abundant evidence” that “highly extreme rain events” have “already increased considerably around the world as a result of the warming that’s already occurred”.
Prof Andrew Dessler from Texas A&M University wrote on climate science newsletter The Climate Brink that “more water in the air flowing into the storm will lead to more intense rainfall”. He added:
“The role of climate change is like steroids for the weather – it injects an extra dose of intensity into existing weather patterns.”
Dr Jennifer Francis, a climate scientist at the Woodwell Climate Research Center, told Bloomberg that Texas is “particularly flood-prone because the fever-hot Gulf of Mexico is right next door, providing plenty of tropical moisture to fuel storms when they come along”.
Many outlets pointed out the higher-than-average sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico. BBC News said:
“Sea surface temperatures in the Gulf of Mexico, where some of the air originated from, continue to be warmer than normal. Warmer waters mean more evaporation and so more available moisture in the atmosphere to feed a storm.”
Yale Climate Connections reported that sea surface temperatures were up to 1C above average in the central Gulf of Mexico. It said that human-caused climate change made these conditions up to 10 times more likely, according to the Climate Shift Index from Climate Central.
(This index gives the ratio of how common the temperature is in today’s climate, compared to how likely it would be in a world without climate change.)
Bloomberg was among a number of outlets to note that, in the run-up to the flooding, nearly 90% of Kerr County was experiencing “extreme” or “exceptional” drought. This meant the soil was hard and less able to soak in water when the intense rainfall arrived.
Just days after the event, rapid attribution group ClimaMeter published an analysis of the meteorological conditions that led to the flooding.
It stated that “conditions similar to those of the July 2025 Texas floods are becoming more favorable for extreme precipitation, in line with what would be expected under continued global warming”.
According to the analysis, the flooding was a “very exceptional meteorological event”. It explained that “meteorological conditions” similar to those that caused the floods are “up to 2 mm/day (up to 7%) wetter in the present than they have been in the past”. It added:
“Natural variability alone cannot explain the changes in precipitation associated with this very exceptional meteorological condition.”
The field of extreme weather attribution aims to find the “fingerprint” of climate change in extreme events such as floods, droughts and heatwaves.
ClimaMeter focuses on the atmospheric circulation patterns that cause an extreme event – for example, a low-pressure system in a particular region. Once an event is defined, the scientists search the historical record to find events with similar circulation patterns to calculate how the intensity of the events has changed over time.
The study authors warned that they have “low confidence in the robustness” of their conclusions for this study, because the event is “very exceptional in the data record”, so they do not have many past events to compare it to.
In its coverage of the attribution study, the Wall Street Journal highlighted some of the research’s limitations. It said:
“Remnant moisture from Tropical Storm Barry stalled over the region and repeatedly fed rainfall, making it hard to compare the weather pattern to historical data.”
The outlet quoted one of the study’s co-authors, Dr Davide Faranda, a scientist at France’s National Centre for Scientific Research, who said the data “nonetheless suggests that climate change played a role”.
Many other climate scientists have also linked the flooding to climate change.
For example, Dr Leslie Mabon, a senior lecturer in environmental systems at the Open University, told the Science Media Centre:
“The Texas floods point to two issues. One is that there’s no such thing as a natural disaster – and one area that disaster experts will be probing is what warnings were given and when. The second is that the pace and scale of climate change means extreme events can and do exceed what our infrastructure and built environment is able to cope with.”
Were the forecasts and warnings affected by recent job cuts?
Observers were quick to question how the response to the floods has been impacted by recent sweeping cuts to federal climate, weather and disaster response services by the Trump administration.
BBC News explained how staffing cuts overseen by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency – the initiative formerly led by Elon Musk – have reduced the workforce National Weather Service (NWS).
The news outlet reported that – since the start of the year – “most” probationary employees had their contracts terminated, 200 employees have taken voluntary redundancy, 300 opted for early retirement and 100 were “ultimately fired”.
(The Trump administration has also proposed a 25% cut to the budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – the agency which oversees the NWS – but this would not come into force until the 2026 financial year.)
The Independent was among a raft of publications to report the weather service had predicted 1-3 inches (2.5-7.6cm) of rain for the region – significantly less than the 10-15 inches (25-38cm) that ultimately fell.
CNN detailed how the first “life-threatening flash flooding warning” for parts of Kerr County – which would have triggered alerts to mobile phones in the area – was issued just past 1am on Friday morning by the NWS. This was 12 hours after the first flash flood warning and followed “several technical forecasts” issued on Thursday afternoon and evening with “increasingly heightened language”, it said.
Other publications focused on staffing shortages at local branches of the weather service. The New York Times and Guardian were among the outlets who reported that “key staff members” had been missing at the two Texas NWS offices involved in forecasting and warning for the affected region. This included a “warning coordination” officer.
Writing on social media platform BlueSky, Dr Daniel Swain – the climate scientist from the University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources – said claims that the weather service “did not foresee” the floods were “simply not true”. He stated:
“This truly was a sudden and massive event and occurred at [the] worst possible time (middle of the night). But [the] problem, once again, was not a bad weather prediction: it was one of “last mile” forecast/warning dissemination.
“I am not aware of the details surrounding staffing levels at the local NWS offices involved, nor how that might have played into [the] timing/sequence of warnings involved. But I do know that locations that flooded catastrophically had at least 1-2+ hours of direct warning from NWS.”
Rick Spinrad, who led NOAA over 2021-25, speculated that the communication problems could have been caused by staffing shortages. He told the Hill:
“I do think the cuts are contributing to the inability of emergency managers to respond…The weather service did a really good job, actually, in getting watches and warnings and…wireless emergency alerts out.
“It is really a little early to give a specific analysis of where things might have broken down, but from what I’ve seen, it seems like the communications breakdown in the last mile is where most of the problem was.”
The Trump administration, meanwhile, was quick to push back on the suggestion that budget and job cuts to climate and weather services had aggravated the situation.
In an official statement provided to Axios, a White House spokesperson said criticisms of the NWS and funding cut accusations were “shameful and disgusting”. It added:
“False claims about the NWS have been repeatedly debunked by meteorologists, experts and other public reporting. The NWS did their job, even issuing a flood watch more than 12 hours in advance.”
Meanwhile, when a reporter asked Trump whether the administration would investigate whether recent cuts had led to “key” vacancies at the NWS, he responded that “they did not”.
Asked if he thought federal meteorologists should be rehired, Trump said:
“I would think not. This was the thing that happened in seconds. Nobody expected it. Nobody saw it.”
Media outlets highlighted how the disaster put a spotlight on the risks of forthcoming federal cuts to NOAA and the government’s plans to dismantle the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
The Guardian reported on warnings that such floods could become the “new normal” as “Trump and his allies dismantle crucial federal agencies that help states prepare and respond to extreme weather and other hazards”.
Dr Samantha Montano, professor of emergency management at Massachusetts Maritime Academy, told the outlet.
“This is what happens when you let climate change run unabated and break apart the emergency management system – without investing in that system at the local and state level.”
CBS News reported about how, in 2017, Kerr County officials rejected proposals to install an outdoor warning system for floods on the grounds of cost. The outlet noted that neighbouring counties Guadalupe and Comal both have flood sirens in place.
What conspiracy theories have been circulating?
As with many other natural disasters, the floods have been followed by a wave of fast-spreading online misinformation.
One of the most popular theories to have taken hold is that the floods were caused by cloud seeding – a form of geoengineering where substances are purposefully introduced into the clouds to enhance rainfall.
In a pair of Twitter posts, each viewed by several million people, one account claimed the state of Texas was “running seven massive cloud seeding programs” and asked: “Did they push the clouds too far and trigger this flood?”
It also linked the floods and cloud seeding operations conducted by Rainmaker Technology Corporation, a weather modification start-up partly funded by US billionaire Peter Thiel.
Rainmaker Technology Corporation CEO Augustus Doricko found himself in the eye of the social media storm, as social media users pointed to his organisation’s links to Thiel and shared a photo of the businessman with former US president Bill Clinton.
The cloud seeding theory received a major boost when it was promoted by Mike Flynn, Donald Trump’s former national security advisor and one of the “most integral figures in the QAnon movement”, according to the Guardian.
The weather modification theory was picked up by existing and prospective Republican politicians.
The Daily Beast reported how Kandiss Taylor – a Republican congressional candidate in Georgia – blamed the event on “fake weather” in a string of tweets. She wrote: “This isn’t just ‘climate change.’ It’s cloud seeding, geoengineering, & manipulation.”
Meanwhile, sitting Georgia congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene announced on Twitter that she had introduced a bill that “prohibits the injection, release, or dispersion of chemicals or substances into the atmosphere for the express purpose of altering weather, temperature, climate, or sunlight intensity”.
(This is not Taylor Greene’s first foray into weather manipulation conspiracies. In 2021, she postulated that Jewish bankers had started deadly fires in California in 2018 by firing a laser from space in order to benefit themselves financially.)
Meteorologists were quick to debunk the claims around cloud seeding. In a Facebook post, chief meteorologist for Texas news station ABC13 wrote:
“Cloud seeding cannot create a storm of this magnitude or size. In fact, cloud seeding cannot even create a single cloud. All it can do is take an existing cloud and enhance the rainfall by up to 20%.”
At a press conference on Monday, Texas senator Ted Cruz said there was “zero evidence of anything like weather modification”. He added:
“The internet can be a strange place. People can come up with all sorts of crazy theories.”
Theories about geoengineering were not the only form of misinformation to swirl online in the wake of the disaster.
Snopes reported how local outlet Kerr County Lead pulled a story about two girls rescued 30 metres up a tree two days after the flood event after the account was found to be false.
The story, which cited “sources on the ground”, was circulated widely on Twitter and replicated by other news outlets, including the Daily Mirror and Manchester Evening News in the UK. Both outlets subsequently deleted the articles.
In a retraction statement, the editor of Kerr County Lead said the story was a “classic tale of misinformation that consumes all of us during a natural disaster”.
Another widely-circulated story – debunked by Snopes – claimed that musician Eric Clapton would pay funeral expenses for the families of those killed.
How has the media responded?
The scale of flooding and the resulting death toll have prompted many news outlets to ask whether more could have been done to avoid the tragedy.
Newspapers in Texas highlighted perceived failures by local, state and federal authorities.
“Flash floods happen frequently enough in the Hill Country that many Texans rightly wonder whether at least some of the devastation and death…could have been prevented,” the Dallas Morning News said. “Answers must follow,” agreed the Austin American-Statesman.
An editorial in the San Antonio Express-News said there would likely be “plenty of finger-pointing”, arguing that “people will try to push narratives that serve political and personal agendas”. It added:
“The truth may reveal inevitability, failure or something in between.”
An editorial in the Houston Chronicle criticised “misguided decisions” by Trump to cut support for the “federal agencies that keep us safe from storms”. It stated:
“What will protect Texans is a fully staffed, fully supported weather service – with the scientists and infrastructure in place to warn us in time.”
While none of these Texan newspaper editorials pointed to a potential role for climate change in exacerbating the extreme rainfall, some of their wider reporting on the disaster did.
Other US news outlets, such as the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post emphasised this link in their coverage.
“We hope this tragedy will lead to renewed support for the systems we’ve devised over the years to help prepare for and respond to natural disasters,” Louisiana’s New Orleans Advocate stated in an editorial, adding that “we all are vulnerable to increasingly extreme weather events caused by climate change”.
In Pennsylvania, a Patriot-News editorial said that, following the floods, “government officials at all levels need to accept the reality of climate change. Too many do not.”
Writing in his news outlet, Bloomberg, businessman and former Democratic presidential nominee Michael Bloomberg made a direct link between the “climate denialism” of the Trump administration and the disaster in Texas.
The New York Times has an opinion piece on the floods by MaryAnn Tierney, former regional administrator at the FEMA. Besides making a clear link to climate change, Tierney stated that:
“The uncomfortable truth is this: With each passing day, the federal government is becoming less prepared to face the next big disaster.”
More overtly right-leaning and Trump-supporting media outlets in the US took aim at “left-wing critics” for linking the event to climate change and Trump administration cuts.
An article in Fox News, which has broadcast discussions of flood-related conspiracy theories, criticised “liberals” for “politicising the disastrous flooding”.
An editorial in the New York Post is headlined: “Lefty responses to the Texas flooding horror are demented and depraved.” It argued that Democrats had “wrongly suggest[ed] that Team Trump slowed the disaster response”.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth, from the climate-sceptic Heritage Foundation, wrote in the UK’s Daily Telegraph that Democrats were trying to “politicise mother nature” by linking weather-service cuts to the deaths in Texas.
Meanwhile, Guardian columnist Rebecca Solnit urged caution in definitively linking the floods to any specific political issue amid “the information onslaughts of this moment”. She concluded that “both the weather and the news require vigilance.”
The post Media reaction: The 2025 Texas floods and the role of climate change appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Media reaction: The 2025 Texas floods and the role of climate change
CCL Partners with Central Michigan University Students to Create Climate Change PSAs
What Is Fire Weather? Is it Preventable?
DeBriefed 11 July 2025: Texas floods; Global warming ‘tripled’ Europe heat deaths; Ireland exits coal
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Spanish-language misinformation on renewable energy spreads online, report shows
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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 Change1 year 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”
-
Carbon Footprint1 year agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Why airlines are perfect targets for anti-greenwashing legal action
-
Climate Change Videos1 year ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Some firms unaware of England’s new single-use plastic ban