The UK’s largest freshwater lake experienced its worst-ever levels of a harmful bacteria this summer.
Lough Neagh – a lake in Northern Ireland that is larger than the country of Malta – has been plagued by blue-green algae that can negatively impact humans, plants and animals.
A group of environmentalists recently held a “wake” to protest the scale of the situation.
Scientists tell Carbon Brief that agricultural nutrient runoff and climate change are the main roots of the problem – and that there is no “silver-bullet” solution.
In this article, Carbon Brief explains what happened on Lough Neagh this summer, how climate change made the situation worse and how it is being tackled without a functioning devolved government in place.
- What happened on Lough Neagh?
- What role does climate change have in the algal blooms?
- What is being done to improve the situation?
What happened on Lough Neagh?
Lough Neagh is the largest freshwater lake in the UK and Ireland, spanning around 380 square kilometres (km2). It holds more than 800bn gallons of water and stretches across five of the six counties in Northern Ireland.
The lake hosts a range of plant and animal species, including whooper swans, tufted ducks and the rare Irish Lady’s Tresses orchid. The wider 5,400km2 basin around the lake holds wildlife-rich wetlands.
The map below shows the scale of Lough Neagh compared to the rest of Northern Ireland.
Since May, high levels of a type of bacteria called blue-green algae have been identified in a number of rivers, lakes and coastlines in Northern Ireland. Lough Neagh has been particularly impacted.
These cyanobacteria – a type of bacteria that can photosynthesise – naturally inhabit freshwater ecosystems.
But if they get plenty of sunlight, CO2 and nutrients – such as nitrogen and phosphorus – they can grow in big numbers and begin to form visible algal “blooms”. The blooms negatively impact the appearance, quality and use of the water.
The recent blooms have affected swimmers and fisheries in Lough Neagh, which contains Europe’s largest commercial wild eel fishery.
It can cause rashes and illnesses in humans and can “potentially kill wild animals, livestock and pets if ingested”, according to the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs (Daera).
The blooms also block sunlight from reaching other plants and use up oxygen in the water, which can suffocate fish and other creatures.
The image below shows the blooms visible from Copernicus satellite imagery on 4 September. The green swirls of algae are particularly noticeable on the eastern side of the lake.
Lough Neagh supplies around 40% of all drinking water in Northern Ireland. NI Water says that drinking water drawn from the lake remains “safe to drink and use as normal”.
The issue has had a political impact in Northern Ireland, where the devolved government has been at a standstill since last year due to Brexit-related issues.
The climate-sceptic former Northern Ireland environment and agriculture minister, Edwin Poots, said the blooms are a “very significant issue”.
What role does climate change have in the algal blooms?
There are a number of drivers behind the increase in algal blooms on Lough Neagh this summer.
This includes excess nutrient runoff from agricultural and wastewater systems, “combined with climate change and the associated weather patterns, such as the exceptionally warm June, followed by the wet July and August”, Daera says in a statement to Carbon Brief. The department adds:
“This is a complex, multi-factorial issue that will take years, if not decades, to solve.”
Studies say that excessive nutrients are the main cause of blue-green algal blooms in freshwater lakes around the world. Nitrogen and phosphorus occur naturally in water, but agricultural fertilisers, sewage run-off, household products and storm water flows can cause an overabundance of these nutrients
Algal blooms appear as a result of eutrophication – a process arising from too many nutrients in the water boosting the growth of plants and algae.
Lough Neagh is “hypereutrophic”, meaning it is especially rich in nutrients coming from a range of sources.
Prof Mark Emmerson, a professor of biodiversity at Queen’s University Belfast, says the nutrient issue is heightened further by climate change. He tells Carbon Brief:
“We’ve had the wettest July on record. The consequence of that is that when we have farmers who are managing their slurry [mixture of animal waste and water used as fertiliser]…climate events are leading to that being washed out into our river courses and down into the Lough.
“You get this combination of multiple stressors that erode the capacity of an ecosystem like Lough Neagh to absorb and recover from these sorts of events.”
The UK and Ireland have experienced more rainfall on average in recent decades. This trend is predicted to continue as global temperatures rise further, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The map below shows rainfall levels across the UK in July this year compared to the 30-year average. The dark purple areas experienced the highest above-average rainfall levels. Northern Ireland (left) saw more than double its average rainfall for the month.
Rising temperatures also play a role in the growth of blue-green algae, according to Prof Christopher Gobler, endowed chair of coastal ecology and conservation at Stony Brook University in New York. He tells Carbon Brief that the climate impact on blooms is a “no-doubter”:
“If you go back even to the 20th century, the summers just weren’t as warm as they are today. The warming sets up a whole multitude of effects. These blue-green algae, they grow best at really high temperatures. The warmer it gets in general, the better they do.”
A 2011 study found that nutrient levels and climate change “synergistically enhance” cyanobacteria blooms in bodies of water.
However, other research published earlier this year found that nutrients were the main reason behind cyanobacteria growth in lakes in the Americas.
The researchers found “no clear trends” in the links between algal blooms and latitude. Water temperature is “only weakly” related to bloom growth, the study said, saying this aspect has been “overemphasised” previously.
A greater focus on reducing nutrients would improve the situation for lakes such as Lough Neagh, Gobler tells Carbon Brief:
“If you can address the nutrient issue, what that says is that you can actually overcome the temperature issue…In the 20th century, [the] nutrients may have been there, but because the window of opportunity of temperature was short, you didn’t get the blooms.
“But now, since the window is open for most of the summer and the nutrient levels are high – now you’re getting the blooms.”
Other issues have affected this year’s blooms on Lough Neagh. The lake has a high population of zebra mussels, an invasive species, which Daera says upset the “ecological balance” in the Lough.
The filter feeding of the zebra mussels may have contributed to making the water clearer, allowing more sunlight to pass through and boost bloom growth – as well as removing food for native species.
A 2008 study found that harmful blooms in freshwater ecosystems “may lead to mass mortalities of fish and birds” and pose a health threat to cattle, pets and humans. The study, based on modelling, found that high temperatures cause increased growth rates of cyanobacteria and that summer heatwaves “boost the development” of toxic blooms.
The wider impacts on Lough Neagh specifically “remain very much unknown”, Emmerson tells Carbon Brief. He adds:
“We don’t know what the impact on the fish communities that are commercially harvested will have been. We also don’t know what the impacts [are] on the invertebrates that live on the rocks on the bottom of the lake…which are also important food for the fish communities that live there.”
What is being done to improve the situation?
The situation on Lough Neagh is ongoing, but the blooms have started to decline. Daera tells Carbon Brief in a statement:
“Whilst the reporting of visible blooms has decreased and there is evidence that the blue-green algae is starting to break down, the situation of the blooms in Lough Neagh are still being closely monitored, but it is anticipated that as temperatures drop and daylight shortens, the blooms will subside.”
Algal blooms can occur at any time of year and often do on Lough Neagh, but they are most commonly found between May and September.
Daera says it “recognises the seriousness of the situation” this summer and the department continues to assess water quality on the lake.
A team was set up to focus on the immediate response to the situation and a panel of experts will develop recommendations to improve water quality in Northern Ireland, the department says.
Daera adds that any reviews and recommendations for action will be considered in the context of other public-sector demands and also within the “priorities of a returning executive”, referring to the Northern Ireland government which collapsed in May 2022.
The situation on Lough Neagh “vividly illustrates years of political failure – no legislation to protect the environment and no government to address the crisis”, Sky News senior Ireland correspondent David Blevins wrote last month.
The executive has been in a state of collapse for more than 40% of its existence. Northern Ireland’s lawmaking assembly also collapsed in October 2022 over disagreements on post-Brexit trade rules.
Since last year, civil servants have managed government responsibilities. But they are not able to develop new policies or make political decisions, leaving Northern Ireland at a political standstill.
In the past, the UK government has imposed “direct rule” where they took over responsibility for Northern Ireland government decisions during times of collapse. But this has not been implemented since 2007.
The Social Democratic and Labour party last month launched a motion to recall the Northern Ireland assembly to discuss the “ecological crisis” on Lough Neagh, according to BBC News.
Emmerson believes that “nothing is going to happen” in the absence of a functioning devolved government. He tells Carbon Brief:
“I’m confident that we have the technologies, the engineering solutions, the nature-based solutions [and] the capacity to develop social solutions that could work, but whether the political will is there or not, I’m not quite sure – even if we had a functioning government.”
There’s no “silver-bullet” solution to the situation, Emmerson adds, but actions such as planting trees on upland areas to reduce seepage from land to water and reducing fertiliser use on farms would have multiple benefits. He says:
“Many of the solutions which are aimed at improving water quality and addressing the solution in somewhere like Lough Neagh have indirect co-benefits for climate-related action and for nature recovery all at the same time.
“There’s this lack of recognition that the climate and biodiversity and water-quality crises are all interlinked. If you put in place mitigating measures for one, then you are likely to have beneficial effects – what we call co-benefits – for many of the other large-scale crises that we are facing at the moment.”
James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth Northern Ireland, says that although the blooms have receded, the lack of concrete action is “condemning Lough Neagh to more ecological catastrophe in the future”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“That’s the most depressing issue, that we’ve basically condemned these problems to happen repeatedly in the future with much greater severity because they [the government] will do anything other than tackle the sources of pollution – be it human sewage or animal waste.”
Orr says that taking Lough Neagh into public ownership would be one good step to tackle the situation. The bed and soil of Lough Neagh is currently owned by the Earl of Shaftesbury’s estate.
A petition to bring the lough into public ownership and manage it under a single body was submitted to the UK parliament last month. This was rejected.
Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, who currently holds the title of Earl of Shaftesbury, told BBC News that he is willing to sell the lake to the public – “but won’t give it away for free”.
Orr says that if a functioning devolved government had been in place in recent months, there could have been closer scrutiny of politicians, civil servants and the bodies responsible for protecting the environment. But, he adds:
“The system has just got its hands over its ears…[This is] going to happen again and again and again, and it’s going to happen for decades unless we do the obvious thing – reduce the pollution and invest in sewage infrastructure.”
The post Lough Neagh: How climate change intensified toxic algae on the UK’s largest lake appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Lough Neagh: How climate change intensified toxic algae on the UK’s largest lake
Climate Change
‘Ride the wave of momentum’: Australia announces once-in-a-decade Marine Parks Network review
In response to the federal government announcing its once-in-a-decade review of Australia’s Marine Parks Network, the following lines can be attributed to Elle Lawless, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace Australia Pacific:
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific welcomes today’s announcement that the Albanese Government will review Australia’s Commonwealth Marine Parks Network. This is a rare, once-in-a-decade opportunity to strengthen our marine parks and ban industrial fishing in Australia’s marine protected areas.
“Australians would be appalled to know that more than half of Australia’s Marine Parks Network currently allows for extractive industries, like longlining, bottom trawling and oil and gas mining. These so-called ‘protected’ areas were designed to safeguard our beloved ocean wildlife and underwater ecosystems – that is what Australians expect. Damaging industrial industries should not be given a free pass to trawl, fish, drill or extract from our marine parks.”
“With the first Ocean COP just around the corner, and off the back of Australia’s move to ratify the Global Ocean Treaty earlier this year, the Australian government has a unique opportunity to ride the wave of this momentum and solidify itself as a true global ocean leader.
“Greenpeace Australia Pacific is calling for industrial activities to be banned from our protected waters and for at least 30% of Australia’s ocean to be protected as ocean sanctuaries. This review presents a rare opportunity to create more ocean sanctuaries, true blue havens where ocean life can recover, thrive and repopulate the surrounding waters.”
—ENDS—
‘Ride the wave of momentum’: Australia announces once-in-a-decade Marine Parks Network review
In recent days, prominent climate sceptics and rightwing commentators have shared charts on social media incorrectly implying that Europe is having its “quietest” year for wildfires in 2026.
These include Dr Matthew Wielicki, a former University of Alabama geochemist and self-described “professor in exile”, who was recently appointed by the Trump administration to lead the US Global Change Research Program.
However, these charts paint a misleading picture as they are skewed by encompassing the entirety of Russia in the data – including the vast plains of Siberia.
These charts also use data that include fires that are deliberately lit to manage cropland, which is a declining practice across much of Europe.
In this factcheck, Carbon Brief shows that the area burned by wildfires across the European Union in 2026 is second only to 2022 for this time of year.
The latest data from the European Forest Fire Information System (EFFIS) also shows that France has set a new modern record for area burned and Spain’s wildfire season is among the worst on record.
The fires have displaced more than a third of a million people across south-western Europe, while an impending heatwave has also raised fears of the fires worsening in the coming days.
‘Quietest year’
On 27 July, as wildfires raged across multiple European countries, former Conservative peer and climate-sceptic commentator Matt Ridley posted on Twitter that “2026 is the quietest year for wildfires in Europe by some distance”.
Ridley, who sits on the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), a UK-based climate-sceptic lobby group that refuses to reveal the sources of its funding, was responding to an article by Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Stanley.
Stanley’s column, headlined: “Climate change is real – and the right needs to get serious about it”, warned:
“This is no longer a matter of speculation: the wildfires of Europe, pitiless and persistent, are the way we live now.”
Ridley included a chart from Our World In Data, showing the cumulative area burned by wildfires by week for Europe. The chart puts 2026 as having the smallest area for this time of year in a dataset going back to 2012.
Ridley’s post was widely shared by prominent rightwing figures – including Richard Tice, deputy leader of the hard-right, climate-sceptic Reform UK party, former Conservative cabinet minister Jacob Rees-Mogg and multiple commentators.
Separately, Wielicki also shared a chart on Twitter to imply that wildfires in Europe are declining. Wielicki has previously claimed that the “science is not settled on climate change”.
The charts posted by Ridley and Wielicki both use data from the Global Wildfire Information System (GWIS). The GWIS category for “Europe” encompasses all the countries on the continent and includes the whole of Russia.
As a result, Russia accounts for about 74% of the area included in the GWIS definition of “Europe”.
Wildfires in Russia typically account for 80-90% of the burned area in the GWIS Europe dataset. In 2026, fires in Russia are substantially below average. Therefore, including Russia in this comparison creates the false impression that wildfire activity across Europe is unusually low.
Dr Calum Cunningham, a research fellow at the University of Tasmania’s Fire Centre, says that such claims are “highly misleading”, noting that “they rely on aggregating fire activity across an enormous and climatically diverse region”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“A relatively quiet season in Russia can easily mask an exceptionally active season in France or Spain. If the analysis is focused on the regions actually experiencing the current fires, the picture is very different.
“The reality is that western Europe has experienced an extraordinary sequence of climate conditions this year.”
In contrast, the EFFIS provides a subset of wildfire data specifically for the area covered by the 27 nations of the EU, which, therefore, excludes Russia.
Another difference between the two datasets is that GWIS monitors all fires – including those on agricultural land that are intentionally set alight. The burned area as measured by GWIS contains significant cropland area.
By contrast, EFFIS uses land-cover data and other information to filter specifically for forest fires.
Looking at the EU-only data from EFFIS reveals that Europe is far from having its “quietest” year. The bloc’s burned area, as of 29 July, is almost 435,000 hectares (ha) – second only to 2022 for this time of year.
Notably, Wielicki has actually continued to post charts based on GWIS data, even after acknowledging that “includ[ing] all of Russia, including vast areas of Siberia…isn’t a good proxy for Europe”.
French fires
Even looking at EU-wide data misses the scale of this year’s wildfires for some individual countries.
The chart below shows the surge in burned area in France since mid-July.
For much of the first half of the year, the country was having a wildfire season that was only slightly above average in terms of total burned area. However, a notable uptick began in the first week of July.
The third week of the month saw France break its previous cumulative annual record by more than 19,000ha. That gap has widened as the fires continue to burn; as of 29 July, the cumulative burned area in France during 2026 was nearly 24,700ha above the previous record.
The fires in France follow a record-breaking June heatwave that “dried out vegetation across the region, allowing fires to spread quickly”, wrote the New York Times.
On 27 July, French president Emmanuel Macron called a “crisis cabinet meeting” in order to address the fires “ravaging several areas of south-west France”, said France 24.
More than 220,000 people have been evacuated due to the Gironde fire, west of Bordeaux, in “what may be France’s largest peacetime evacuation”, reported the Associated Press.
In the Conversation, Cunningham and two other University of Tasmania researchers write that evacuation orders “protec[t] human lives, but makes it more likely houses and other structures will burn if there’s no one to defend them”. They add:
“There is little doubt climate change has made France and Spain’s wildfires worse. They represent yet another reason to redouble our efforts to tackle climate change and stabilise our climate.”
Central Spain scorched
While Spain’s fire season has not broken records in the same way that France’s has, it is on track to be among the worst since EFFIS began reporting data in 2006.
The chart below shows the rapid increase in burned area in Spain since 8 July. The latest data from EFFIS reveal that, as of 29 July, Spain has almost matched its previous record at this point in the year. It is also nearly five times the average area burned for this time of year.
In Spain, the wildfires have been concentrated in the central part of the country, near Madrid.
BBC News reported that the fires outside the capital have burned “an area more than twice as large as the city itself”.
Nearly 90,000 people were forced from their homes in central Spain by the fires, said the Associated Press.
Pedro Sánchez, Spain’s prime minister, called the fires a “painful expression” of climate change.
Meanwhile, the UK, French and Spanish governments have issued joint statements this week in response to the fires. The UK/Spain statement begins:
“This summer’s wildfires demonstrated that climate change was now a national security emergency facing Europe and threatening our way of life.”
Related
The post Factcheck: No, Europe is not having its ‘quietest’ year for wildfires appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Factcheck: No, Europe is not having its ‘quietest’ year for wildfires
The general public often underestimate support for climate action, while overestimating the real-world actions taken by other people to address the problem, according to new research.
The study, published in Nature Climate Change, explores the differences between people’s support for climate change, their behaviour and their assumptions about other people’s behaviour.
It is based on multiple surveys of more than 5,000 people across Germany and the US.
The study expands on previous research on how the general public systematically underestimate the climate commitment of their peers.
The difference between actual and perceived support for climate action among the public is sometimes known as a “perception gap”.
The surveys tested how people’s perceptions of climate attitudes and behaviours relate to their own willingness to contribute and undertake “climate-friendly” actions.
One of the authors tells Carbon Brief that this perception gap is not due to “ignorance or bias”, but because “people are just not good at making good estimations”.
The research also reveals that people’s opinions and behaviours are more “nuanced than previously assumed” and suggests that simply “correcting misperceptions” does not automatically lead to greater climate action.
Measuring climate actions
The study notes that correcting the perception gap is often seen as a “cost-effective” way to promote public engagement and drive action to reduce the intensification and impacts of climate change.
Most studies that explore the perception gap have primarily focused on surveys that have asked people to report their willingness to support climate change.
In other words, researchers have relied upon people saying they would support efforts to tackle climate change, rather than measuring people’s real-world actions, such as financial donations, attending protests or changing their behaviour.
To fill this gap, the researchers behind the new study surveyed a total of more than 5,000 people in Germany and the US over 2024-25. Surveys were split across five different experiments, each focused on public perceptions of climate attitudes and how they relate to individuals’ actual behaviour:
| Experiment | What they did |
| Survey one | Participants were asked if they were willing to donate 1% of their household income to WWF – and then were given the chance to do so. Follow-up questions asked participants to predict how many of their peers said “yes” and how many actually donated to the charity. |
| Survey two | Participants read a constitutional complaint against the German government, led by Greenpeace, which demands for stricter climate policies. They were asked if they were willing to participate as a claimant and/or donate to the cause – and then were given the chance to do so. Follow-up questions asked participants to predict how many of their peers said “yes” and how many went on to support the complaint. |
| Survey three | Participants were requested to complete an online “work for environmental protection task” where the more “pages” they completed resulted in more donations to WWF. They then predicted how many pages their peers completed. Participants also rated their individual behaviours and support for eight climate policies and then estimated the same for other people. |
| Surveys four and five | Participants were split into three groups that were either informed that 4% of participants had donated 1% of their household income to WWF, that “68% were willing to contribute” or given no information. They then had to state whether they were willing to support WWF and then were given the opportunity to do so. |
The authors note that Germany and the US are two of the “top 10 CO2 emitters” and are places where climate action is “especially necessary”. However, they add that the two countries are not reflective of “diverse cultural contexts” and further research is needed across the world.
The perception gap
The researchers find that most of their participants supported climate action, but much fewer actually performed verifiable behaviours.
For example, survey one finds that 37% of participants said they were willing to donate to WWF, yet just 4% did when given the opportunity.
Participants generally overestimated the climate actions of their peers, predicting that 23% of other people donated. Willingness, on the other hand, was slightly underestimated with respondents averaging around 34%.
The results from survey three suggest that this perception gap is likely due to general cognitive processes within the human brain that make accurate estimations about large groups difficult, say the authors.
The chart below shows the actual percentage of people who supported different environmental policies and performed climate-friendly behaviours (blue dots) compared to average predictions from the surveys (red dots).
They reveal a “consistent pattern” where “small proportions were overestimated and large ones were underestimated”, the authors say, driving predictions towards the middle. This phenomenon is known as “regression to the mean”.
In other words, where public support for a policy was high, participants in the survey estimated it was lower than it was. When the support was lower, estimates would be higher.
The study finds that individual and environmental factors played a role in shaping people’s perceptions of their peers’ climate actions, which were distinct from general misestimations.
For example, people who were already involved in climate action, had more frequent climate discussions and consumed more climate-focused news and media predicted a higher proportion of climate support “across the board”.
The results from the fourth and fifth surveys show that knowing the context of other people’s beliefs and behaviour in surveys can impact the attitudes of participants.
Participants that were told that 68% of people were willing to donate 1% of their household income to the WWF were more willing to donate.
In contrast, participants that were told that 4% of people actually donated did not report more willingness to “discuss climate change, sign petitions or donate” than the control group.
However, there was no obvious impact on actual donations for any of the three groups, the study notes.
Lead study author Dr Kevin Tiede, scientific managing director of the Institute for Planetary Health Behaviour at the University of Erfurt, tells Carbon Brief that the findings suggest that “just telling people how many people support climate action is likely not enough to really change something”.
However, Tiede adds that “direct comparability” between people saying they would donate and actually donating is “limited” and that giving people more time to answer and autonomy over where to donate might result in more people taking action.
‘Pluralistic ignorance’
Tiede explains that the study findings demonstrate the existence of “pluralistic ignorance”, where a person believes their own views differ from the majority.
For climate change, this means that the “vast majority of people around the world support climate action, but people considerably underestimate the extent of this support”, the study says.
However, the surveys reveal that pluralistic ignorance “in the climate domain” is more nuanced than previously thought, say the authors.
Prof Madalina Vascleanu, an assistant professor at Stanford University’s Doerr School of Sustainability, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that encouraging climate action is complex.
It may take multiple and repeated “attempts” at effective communication, or for people to directly “experience” the “norm” that climate change is widely supported, she says, rather than simply being told.
“Observable” behaviours, such as “identity signalling” – which could involve anything from protesting to vegetarianism – might have more of an impact on encouraging climate action among peers than “private behaviours like donations”, she adds.
The study is a “great addition to the literature”, Vascleanu says, because “correcting” the perception gap did not have an effect on climate-friendly behaviour, as “scholars had previously assumed”. She adds that it has “sparked several new hypotheses” that her “lab is now working on”.
Prof Mauro Bertolotti, associate professor of social psychology at the Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, explains that the “attitude-behaviour gap” revealed by the research is a “rather common finding”.
However, he is “sceptical” of the “simplified and abstract” measures, warning that experiment environments often come with “assumptions and expectations” that are different from real life.
As a result, they might not “replicate” the process people go through when choosing to “make a donation to an environmental cause”, he says.
‘Targeted’ communication strategies
The researchers argue that it is more effective to focus on “targeted” communication strategies – encouraging climate-friendly behaviours that aim to reach the majority who already support climate action, rather than trying to convert climate sceptics.
They call for attention to be paid to the attitude-behaviour gap between people saying they support efforts to tackle climate change and following up with real-world climate actions.
The study suggests strategies for decision-makers to reduce the attitude-behaviour gap, such as “facilitating climate-friendly behaviour” with “convenience and subsidies”. They also recommend ensuring environmental policy prioritises fairness to gain visible and widespread public support.
They add that the public would benefit from understanding the “effectiveness and co-benefits” of climate action.
Tiede, K.E. et al. (2026) People systematically under- and overestimate public engagement in climate action, Nature Climate Change, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02668-z
Related
Scientists are ‘most trusted’ source of climate information in global-south survey
Survey: ‘Very few’ Africans place responsibility for climate action on ‘rich nations’
Guest post: How public attitudes towards ‘CO2 removal’ differ in the UK and US
Guest post: How ‘discourses of delay’ are used to slow climate action
The post Correcting climate ‘misperceptions’ may not boost climate action appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Correcting climate ‘misperceptions’ may not boost climate action
-
Greenhouse Gases12 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change12 months 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 Energy9 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测