Ahead of Donald Trump’s second term as US president, a rerun of his first trade war with China is firmly on the cards – and minerals key to the energy transition may end up in the crossfire.
The president-elect has threatened to raise tariffs on goods from China, as well as on other countries through which Chinese goods flow to the US.
While his overall stance towards China remains unclear, Trump has also pinpointed eliminating “dependence on China in all critical areas” as a priority.
Meanwhile, China has been developing a “versatile” policy toolkit to cope with rising trade tensions – including with the EU and Japan, as well as the US.
One notable recent example is China’s use of export controls, which it has placed on four minerals: germanium, gallium, graphite and antimony.
All of these minerals play important roles in low-carbon technologies, but also have other applications, including military uses.
Analysis by Carbon Brief and others shows that China’s initial export controls, introduced in summer 2023, did not have a sustained impact on critical-mineral supply chains.
However, an announcement in early December 2024 of stricter controls, specifically on exports to the US, has sparked debate over how impactful these might be.
In this article, Carbon Brief examines what US-China tensions over critical minerals could mean for the stability of their supply chains and for the transition to cleaner energy.
- Which minerals are important to the clean-energy transition?
- How has China’s ability to control its critical minerals evolved?
- How did the initial export bans affect critical mineral trade flows?
- Do the US-specific controls represent a significant change in China’s strategy?
- Could future US-China tensions exacerbate critical mineral controls?
Which minerals are important to the clean-energy transition?
Minerals are crucial to the development of several low-carbon technologies.
Indium and gallium are used in the coatings for solar panels, copper and “rare earth” metals are used in the conductors and permanent magnets in wind turbines, and a plethora of minerals from lithium to manganese are used in various types of batteries.
China holds a significant presence in the supply chains for many minerals – particularly in terms of processing. As seen in the table below, more than half of global extraction of graphite, rare-earth elements (REEs) and vanadium, as well as the majority of processing of aluminium, cobalt, graphite, indium, lithium, REEs and silicon, occurs in China, according to a study by the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
A list of several minerals important for low-carbon technologies, plus the share that China holds in its reserves, extraction and processing industries. Source: Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment.
However, not all of these materials are considered “critical minerals”, which is a political term used to describe those that play a role in strategically important sectors, with each country setting their own parameters for strategic importance.
The US lists 50 minerals as critical, while the EU has identified 34 critical minerals and an additional 16 “strategic raw materials”, while Japan has 35 minerals on its list.
Although China has not updated its official critical minerals list since 2016, a November 2023 post on the official WeChat account of the Ministry of State Security (MSS) revealed that it considers at least 31 minerals to be critical.
The post compares areas of overlap and divergence between the critical mineral listings of China (orange), and those in the EU (green) or the US (blue).
The minerals that are “on similar lists” for China and the EU and US are “where there's more competition” when it comes to sourcing, John Johnson, special advisor and former CEO for commodities consulting firm CRU Group’s China office, tells Carbon Brief.
However, despite some countries’ efforts to diversify their imports of critical minerals away from China, analysis by the International Energy Agency (IEA) found that, based on announced projects, the status quo for supply of minerals such as lithium, nickel, cobalt and graphite was unlikely to change between now and 2030.
The IEA analysis noted that, in some areas, such as battery cell manufacturing, “announced capacity additions in Europe and the US should be sufficient to meet the 2030 domestic deployment needs” – although it added that, globally, demand for a number of critical minerals is likely to far exceed supply.
However, Tony Alderson, a senior analyst focused on graphite at price reporting agency Benchmark Minerals Intelligence, is sceptical, telling Carbon Brief that “it's almost unheard of for a facility to be at 100% utilisation rates”. He adds that, for graphite, demand in the US and EU would likely outstrip supply well beyond 2030.
How has China’s ability to control its critical minerals evolved?
China has a well-documented history of using trade restrictions to achieve broader political aims.
The first trade war with the US between 2016 and 2020 saw China try to deescalate US tariffs on Chinese goods by imposing tariffs of its own, as well as non-tariff trade barriers.
The country has also used trade controls to affect non-trade-related political clashes.
Under the Biden administration, the US developed a “small yard, high fence” approach – meaning the US would “be selective in choosing technologies that need protecting, but be aggressive in safeguarding them”.
It placed a series of export controls on semiconductors and products used to make them, encouraging allies such as Japan and the Netherlands to do the same.
In response, China began limiting exports of some critical minerals, placing restrictions in August 2023 on exports of certain types of gallium and germanium, followed by similar restrictions on graphite from December 2023 and on antimony from September 2024.
With the exception of antimony, these restrictions were enacted in a clear response to US moves to curb Chinese imports for use in its semiconductor sector.
At the same time, China began enhancing its export control regime, which unified and rationalised an existing constellation of export control policies into a single framework.
This included development of an “unreliable entity list”, an export control law, legislation to counter foreign sanctions and regulation of items that are considered “dual-use”, meaning they can be used for military as well as civilian purposes.
“Historically, [China’s] export control regime has been extremely piecemeal,” Cory Combs, head of critical mineral and supply chain research at consultancy Trivium China, tells Carbon Brief.
He adds that one of the recent policy push’s major aims was to improve compliance by “making sure everything's in one place and the rules are consistent – that you don't have slightly different standards for different types of controls”.
These efforts paved the way to restrictions on critical minerals being intensified in early December 2024, when China sharpened restrictions on exporting graphite and banned exports of gallium, germanium and antimony to the US “in principle”.
A spokesperson from China’s commerce ministry stated this was in response to the US “weaponising” its own export controls by imposing broad restrictions on the Chinese chip-making industry.
How did the initial export bans affect critical mineral trade flows?
Analysis of China’s initial export controls on gallium, graphite and germanium shows that trade largely continued to flow, despite the new rules.
As shown in the graphs compiled by Carbon Brief below, Chinese exports of restricted types of gallium and germanium stopped for two months after the August restrictions came into effect. However, exports resumed from October 2023, albeit at slightly lower levels.
Not all types of the targeted critical minerals seemed to have been affected by the two-month suspension, with flows of non-controlled products, such as germanium oxides, seeing no significant change.
For graphite, exports of major products remained relatively stable, with the exception of a spike in exports ahead of the restrictions coming into place, likely due to stockpiling. Average exports in 2024 were higher than in 2022.
Both Combs and Johnson both note that, anecdotally, they had not heard of any cases of exporters being unable to acquire licences to export products.
Alderson tells Carbon Brief that exporters, nevertheless, found that the approvals were particularly quick for South Korea and Japan, while it took “longer for [products destined for the] US and India to get licenses approved”.
Analysis by the US-based Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE) similarly found that, for the US in particular, the export controls on gallium, germanium and graphite “haven’t radically altered the US-China trading relationship around these minerals and related products”, as shown in the graph below.
For graphite (the blue line in the chart), US imports from February to August 2024 were “only a hair lower than in the seven months preceding the announcement of export controls”, it found.
For germanium (black), in 10 months following the enactment of controls, exports were “down only one percentage point from the ten months preceding the ban”, it added. For gallium (red), while exports have fallen to zero, “the chart makes very clear [that] the US was never particularly reliant on China for sourcing in the first place”.
The PIIE analysis concluded in August 2024, ahead of the restrictions on antimony and US-specific controls.
This outcome was likely by design, due to the calculated nature of China’s export controls.
The goal of the initial export controls was to improve China’s visibility of how the minerals it processed were being used, Combs tells Carbon Brief, which is why the initial controls required exporters to apply for licences, rather than implementing a blanket ban on exports.
Alderson says that the new licences required companies to share more information about themselves, their products and their end users.
As such, cutting off supplies to other countries immediately was not the aim of the original announcements.
The initial controls on critical minerals broadly follow similar patterns to China’s previous non-tariff trade measures. With the exception of antimony, the critical mineral controls were imposed in response to perceived attempts to “undermine China’s national sovereignty, security, and development interests”, rather than being the first salvo of a trade dispute.
This is because, according to a Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) report, China is aware that outright export bans would accelerate other nations’ efforts to derisk and diversify supply chains, weakening its long-term position.
The RUSI report added that export controls must be examined to determine whether the move is meant to be a political signal or a more serious attempt at “economic coercion”.
Stringent export controls incur a domestic cost in China, impacting both industrial activity and broader economic growth. As such, export controls are likely to be calibrated to capture headlines without incurring as severe an economic impact as they imply, RUSI said.
A government official involved in the design of the gallium and germanium controls said they were meant to be a “deterrent”, the Financial Times reported, quoting the official saying: “We had many options…This was not our most extreme move.”
An example of China “going for the throat” with export controls, Combs tells Carbon Brief before the US-specific controls were announced, would be placing controls on copper.
He explains this is because – although Chinese copper is a vital resource in global manufacturing, particularly in clean-energy technologies – the majority of copper smelted in China is consumed domestically. As a result, an export control on copper “would be a perfect case of hurting others without hurting itself too much”.
“Instead”, he says, the initial moves seemed to be saying “don’t test us”.
Do the US-specific controls represent a significant change in China’s strategy?
The measures announced in early December 2024 are a pointed escalation of China’s use of critical mineral export controls.
Under the new rules, gallium, germanium and antimony will “in principle” no longer be permitted to be shipped to the US and tighter controls will be placed on sales of graphite.
In an analysis, Combs and Trivium China co-founder Andrew Polk wrote that the restrictions are a signal that China is “ready to counter US moves much more aggressively”.
This was echoed by China’s former central bank governor Yi Gang, who the South China Morning Post quoted saying: “We all understand that, from an economics perspective, [retaliatory actions are] never a good choice…but there’s not much policymakers can do about that [in the face of domestic pressure].”
More time will be needed to see “how strict” implementation will be, Alderson says, adding that for graphite, it is not yet clear which products will be affected – the stricter controls could be limited to “the 99.999% [purity] which goes into military end-use materials”, rather than the lower-grade graphite used in electric vehicle batteries.
Trivium China’s assessment noted that the announcement suggested China would “close” loopholes that allowed for “export leakage”, adding that it is not clear “how far Beijing might go to investigate or punish third countries suspected of prohibited re-exports”.
Gerard di Pippo, senior geoeconomic analyst for Bloomberg Economics, was sceptical about the significance of the threat, writing that “China lacks the legal reach, export-control surveillance capabilities and alliance network” needed to enforce third-country compliance.
Other analysts told MIT Technology Review that, “for the most part, the bans won’t have major economic impacts”, due to existing US efforts to diversify its supply chains
Nevertheless, Alderson says, the current uncertainty underscores the fact that “localisation is critical” for those that rely on critical minerals.
Could future US-China tensions exacerbate critical mineral controls?
China’s motive for the most recent controls is unclear, Combs and Polk wrote. It could be to protest against the US move to restrict exports of particular chips and chip-making tools as well as the addition of 140 Chinese companies to a trade blacklist, they said, or to “warn the incoming Trump administration” against raising tensions.
It is broadly expected that US-China trade tensions will escalate after Donald Trump begins his second term as US president.
US concerns around the “threat” that China poses to its industrial capabilities have been notably bipartisan. However, where Biden’s approach was characterised by relatively nuanced policies, the second Trump administration – much like the first – could prioritise the use of broad tariffs to shrink the US’ trade deficit with China.
Combs tells Carbon Brief that Beijing’s goal is to “change US behaviour”, so it would “use terms that Trump understands”, such as broad trade tariffs, in trade disputes with the US, rather than the more nuanced controls it has used in response to the Biden administration. He explains:
“Most of the [trade volume and value of these] minerals are way too small to affect the trade balance…so purchases of beef, soy and similar items would make more sense as a retaliation mechanism [for China to use].”
It remains to be seen, he says, how much emphasis Trumps’ advisors, particularly new commerce secretary Howard Lutnick, will place on critical minerals. The issue could appear on the radar should Beijing use additional controls to pressure particular US companies to lobby the US government, he adds.
Johnson notes that China has reasons to avoid escalating the issue of critical mineral exports further, such as its dependency on the US for exports of a number of minerals, such as high purity quartz, iron ore and potash.
In addition, he says, the minerals that countries consider critical “change over time”, as new technologies create demand for new minerals and render other minerals obsolete.
Progress in developing recycling processes could also relieve pressure on supply chains. Scrap is already a small source for supply of gallium and germanium, while germanium can also be recovered from existing products.
According to the IEA, successful scaling-up of recycling could “lower the need for new mining activity by 25‑40% by 2050”, under a scenario that assumes governments will meet all of their climate goals on time and in full.
Meanwhile, other regions seem to be treading cautiously. The Washington Post notes that pushback from the Japanese and Dutch governments led to a “delay” in the launch of the most recent US semiconductor export controls, which were watered down to “accommodate” their concerns.
Combs tells Carbon Brief that he does not see any flashpoints significant enough to trigger export controls on critical minerals to the EU.
“[Restricting China’s ability to buy from] ASML was the single most impactful [move against China by the EU],” he says, adding that there are few, if any, remaining political disputes where Europe would willingly trigger “significant retaliation” from China.
The post Q&A: What could a US-China trade war mean for the energy transition? appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Q&A: What could a US-China trade war mean for the energy transition?
N.C. Gov. Josh Stein wants state lawmakers to rethink tax breaks for data centers. The industry’s opacity makes it difficult to evaluate costs and benefits.
Tax breaks for data centers in North Carolina keep as much as $57 million each year into from state and local government coffers, state figures show, an amount that could balloon to billions of dollars if all the proposed projects are built.
The Global Environment Facility (GEF), a multilateral fund that provides climate and nature finance to developing countries, has raised $3.9 billion from donor governments in its last pledging session ahead of a key fundraising deadline at the end of May.
The amount, which is meant to cover the fund’s activities for the next four years (July 2026-June 2030), falls significantly short of the previous four-year cycle for which the GEF managed to raise $5.3bn from governments. Since then, military and other political priorities have squeezed rich nations’ budgets for climate and development aid.
The facility said in a statement that it expects more pledges ahead of the final replenishment package, which is set for approval at the next GEF Council meeting from May 31 to June 3.
Claude Gascon, interim CEO of the GEF, said that “donor countries have risen to the challenge and made bold commitments towards a more positive future for the planet”. He added that the pledges send a message that “the world is not giving up on nature even in a time of competing priorities”.
-
UK imports of “green” jet fuel linked to Amazon deforestation
A Texas refinery shipping sustainable aviation fuel to Europe has sourced beef tallow with links to a meatpacking firm fined over illegal cattle purchases -
Italy pushes coal exit back after gas prices rise
Analysts say the move sends a negative signal, but its impact will be limited given coal’s marginal role in Italy’s energy mix
Donors under pressure
But Brian O’Donnell, director of the environmental non-profit Campaign for Nature, said the announcement shows “an alarming trend” of donor governments cutting public finance for climate and nature.
“Wealthy nations pledged to increase international nature finance, and yet we are seeing cuts and lower contributions. Investing in nature prevents extinctions and supports livelihoods, security, health, food, clean water and climate,” he said. “Failing to safeguard nature now will result in much larger costs later.”
At COP29 in Baku, developed countries pledged to mobilise $300bn a year in public climate finance by 2035, while at UN biodiversity talks they have also pledged to raise $30bn per year by 2030. Yet several wealthy governments have announced cuts to green finance to increase defense spending, among them most recently the UK.
As for the US, despite Trump’s cuts to international climate finance, Congress approved a $150 million increase in its contribution to the GEF after what was described as the organisation’s “refocus on non-climate priorities like biodiversity, plastics and ocean ecosystems, per US Treasury guidance”.
The facility will only reveal how much each country has pledged when its assembly of 186 member countries meets in early June. The last period’s largest donors were Germany ($575 million), Japan ($451 million), and the US ($425 million).
The GEF has also gone through a change in leadership halfway through its fundraising cycle. Last December, the GEF Council asked former CEO Carlos Manuel Rodriguez to step down effective immediately and appointed Gascon as interim CEO.
Santa Marta conference: fossil fuel transition in an unstable world
New guidelines
As part of the upcoming funding cycle, the GEF has approved a set of guidelines for spending the $3.9bn raised so far, which include allocating 35% of resources for least developed countries and small island states, as well as 20% of the money going to Indigenous people and communities.
Its programs will help countries shift five key systems – nature, food, urban, energy and health – from models that drive degradation to alternatives that protect the planet and support human well-being by integrating the value of nature into production and consumption systems.
The new priorities also include a target to allocate 25% of the GEF’s budget for mobilising private funds through blended finance. This aligns with efforts by wealthy countries to increase contributions from the private sector to international climate finance.
Niels Annen, Germany’s State Secretary for Economic Cooperation and Development, said in a statement that the country’s priorities are “very well reflected” in the GEF’s new spending guidelines, including on “innovative finance for nature and people, better cooperation with the private sector, and stable resources for the most vulnerable countries”.
Aliou Mustafa, of the GEF Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG), also welcomed the announcement, adding that “the GEF is strengthening trust and meaningful partnerships with Indigenous Peoples and local communities” by placing them at the “centre of decision-making”.
The post GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget appeared first on Climate Home News.
GEF raises $3.9bn ahead of funding deadline, $1bn below previous budget
Tropical cyclones that rapidly intensify when passing over marine heatwaves can become “supercharged”, increasing the likelihood of high economic losses, a new study finds.
Such storms also have higher rates of rainfall and higher maximum windspeeds, according to the research.
The study, published in Science Advances, looks at the economic damages caused by nearly 800 tropical cyclones that occurred around the world between 1981 and 2023.
It finds that rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones that pass near abnormally warm parts of the ocean produce nearly double – 93% – the economic damages as storms that do not, even when levels of coastal development are taken into account.
One researcher, who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the new analysis is a “step forward in understanding how we can better refine our predictions of what might happen in the future” in an increasingly warm world.
As marine heatwaves are projected to become more frequent under future climate change, the authors say that the interactions between storms and these heatwaves “should be given greater consideration in future strategies for climate adaptation and climate preparedness”.
‘Rapid intensification’
Tropical cyclones are rapidly rotating storm systems that form over warm ocean waters, characterised by low pressure at their cores and sustained winds that can reach more than 120 kilometres per hour.
The term “tropical cyclones” encompasses hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons, which are named as such depending on which ocean basin they occur in.
When they make landfall, these storms can cause major damage. They accounted for six of the top 10 disasters between 1900 and 2024 in terms of economic loss, according to the insurance company Aon’s 2025 climate catastrophe insight report.
These economic losses are largely caused by high wind speeds, large amounts of rainfall and damaging storm surges.
Storms can become particularly dangerous through a process called “rapid intensification”.
Rapid intensification is when a storm strengthens considerably in a short period of time. It is defined as an increase in sustained wind speed of at least 30 knots (around 55 kilometres per hour) in a 24-hour period.
There are several factors that can lead to rapid intensification, including warm ocean temperatures, high humidity and low vertical “wind shear” – meaning that the wind speeds higher up in the atmosphere are very similar to the wind speeds near the surface.
Rapid intensification has become more common since the 1980s and is projected to become even more frequent in the future with continued warming. (Although there is uncertainty as to how climate change will impact the frequency of tropical cyclones, the increase in strength and intensification is more clear.)
Marine heatwaves are another type of extreme event that are becoming more frequent due to recent warming. Like their atmospheric counterparts, marine heatwaves are periods of abnormally high ocean temperatures.
Previous research has shown that these marine heatwaves can contribute to a cyclone undergoing rapid intensification. This is because the warm ocean water acts as a “fuel” for a storm, says Dr Hamed Moftakhari, an associate professor of civil engineering at the University of Alabama who was one of the authors of the new study. He explains:
“The entire strength of the tropical cyclone [depends on] how hot the [ocean] surface is. Marine heatwave means we have an abundance of hot water that is like a gas [petrol] station. As you move over that, it’s going to supercharge you.”
However, the authors say, there is no global assessment of how rapid intensification and marine heatwaves interact – or how they contribute to economic damages.
Using the International Best Track Archive for Climate Stewardship (IBTrACS) – a database of tropical cyclone paths and intensities – the researchers identify 1,600 storms that made landfall during the 1981-2023 period, out of a total of 3,464 events.
Of these 1,600 storms, they were able to match 789 individual, land-falling cyclones with economic loss data from the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT) and other official sources.
Then, using the IBTrACS storm data and ocean-temperature data from the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts, the researchers classify each cyclone by whether or not it underwent rapid intensification and if it passed near a recent marine heatwave event before making landfall.
The researchers find that there is a “modest” rise in the number of marine heatwave-influenced tropical cyclones globally since 1981, but with significant regional variations. In particular, they say, there are “clear” upward trends in the north Atlantic Ocean, the north Indian Ocean and the northern hemisphere basin of the eastern Pacific Ocean.
‘Storm characteristics’
The researchers find substantial differences in the characteristics of tropical cyclones that experience rapid intensification and those that do not, as well as between rapidly intensifying storms that occur with marine heatwaves and those that occur without them.
For example, tropical cyclones that do not experience rapid intensification have, on average, maximum wind speeds of around 40 knots (74km/hr), whereas storms that rapidly intensify have an average maximum wind speed of nearly 80 knots (148km/hr).
Of the rapidly intensifying storms, those that are influenced by marine heatwaves maintain higher wind speeds during the days leading up to landfall.
Although the wind speeds are very similar between the two groups once the storms make landfall, the pre-landfall difference still has an impact on a storm’s destructiveness, says Dr Soheil Radfar, a hurricane-hazard modeller at Princeton University. Radfar, who is the lead author of the new study, tells Carbon Brief:
“Hurricane damage starts days before the landfall…Four or five days before a hurricane making landfall, we expect to have high wind speeds and, because of that high wind speed, we expect to have storm surges that impact coastal communities.”
They also find that rapidly intensifying storms have higher peak rainfall than non-rapidly intensifying storms, with marine heatwave-influenced, rapidly intensifying storms exhibiting the highest average rainfall at landfall.
The charts below show the mean sustained wind speed in knots (top) and the mean rainfall in millimetres per hour (bottom) for the tropical cyclones analysed in the study in the five days leading up to and two days following a storm making landfall.
The four lines show storms that: rapidly intensified with the influence of marine heatwaves (red); those that rapidly intensified without marine heatwaves (purple); those that experienced marine heatwaves, but did not rapidly intensify (orange); and those that neither rapidly intensified nor experienced a marine heatwave (blue).
Dr Daneeja Mawren, an ocean and climate consultant at the Mauritius-based Mascarene Environmental Consulting who was not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that the new study “helps clarify how marine heatwaves amplify storm characteristics”, such as stronger winds and heavier rainfall. She notes that this “has not been done on a global scale before”.
However, Mawren adds that other factors not considered in the analysis can “make a huge difference” in the rapid intensification of tropical cyclones, including subsurface marine heatwaves and eddies – circular, spinning ocean currents that can trap warm water.
Dr Jonathan Lin, an atmospheric scientist at Cornell University who was also not involved in the study, tells Carbon Brief that, while the intensification found by the study “makes physical sense”, it is inherently limited by the relatively small number of storms that occur. He adds:
“There’s not that many storms, to tease out the physical mechanisms and observational data. So being able to reproduce this kind of work in a physical model would be really important.”
Economic costs
Storm intensity is not the only factor that determines how destructive a given cyclone can be – the economic damages also depend strongly on the population density and the amount of infrastructure development where a storm hits. The study explains:
“A high storm surge in a sparsely populated area may cause less economic damage than a smaller surge in a densely populated, economically important region.”
To account for the differences in development, the researchers use a type of data called “built-up volume”, from the Global Human Settlement Layer. Built-up volume is a quantity derived from satellite data and other high-resolution imagery that combines measurements of building area and average building height in a given area. This can be used as a proxy for the level of development, the authors explain.
By comparing different cyclones that impacted areas with similar built-up volumes, the researchers can analyse how rapid intensification and marine heatwaves contribute to the overall economic damages of a storm.
They find that, even when controlling for levels of coastal development, storms that pass through a marine heatwave during their rapid intensification cause 93% higher economic damages than storms that do not.
They identify 71 marine heatwave-influenced storms that cause more than $1bn (inflation-adjusted across the dataset) in damages, compared to 45 storms that cause those levels of damage without the influence of marine heatwaves.
This quantification of the cyclones’ economic impact is one of the study’s most “important contributions”, says Mawren.
The authors also note that the continued development in coastal regions may increase the likelihood of tropical cyclone damages over time.
Towards forecasting
The study notes that the increased damages caused by marine heatwave-influenced tropical cyclones, along with the projected increases in marine heatwaves, means such storms “should be given greater consideration” in planning for future climate change.
For Radfar and Moftakhari, the new study emphasises the importance of understanding the interactions between extreme events, such as tropical cyclones and marine heatwaves.
Moftakhari notes that extreme events in the future are expected to become both more intense and more complex. This becomes a problem for climate resilience because “we basically design in the future based on what we’ve observed in the past”, he says. This may lead to underestimating potential hazards, he adds.
Mawren agrees, telling Carbon Brief that, in order to “fully capture the intensification potential”, future forecasts and risk assessments must account for marine heatwaves and other ocean phenomena, such as subsurface heat.
Lin adds that the actions needed to reduce storm damages “take on the order of decades to do right”. He tells Carbon Brief:
“All these [planning] decisions have to come by understanding the future uncertainty and so this research is a step forward in understanding how we can better refine our predictions of what might happen in the future.”
The post Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Marine heatwaves ‘nearly double’ the economic damage caused by tropical cyclones
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases8 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
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
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 Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits