Connect with us

Published

on

The environmental impact of AI is becoming harder to ignore, from soaring energy use and water consumption to the rapid expansion of data centres and microchip production. What is being built in the name of innovation is also concentrating power, intensifying surveillance and deepening democratic risk.

Facebook Data Center in USA. © Greenpeace
March 2012: An aerial view of the 150-acre Facebook data centre in Forest City, North Carolina. © Greenpeace

In Australia, data centres threaten the energy transition

Amid the frenzied global expansion of AI-driven data centres, Australia has emerged as the second-largest market for investment in data centres in the world, behind only the United States.

This out-of-control expansion threatens to derail Australia’s energy transition by adding enormous new energy demand and prolonging reliance on polluting fossil fuels, with many data centre operators even looking to build new gas plants just to power their own operations. Data centres are being rolled out at a feverish pace, with some of the largest planned for Australia needing as much electricity as a small city.

Without strong guardrails, Australia risks replicating the disastrous US pattern — local communities paying the price with higher electricity bills, noise and environmental pollution, while AI and Big Tech companies receive priority access to power and resources.

The environmental impact of AI: energy, water and emissions

The AI boom is being sold as inevitable progress, but the real question is not whether artificial intelligence can do useful things in theory. It is who owns it, who profits from it, what it is mostly being used for, and who pays the environmental and political bill when the hype turns into microchip manufacturing plants, data centres, rising power demand, water stress, surveillance and attacks on democratic life.

A Greenpeace Germany report released in 2025 warned that AI’s electricity demand, emissions, water use and raw material needs are all rising fast, and that AI data centre electricity demand could be 11 times higher in 2030 than in 2023 unless governments intervene. A February 2026 report backed by Beyond Fossil Fuels made the greenwashing problem even clearer, finding that 74% of industry claims about AI’s climate benefits were unproven and that it could not identify a single case where consumer generative AI systems such as ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot were delivering material, verifiable and substantial emissions cuts.

This matters because it punctures one of the sector’s favourite talking points, namely that energy-hungry generative AI can be excused by vague future climate benefits. In reality, the buildout itself is locking in more extraction, more infrastructure and more corporate power, while the largest firms try to present that expansion as climate leadership.

That is why the debate cannot be reduced to whether AI might do good one day, because the system being built right now is already redistributing power upwards while pushing environmental costs and information risks outwards.

AI data centres and why communities are pushing back

Across different countries, people are fighting data centres not because they are anti-technology, but because they recognise the pattern: land grabbing, noise pollution, pressure on water systems, strain on local grids and the steady erosion of community control over land and infrastructure.

Near Perth, a three-storey, 120-megawatt data centre will no longer go ahead after the developer withdrew plans amid community opposition over its impact on culturally significant sites. In New Brunswick, New Jersey, city leaders removed data centres from a redevelopment plan after public backlash and restored a park requirement, while residents and campaigners explicitly raised concerns about environmental harm, energy consumption, water use and noise pollution. In San Marcos, Texas, the city council voted 5-2 to block a proposed data centre after an hours-long meeting and more than 100 public comments.

In September 2025, South Dublin County Council in Ireland passed a motion calling for a nationwide ban or moratorium on new data centres, or strict conditions including 100% renewables, amid concern that communities are being forced to absorb the economic and ecological costs of someone else’s digital expansion. In the UK, campaigners won permission for a legal challenge against a 90MW hyperscale data centre in Buckinghamshire after the government admitted it had made a “serious error” in approving the scheme.

South Africa shows the growing disconnect between the push for AI infrastructure and the ecological realities of water stress and climate disruption. Australia, meanwhile, shows how rapidly this model is being scaled up globally, with the world’s second-biggest data centre buildout after the United States.

These are not fringe skirmishes. They are early signs of a broader democratic backlash against a model of digital expansion that expects local communities to absorb the costs while distant corporations and billionaires bank the gains.

Resistance is also becoming cultural, not just local. The QuitGPT boycott has gained traction as a symbolic rejection of the idea that ChatGPT should become the default interface for work, knowledge and everyday life. The movement is explicitly a reaction to OpenAI’s deal with the US Department of Defense, and it took on added urgency as the US and Israel began bombing Iran almost immediately afterwards. Dutch historian and author Rutger Bregman has helped amplify it by urging people to cancel their subscriptions, first pointing to more than 700,000 supporters, then more than one million. More than 2.5 million users are now boycotting ChatGPT.

The opposition to OpenAI and ChatGPT is no longer confined to specialists but is reaching writers, organisers, educators and mainstream audiences who are starting to question what exactly they are being asked to normalise.

Big Tech, AI power and the threat to democracy

If you want to understand why campaigners are increasingly focusing on chips as well as chatbots, start with Nvidia, the American chipmaking giant, and its CEO, Jensen Huang. Nvidia announced a staggering annual revenue of US$ 215.9 billion, underscoring just how central the company has become to the global AI boom. Recent earnings show Nvidia’s business is now dominated by data centres and AI chips, not gaming, with roughly 80% to 90% of revenue coming from data centres while gaming has fallen below 10%.

Huang has framed AI as “the largest infrastructure build-out in human history” and as foundational infrastructure for the modern world, which is precisely why Nvidia cannot be treated as a passive supplier standing outside the social and ecological consequences of the boom. Without Nvidia’s chips, much of the present generative AI race simply would not happen at its current scale.

Protest at NVIDIA GTC Conference in San José, California. © Brooke Anderson / Greenpeace
March 2026: On the opening day of Nvidia’s GPU Technology Conference, Greenpeace USA drove a triple-billboard truck to deliver a direct message to CEO Jensen Huang: ‘Hey Jensen, your graphics processors that are fuelling the AI boom are overheating. So is the planet.’ © Brooke Anderson / Greenpeace

Greenpeace East Asia’s October 2025 findings rank Nvidia last on AI supply-chain decarbonisation and argue that the company’s record revenues are being built on a “decarbonisation deficit” outsourced to suppliers in Taiwan and South Korea that still depend heavily on fossil power.

Greenpeace East Asia’s reporting also highlighted a 4.5-fold increase in emissions from AI chip manufacturing in a single year, showing how quickly the environmental cost of this infrastructure race is escalating. This is not a side effect of the boom. It is part of the industrial model that underpins OpenAI, Anthropic, Amazon and the wider rush to scale generative AI as fast as possible.

Amazon tells a similar story. Jeff Bezos’s Amazon made more than US$ 77 billion in profits in 2025 while cutting around 30,000 workers as it ramped up AI spending. This is what “innovation” looks like when it is steered by monopoly power: record profits, job cuts, rising capital expenditure and a false promise that more automation will somehow trickle down into public good.

AI, war and manipulation

The political economy of the AI boom should worry anyone who cares about democracy and civil liberties. Tech leaders and companies spent heavily to curry favour with Donald Trump after his reelection, including OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman’s US$ 1 million donation to Trump’s inauguration fund, while reporting also tied OpenAI co-founder Greg Brockman to a US$ 102 million Trump war chest drive.

Palantir and Alex Karp have gone further into the architecture of state power. ICE agreed to pay Palantir $30m to build its “ImmigrationOS” surveillance platform, while Karp defended the company’s work with ICE and later said critics of ICE should be protesting for “more Palantir”, not less. That tells you a great deal about what counts as “progress” when AI, border violence, data extraction and executive power converge.

Protest Against NSA with Airship in Utah. © Douglas Pizac / Greenpeace
June 2014: A coalition of grassroots groups from across the political spectrum joined forces to fly an airship over the NSA’s data centre in Bluffdale, Utah to protest the government’s illegal mass surveillance program. Greenpeace flew its 135′ long thermal airship over the data centre carrying the message “NSA Illegal Spying Below”. © Douglas Pizac / Greenpeace

The debate over AI and war has become sharper too. Anthropic reportedly sought explicit contractual prohibitions on mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons, and has been in conflict with the Pentagon over refusing to broaden those terms, while OpenAI struck a Pentagon deal for classified systems and revised it only after backlash, adding stronger restrictions against domestic surveillance and autonomous weapons without human oversight. That does not make Anthropic harmless, but it does show that even inside this industry there are real fault lines over how far companies are willing to go in militarisation and state surveillance.

Amnesty International has called for bans on AI-based practices including public facial recognition, predictive policing, biometric categorisation, emotion recognition and migrant profiling, while Forbidden Stories has investigated firms pitching AI-enabled surveillance tools that can target journalists, dissidents and activists.

Culture and information are being reshaped at speed as well. Deezer says it is now receiving more than 60,000 fully AI-generated tracks a day, roughly 39% of all music delivered to the platform daily. Six of Spotify’s top 50 trending songs in the US in late January were fully AI-generated. Suno was generating 7 million songs a day. Suno chief executive Mikey Shulman gave the game away when he said: “It’s not really enjoyable to make music now. It takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of practice”, reducing musical craft to a friction problem for software to remove. Sam Altman’s remark that it takes “20 years of life and all of the food you eat” to “train a human” landed for the same reason, because it exposed a worldview in which human creativity and ecological limits are treated less as values than as inefficiencies.

The biggest AI companies have not just disrupted creative industries, they have been repeatedly accused in court of building their products on unlicensed human work, with lawsuits from authors and visual artists, from major news organisations including The New York Times, and from Hollywood studios such as Disney and Universal alleging large-scale copyright infringement. Whether every case succeeds or not, the pattern is clear: companies that present themselves as engines of innovation have been credibly accused of treating books, journalism, music and art as raw material to be scraped, absorbed and monetised without consent, compensation or democratic accountability.

The same systems are also corroding the information environment. Research from Proof News found that leading AI tools gave inaccurate, harmful or incomplete answers to basic election questions more than half the time, while a separate GroundTruthAI analysis reported by NBC found that popular chatbots answered election queries incorrectly 27% of the time.

Pro-Trump Rally in Washington DC. © Tim Aubry / Greenpeace
January 2021: Pro-Trump rally in Washington, DC. © Tim Aubry / Greenpeace

Grok on X has already shown how this can play out in practice. Election officials traced false claims about ballot deadlines and candidate eligibility back to Grok during the 2024 US race, and later warned that such errors could mislead or confuse voters at scale. With more high-stakes elections approaching, that is not a marginal bug. It is a democratic risk amplified by billionaire-owned platforms, automated recommendation systems and synthetic content designed for maximum engagement rather than truth.

Technology for the common good: democratic control, privacy and renewable energy

A different future is possible.

Technology for the common good would mean a society where digital tools are built first to meet real social and ecological needs, not to deepen billionaire control or chase speculative profit, and where AI is not treated as an automatic solution but used only when it is appropriate, justified and not more resource-intensive than simpler alternatives.

It would run on 100% additional renewable energy, disclose its full energy, water and supply-chain footprint, and be designed so communities are not left paying the price through higher bills, water stress or pollution.

100 Days Projection Message at Golden Gate Bridge, California. © Paul Kuroda / Greenpeace
April 2025: Greenpeace USA projected a powerful message of purpose and defiance onto the Marin Headlands, facing the Golden Gate Bridge, California. The action marked 100 days into the administration’s second term. © Paul Kuroda / Greenpeace

Ownership and governance would be far more democratic, with strong public rules, limits on monopoly power, meaningful community consent, and institutions able to steer technology towards climate resilience, public services, biodiversity protection and other shared needs. It would also mean building forms of sovereign AI, where data and models are not simply extracted into distant corporate clouds but remain subject to local democratic control, clear auditability, strict privacy safeguards and public-interest rules. Access would be broad, affordable and accessible by design, and the freedoms it protects would include privacy, freedom of expression, the right to dissent, and protection from surveillance, manipulation and exclusion, so that technology expands people’s power instead of shrinking it.

This is an edited version of a blog first posted by Mehdi Leman for Greenpeace International.

Note: Greenpeace’s approach to AI is cautious, human-led and grounded in accountability. We do not support the use of AI-generated content in public-facing communications, and any limited use of AI must be carefully reviewed by humans for accuracy, bias, transparency, security and alignment with Greenpeace’s values. We also respect artists’ work and intellectual property rights, and we value the labour of artists, creatives and content creators; creative work should not be copied, exploited or repurposed in ways that undermine authorship, consent, attribution or livelihoods.

https://www.greenpeace.org.au/learn/the-energy-and-environmental-impact-of-ai-and-how-it-undermines-democracy/

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Despite African walkout, fractious land COP ends without drought deal

Published

on

The African continent’s hopes for a legally binding agreement to combat drought have been dashed again, as UN land restoration talks in Mongolia passed the issue onto the next set of talks in Egypt in two years’ time.

For over a decade, Africa has pushed for a UN protocol on drought risk management that would acknowledge drought as an issue requiring a regional and global – not just a national – response, potentially paving the way for more finance to help ensure water is available when drought hits.

A formal protocol would enable countries to transition from reacting to drought once it hits to “a proactive enabling mechanism to address drought and its effects such as migration”, said a Tunisian negotiator on behalf of the African Group of countries last week. Once land is regularly too dry and infertile to grow crops or graze animals, people often leave to seek a living elsewhere.

But this effort to adopt a protocol, led by Africa, has been resisted at successive land restoration COPs under the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), mainly by developed countries, which argue that a legally weaker alternative – a framework – would be faster and cheaper to set up.

A traditional Mongolian Ger tent at COP17 (Photo: Anastasia Rodopolou/IISD ENB)

Governments at the previous COP in Saudi Arabia in 2024 failed to reach agreement despite talks running past midnight, while this year’s saw African officials coordinate a walkout from negotiating rooms on Wednesday morning, according to two sources at the talks.

Drought deal delayed until 2028

The IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin, a non-governmental organisation which unlike the media is allowed to watch and report on closed-door talks, said a call to suspend negotiations on Wednesday showed negotiations had reached “boiling point” and “made some jaws drop”.

Negotiations resumed after a lunchtime meeting with the Mongolian COP presidency although governments were only eventually able to agree that they could not find consensus in Ulaanbaatar and should resume talks on an instrument to deal with drought in 2028.

Christine Colvin, WWF’s head of freshwater policy, told Climate Home News that, with droughts hitting from Honduras to the English region of Hampshire, something concrete – whether a protocol or a framework – is needed urgently “rather than the can being kicked down the road for another two years as will now happen with the protocol procrastination”.

Negotiators talk at COP17 (Photo: Anastasia Rodopolou/IISD ENB)

But, in a closing press conference on Friday, the Mongolian minister presiding over talks celebrated that governments had reached consensus on several “contentious” issues and that agenda items blocked at this year’s COP17 would be put on the agenda for COP18 in Egypt.

US blocks agenda items

Other agenda items that divided countries were on measuring land degradation’s effects on women, enhancing the involvement of civil society and women in land COPs, and the UNCCD working more closely and effectively with the UN’s climate and nature conventions.

On the COP’s opening day two weeks ago, the US representative said the Trump government objects to these agenda items “on their premise and no amount of negotiation will allow us to join consensus on these items. As such we request that they be struck from the agenda at which time we will then be able to approve it, saving us valuable negotiating time.”

A US State Department spokesperson later told Climate Home News that the US wants the UN “to get back to basics by refocusing on its core mandate, eliminating overlap, and reducing competition for scarce resources”.

The spokesperson added, “that means prioritising the concrete work member states created [the UN] to do – rather than diverting limited time, attention, and resources toward social and political agendas, including gender-related initiatives.”

A protester calls for Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women and youth to be on the agenda of COP17 (Photo: Anastasia Rodopoulou/IISD ENB)

On COP’s first day, the European Union and Brazil pushed back against the blocking of these agenda items, with a Brazilian negotiator saying his country attaches “great importance” to them. But the Mongolian presidency directed governments to adopt the rest of the agenda without the controversial items, which were discussed privately with countries throughout the two weeks.

An EU statement, read out later by Irish minister Timmy Dooley, accused “some parties” (meaning national governments) of having adopted a “less constructive approach” and preventing “discussions on important matters from even commencing”.

The agenda items the US refused to engage with were never discussed and were only placed onto the agenda for the next COP on the last day. Those talks will take place in Egypt in two years’ time, with Donald Trump due then to be in his last year as US president.

No restoration without women

The blocking of the gender agenda item has stymied attempts, agreed on by governments at the last COP, to develop gender-specific indicators for the UNCCD’s next overall framework and to facilitate more women delegates at COPs. Women made up only about a quarter of delegates to COP15 in 2022, UNCCD analysis with the latest data shows

Criticising the move to keep gender off the agenda, the EU said in a statement that it welcomes “the attention being given at COP17 to women pastoralists and herders, recognising their contribution to sustainable land management and resilient rural livelihoods”.

The head of the UNCCD, former Egyptian environment minister Yasmine Fouad, said on Friday that “regardless that the agenda item was blocked”, she was proud that she and COP17 President Batmunkh Battsetseg had led the COP as women and attended the gender caucus (a meeting of groups supporting women at the talks).

Yasmine Fouad and Batmunkh Battsetseg talk at the COP17 closing press conference (Photo: Kiara Worth/UNCCD)

“Without the women,” she told the closing press conference on Friday, “we will not be able to restore land, restore hope, restore life or restore even our children and grandchildren. And we will keep on pushing that agenda.”

The civil society agenda item aimed to allow NGOs to attend land COP negotiations, as they do at climate COPs, and included terms of reference for an Indigenous Peoples Caucus.

A representative of Indigenous Peoples told the COP’s closing plenary meeting that the group had “deep disappointment that the agenda of this COP has removed the dedicated space for indigenous peoples”. “We cannot restore the land while removing the voices of those who care for it,” she said.

On Tuesday, the UNCCD’s deputy head Andrea Meza was asked about Indigenous Peoples’ participation. She said that the blocking of “one agenda item” is “generating uncertainty in the progress” towards creating caucuses for Indigenous Peoples and for Local Communities within the talks.

Because of the “complex geopolitical situation” making it hard to obtain consensus, coalitions of the willing have become more important, she added.

Mining out, money in

Outside the formal negotiations, the summit was marked by a focus on the strongly Mongolian issues of the role played by pastoralists and rangelands like grasslands, as well as mining, in both degrading and restoring land.

Part of the conference was sponsored by Australian mining company Rio Tinto and its local partner Oyu Tolgoi. Their presence was protested by campaigners wearing T-shirts calling on the companies to “stop wasting drinking water” and to “get out of Mongolia”.

A campaigner protests at COP17 on Thursday (Photo by IISD/ENB | Anastasia Rodopoulou)

The UNCDD and others praised the success of the summit in raising more finance for land restoration. The COP saw institutions like the Asian Development Bank and Global Environment Facility pledge money to combat land degradation, with the UNCCD estimating that $645 million of new commitments were made.

An estimated $355 billion a year is needed through 2030 to meet global land restoration commitments, compared with around $77 billion currently invested. Private finance accounts for only around 6% of global investment, according to the UNCCD.

UNCCD chief scientist Baron Orr told a press conference that many of the announcements were public-private partnerships that use government money to “even the playing field” for companies that want to protect land, in a bid to ensure they are not disadvantaged compared with those that do not.

Such partnerships are a “huge opportunity”, he said, especially as “we’re not in a moment of public finance – public finance is tight in every country.”

The post Despite African walkout, fractious land COP ends without drought deal appeared first on Climate Home News.

Despite African walkout, fractious land COP ends without drought deal

Continue Reading

Climate Change

Pacific islands seek backing for new regional fund ahead of COP31

Published

on

Burdened by rising fuel import costs and an “ocean crisis” of record-breaking heat, Pacific island nations are seeking to build support for a new regional fund ahead of COP31, intended to channel investment into renewable energy, community resilience and ocean protection, experts said.

Leaders from the 18-member Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), including Australia and New Zealand, are expected to issue a call for global pledges to the Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF) at a high-level meeting this coming week in Palau, seeking to build a new model for financing climate action.

The new regional fund was formally launched in May this year and is meant to “serve communities at a community level”, swiftly channelling investments for their projects on the ground, according to Fiji’s assistant minister for foreign affairs, Lenora Qereqeretabua.

“We are expecting pledges for the PRF, and these funds will go to communities that apply,” she told journalists at an online briefing. “We have organised it in such a way that it makes our application processes much, much easier than applying for global funding.”

Qereqeretabua added that she expects that PRF funds will be “utilised by communities to protect themselves from climate change and the effects of climate change.”

The Pacific Islands Forum meeting is expected to shape the region’s priorities ahead of this year’s pre-COP, hosted by Fiji and Tuvalu, and COP31, which will be co-led by Australia and Türkiye.

At COP31, a dedicated session on the climate finance needs of small island states will seek to drive pledges into the PRF. The fund has so far received about $172 million in capital – with about $67 million coming from Australia – and aims to close the year with $500 million.

    Ocean heat and fossil fuel shocks

    Leaders from the Pacific will meet in Palau from Sunday amid an “ocean crisis” of record-breaking ocean heat caused by this year’s “super El Niño”, according to Kevin Chand, Pacific ocean policy director at National Geographic’s Pristine Seas conservation project.

    Leaders at the PIF are expected to put forward commitments towards new marine protected areas, which will be key for shielding ecosystems from future climate extremes, Chand said. The forum is expected to issue a statement on the need for ocean action at COP31, and announce commitments towards reaching the global goal of protecting 30% of the planet’s land and sea ecosystems by 2030.

    Rising ocean heat could lead to food insecurity and lost government earnings in the region, as key fish stocks like tuna start migrating away from their coastline in search of colder waters, said Coral Pasisi, director of climate change and sustainability at the Pacific Community (SPC).

    Climate shocks are deepening existing economic pressures, as Pacific nations have spent up to a quarter of their GDP on fossil fuel imports due to the war in Iran, according to a recent report by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia.

    Wesley Morgan, one of the study’s authors, told journalists that partner nations “ought to be putting their money where their mouth is”, and should support the energy transition in the Pacific by covering the upfront costs of switching from polluting diesel to solar power, batteries and electricity grid upgrades.

    China keeps Indonesia’s battery dream afloat but future less certain

    Given the increase in climate-related shocks and sea-level rise, the PIF should also mention the need to phase out fossil fuel extraction and consumption, said Sindra Sharma, international policy lead at the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN).

    Last year’s COP30 failed to deliver a global roadmap on transitioning away from fossil fuels, which led to a group of countries – including several Pacific island nations – pursuing their own fossil fuel phase-out summit in Santa Marta, Colombia. Next year’s conference will be hosted by Tuvalu and co-chaired by Ireland, which should also receive backing from the PIF, Sharma said.

    Both the chairs of the Santa Marta coalition and the Australian COP31 co-presidency have vowed to continue a push for this topic to be discussed at COP31.

    A drought response brigade in Tuvalu in 2020
    A drought response brigade in Tuvalu in 2020. (Photo: Pacific Community)

    New fund to test allies

    As local communities in the Pacific struggle to access global climate funds, the PRF’s planned model for quick, direct disbursements has “very solid and good” intentions, Sharma said, but it will need political and financial backing from donor countries.

    “The proof is going to be when the fund actually starts operating and delivering to communities,” she added. “If there is too much bureaucracy in being able to access the funds, for example. These things will have to be scrutinised.”

    The facility aims to deliver funds in two categories: one for climate adaptation and “disaster resilience”, and another for social and community resilience that includes areas like community capacity-building, education, data analytics and financial management, among others. It will launch its first call for proposals at the PIF.

    Morgan added that Australia will need to “leverage global interests” so that funding is directed to the Pacific Resilience Facility “or else the Pacific won’t be able to trust Australia as a partner”. The country ratified the PRF treaty in May, triggering its entry into force.

    “The perception [of Australia] in the region is genuinely divided, and it’s worth being honest about it,” Sharma said, adding that the pre-COP31 in Fiji, which is usually limited to a technical space for negotiations, will determine how meaningful Australia’s advocacy for the Pacific can be.

    This time, Pacific nations want to use the pre-COP in early October as an opportunity to demonstrate the challenges their largely low-lying islands face and to advocate for their political priorities, including a renewed global effort to limit global warming to 1.5C by cutting emissions faster and deeper. World leaders are due to visit Tuvalu to experience the frontline of rising sea levels, although Australia and Fiji have yet to confirm who will attend.

    “In Bonn, Australia was largely missing on the negotiated outcomes that we so urgently need to see. It’s not enough to get Pacific priorities on the agenda. Agenda placement is not delivery,” Sharma added.

    The post Pacific islands seek backing for new regional fund ahead of COP31 appeared first on Climate Home News.

    Pacific islands seek backing for new regional fund ahead of COP31

    Continue Reading

    Climate Change

    Climate change exposes 580 million children to 20 extra ‘heat-stress days’ every year

    Published

    on

    More than 40% of children under the age of 10 globally are already experiencing at least 20 additional “heat-stress days” due to climate change.

    This is according to a new attribution study, published in Science Advances, which combines climate models with demographic data to assess the age groups and regions that are exposed to the most hot, humid days.

    The study finds that children up to the age of nine already face more additional heat-stress days globally as a result of climate change than any other age group.

    It adds that south Asia and west Africa are recording the greatest childhood exposure to dangerous levels of humid heat – largely because these regions have a rapidly growing population with the highest proportion of young children.

    As the climate warms, children will continue to be more exposed to heat stress than any other age group, the paper warns.

    The lead author of the study tells Carbon Brief that the findings should inform discussions about climate justice, noting that children in developing countries “have contributed the least to historical greenhouse gas emissions”.

    Humid heat

    High temperatures can be deadly. For example, the heatwaves that swept across Europe in the summer of 2026 have been linked to tens of thousands of “excess deaths”.

    A prominent 2021 study found that children born in the 21st century will be exposed to more extreme weather events in their lifetimes than their parents and grandparents.

    Four years later, a study conducted by scientists from the same team found that more than half of children born in 2020 – around 62 million people – will experience “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to heatwaves, even if warming is limited to 1.5C.

    Now, the latest research from the same team finds that children already face greater exposure to dangerous levels of humid heat than adults as a result of human-caused climate change.

    Extreme heat is particularly dangerous when combined with high humidity. In hot weather, the human body produces sweat to cool itself down. However, as humidity increases, sweating becomes less effective.

    The study uses wet-bulb globe temperature – a measure of temperature that takes humidity and wind into account – to calculate heat stress. It defines a “heat-stress day” as any day with a wet-bulb globe temperature above 28C, as this is considered the threshold for “moderate heat stress”

    The authors then use climate models to simulate global temperature patterns in the present-day climate. (The authors use the climate of 2023, in which human activity has caused 1.3C of warming, to represent the “present-day”.)

    They then count the number of heat-stress days that each country records on average, per year. The authors then repeat this exercise, simulating a pre-industrial climate without human-caused warming.

    By comparing the number of heat-stress days in the present-day climate with the number in a pre-industrial climate, the authors can determine how many extra heat-stress days were driven by climate change. They refer to these as “extra” or “attributable” heat-stress days.

    The authors find that “low-latitude” countries, located in the tropics, record the most extra heat-stress days.

    For example, the paper finds that people living in Côte d’Ivoire currently face 112 heat-stress days every year. It adds that around half of these are due to human-caused climate change.

    In contrast, Germany sees only 0.1 heat-stress days per year in today’s climate on average, which is largely attributable to human-caused climate change.

    Rosa Pietroiusti, a PhD student at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and lead author on the study, explains why this number may seem lower than expected.

    She tells Carbon Brief that the paper “really focuses on humid heat, at levels that are relatively rarely felt in Europe”. She adds:

    “Our data also doesn’t capture the urban heat island effect, due to the resolution of the data we use, which also would lead to underestimations of heat stress locally, and lead to a mismatch with what people are experiencing at local scales, particularly in cities.”

    Inequality

    Extreme heat affects some people more severely than others. Children, people over 65 and those with pre-existing medical conditions or certain disabilities are among the most vulnerable. This is because their bodies are less able to regulate their temperature.

    The authors use gridded demographic data to determine the age structure of each country. From this, they calculate how many people from each age cohort are exposed to extra heat days as a result of climate change.

    The research finds that globally, 583 million children under the age of 10 already live through at least 20 attributable heat days every year. This accounts for 44% of all children in this age bracket.

    In comparison, 190 million people aged 60-69 face at least 20 attributable heat days per year, accounting for 30% of this age cohort.

    The authors find that children face the greatest exposure to humid heat for two main reasons.

    First, there are more young people alive today than older people, with 1.3 billion children aged under 10 in the world, compared to 0.6 billion people aged 60-69.

    Second, they find that countries in Africa and Asia typically have rapidly growing populations with more young children. In contrast, many countries in the northern hemisphere – which are typically cooler – have older populations.

    The map below shows how many extra stress heat days each country currently faces as a result of human-caused climate change. Darker reds indicate a higher number of attributable heat days. The blue circles show the percentage of the population under the age of 10, with larger circles indicating a higher percentage.

    Map of the world showing the number of extra heat days faced by the global population at present-day warming levels as a result of human-caused climate change. Source: Pietroiusti et al (2026).
    The number of extra heat days faced by the global population at present-day warming levels as a result of human-caused climate change. Source: Pietroiusti et al (2026).

    Warming world

    The authors also repeat their analysis for a 1.5C and 2C warmer world. They use population estimates from the SSP2 scenario, which projects that the world’s population will peak at more than nine billion in the second half of the 21st century, with most growth occurring in low-latitude regions – especially in sub-Saharan Africa.

    The research finds that, in today’s climate, 11% of all under 10s currently experience 100 or more extra heat-stress days per year due to climate change. In worlds warmed by 1.5C and 2C, the percentage rises to 13% and 23%, respectively.

    In contrast, only 6% of all people aged 60-69 currently face 100 or more extra heat-stress days each year due to climate change. This number rises to 9% and 17% for 1.5C and 2C worlds, respectively.

    These results are shown in the plot below. The three rows represent the climates of 2023 (top), a 1.5C world (middle) and a 2C world (bottom). The columns show different age cohorts, from the oldest on the left to the youngest on the right.

    Each circle contains 100 coloured dots, with each dot representing 1% of the age cohort.

    The colour of the dot represents exposure to annual heat-stress day, with darker dots indicating more heat-stress days. Grey dots mean that people experience fewer than one extra heat-stress day per year due to human-caused climate change, while black dots mean more than 150 extra heat-stress days due to climate change.

    The figure shows that higher warming levels expose more people to heat stress and that younger cohorts tend to be worst affected.

    For example, the top-right circle represents heat stress for under 10s in the present-day climate. Three of these dots are coloured black, indicating that 3% faced at least 150 attributable heat-stress days in 2023.

    Attributable days of heat stress for different age cohorts (columns), at different warming levels (rows). Each circle contains 100 coloured dots, with each dot representing 1% of the age cohort. Darker dots indicate more heat-stress days. Source: Pietroiusti et al (2026).
    Attributable days of heat stress for different age cohorts (columns), at different warming levels (rows). Each circle contains 100 coloured dots, with each dot representing 1% of the age cohort. Darker dots indicate more heat-stress days. Source: Pietroiusti et al (2026).

    Pietroiusti tells Carbon Brief the study uses wet-bulb temperature because it is a “well-established heat stress metric”. However, she notes that it was not “explicitly defined to focus on children”. She continues:

    “A really important step forward in the research community would be to link up climate science and health science experts to do research on what metrics are really most representative of, for example, health impacts and educational impacts that children will be suffering.”

    Vulnerability

    Dr Qinqin Kong, a postdoctoral researcher at the departments of medicine and health policy at Stanford University, who was not involved in the study, praises its “robust” methodology.

    He tells Carbon Brief that the research provides “a timely quantitative evidence for discussions of climate justice, children’s rights and intergenerational equity”.

    However, Kong suggests that the paper “may overstate the contrast between children and the elderly and underestimate the relative burden of older adults”.

    He says:

    “The elderly may also be more vulnerable due to their social circumstances. Children often benefit from parental supervision and caregiving, whereas many older adults live alone, have limited mobility and face barriers to accessing cooling or emergency assistance during heat events.”

    Kong also notes that “people and societies in the mid-latitudes [for example, across much of Europe and North America] are less adapted to heat”, which may make them vulnerable to its impacts.

    For example, he says that Europe “shows substantially stronger relative risk of heat mortality likely due to less heat-acclimatised populations, lower air conditioning prevalence and urban designs that don’t favour heat dissipation”.

    Similarly, Dr Daniel Vecellio – a researcher at the University of Nebraska, who was not involved in the study – tells Carbon Brief that children are an “understudied cohort”.

    However, he says there is “reason for hope” because “children are typically pretty good behavioural adapters to extreme heat” and because people who are “chronically exposed to extreme heat” will “have a better chance at better acclimatisation”.

    Pietroiusti tells Carbon Brief that global reporting on heatwaves is often skewed towards wealthier nations.

    For example, she notes that large-scale databases of disasters, such as EM-DAT, often underrepresent heatwaves in Africa, due in part to a lack of news coverage and formal reporting. She adds:

    “Studies like this, which start from the climate data, can start to fill some of these gaps.”

    She adds that the paper should inform discussions about climate justice, noting that children in developing countries, who are most severely affected by the increase in heat-stress days, “have contributed the least to historical greenhouse gas emissions”.

    Pietroiusti, R. et al. (2026) Age-specific exposure to human-induced increases in humid heat, Science Advances, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aeb3232

    The post Climate change exposes 580 million children to 20 extra ‘heat-stress days’ every year appeared first on Carbon Brief.

    Climate change exposes 580 million children to 20 extra ‘heat-stress days’ every year

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com