U.S. and China reach a deal on fighting climate change. Here’s what it means.
Ben Adler, Senior Editor – November 15, 2023
U.S. Special Presidential Envoy for Climate John Kerry shakes hands with his Chinese counterpart Xie Zhenhua before a meeting in Beijing, China, July 17. (Valerie Volcovici/Reuters) (REUTERS)
The United States and China may be at odds over everything from the Russia-Ukraine war to the status of Taiwan, but the world’s two largest economies just showed they can still work together on climate change.
The two superpowers jointly announced on Wednesday that they’ve agreed to a deal to rapidly increase the share of energy that comes from renewable sources and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.
Committing to helping the world triple renewable energy capacity by 2030.
Reducing power sector emissions by the end of the decade.
Reducing future emissions of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas.
Halting deforestation by 2030.
The timing
Bifacial photovoltaic solar panels at the Roadrunner solar plant, owned and operated by Enel Green Power, near McCamey, Texas, Nov. 10. (Jordan Vonderhaar/Bloomberg via Getty Images) (Bloomberg via Getty Images)
The deal comes as scientists express growing alarm over the quickly escalating increases in warming and effects witnessed throughout the year, such as more extreme heat waves, wildfires and storms.
October was just the world’s fifth consecutive month of record-high global average temperatures.
The next round of U.N. climate negotiations, called COP28, is set to begin on Nov. 30 in Dubai. More than 60 countries, including the U.S., have recently called for the agreement produced there to include the tripling of renewable energy goals. The G20 also embraced that target in September.
The full moon sets behind a wind farm in the Mojave Desert in California, Jan. 8, 2004. (Toby Melville/Reuters) (REUTERS)
Experts are hailing Wednesday’s announcement as a welcome sign.
“It’s very promising to see the U.S. and China diplomatically engaging on climate change again, after the broader challenges in the relationship sort of brought that to a halt,” Pete Ogden, vice president for climate and environment at the United Nations Foundation, told Yahoo News. “To see that re-energized going into the COP is encouraging and hopefully something they can build on.”
But while the potential impact is huge, other experts note that the actual emissions reductions from this agreement is unclear.
“Since China’s power sector emissions are so large, any decline this decade could avoid a lot of emissions,” Jake Schmidt, senior strategic director for international climate at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Yahoo News.
Brazil: Health warnings as country gripped by ‘unbearable’ heatwave
Kathryn Armstrong – BBC News – November 15, 2023
Red alerts have been issued for almost 3,000 towns and cities across Brazil, which have been experiencing an unprecedented heatwave.
Rio de Janeiro recorded 42.5C on Sunday – a record for November – and high humidity on Tuesday meant that it felt like 58.5C, municipal authorities said.
More than a hundred million people have been affected by the heat, which is expected to last until at least Friday.
Officials have attributed it to the El Niño phenomenon and climate change.
The city of São Paulo saw average temperatures of 37.3C on Tuesday afternoon, the National Institute of Meteorology (Inmet) reported.
“I’m exhausted, it’s hard,” Riquelme da Silva, 22, told AFP news agency on the streets there.
“When I get home, it’s cold water, otherwise I can’t even get up because I’m so tired. It’s even hard to sleep.”
Dora, a 60-year-old street vendor, described the heat as “unbearable” for those who worked outside.
The authorities have attributed the heatwave to the El Niño phenomenon and climate change
Inmet has issued red alerts for a large part of the country. These indicate that temperatures may be 5C above average for longer than five days and could pose a serious danger to health.
The heatwave, which comes more than a month before the beginning of summer in the southern hemisphere, has seen Brazil’s energy consumption soar to record levels as people try to keep themselves cool.
Inmet research released last week showed that the average temperature in the country had been above the historical average from July to October.
Extreme weather is becoming more frequent and more intense in many places around the world because of climate change.
Heat projected to kill nearly five times more people by 2050
Daniel Lawler – November 15, 2023
Scientists have warned that the number of heat-related deaths will sore in the coming decades if the world does not decrease its carbon emissions (DAVID SWANSON)
Nearly five times more people will likely die due to extreme heat in the coming decades, an international team of experts said Wednesday, warning that without action on climate change the “health of humanity is at grave risk”.
Lethal heat was just one of the many ways the world’s still-increasing use of fossil fuels threatens human health, according to The Lancet Countdown, a major annual assessment carried out by leading researchers and institutions.
More common droughts will put millions at risk of starving, mosquitoes spreading farther than ever before will take infectious diseases with them, and health systems will struggle to cope with the burden, the researchers warned.
The dire assessment comes during what is expected to be the hottest year in human history — just last week, Europe’s climate monitor declared that last month was the warmest October on record.
It also comes ahead of the COP28 climate talks in Dubai later this month, which will for the first time host a “health day” on December 3 as experts try to shine a light on global warming’s impact on health.
Despite growing calls for global action, energy-related carbon emissions hit new highs last year, the Lancet Countdown report said, singling out still-massive government subsidies and private bank investments into planet-heating fossil fuels.
– ‘Crisis on top of a crisis’ –
Last year people worldwide were exposed to an average of 86 days of life-threatening temperatures, according to the Lancet Countdown study. Around 60 percent of those days were made more than twice as likely due to climate change, it said.
The number of people over 65 who died from heat rose by 85 percent from 1991-2000 to 2013-2022, it added.
“However these impacts that we are seeing today could be just an early symptom of a very dangerous future,” Lancet Countdown’s executive director Marina Romanello said.
Under a scenario in which the world warms by two degrees Celsius by the end of the century — it is currently on track for 2.7C — annual heat-related deaths were projected to increase 370 percent by 2050. That marks a 4.7-fold increase.
Around 520 million more people will experience moderate or severe food insecurity by mid-century, according to the projections.
And mosquito-borne infectious diseases will continue to spread into new areas. The transmission of dengue would increase by 36 percent under a 2C warming scenario, according to the study.
Meanwhile, more than a quarter of cities surveyed by the researchers said they were worried that climate change would overwhelm their capacity to cope.
“We’re facing a crisis on top of a crisis,” said Lancet Countdown’s Georgiana Gordon-Strachan, whose homeland Jamaica is currently in the middle of a dengue outbreak.
“People living in poorer countries, who are often least responsible for greenhouse gas emissions, are bearing the brunt of the health impacts,” she said.
– ‘Moving in the wrong direction’ –
World Health Organization chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told an online conference launching the Lancet Countdown report that limiting warming to the Paris agreement target of 1.5C is a “public health imperative”.
“The world is moving in the wrong direction, unable to curb its addiction to fossil fuels and leaving vulnerable communities behind in the much-needed energy transition,” Tedros said.
On Tuesday, the UN warned that countries’ current pledges will cut global carbon emissions by just two percent by 2030 from 2019 levels — far short of the 43 percent drop needed to limit warming to 1.5C.
Romanello cautioned that if more progress is not made on emissions, then “the growing emphasis on health within climate change negotiations risks being just empty words”.
However there are “glimmers of hope”, she added.
The number of global deaths linked to air pollution from fossil fuels has fallen 16 percent since 2005, mostly thanks to efforts to reduce the impact of coal burning, the report said.
Global investment in green energy rose by 15 percent to $1.6 trillion last year, compared to $1 trillion for fossil fuels.
And if people changed to healthier, lower-carbon diets it would prevent up to 12 million deaths a year, at the same reducing emissions from dairy and red meat production by 57 percent, the report said.
‘Devastating toll’ of climate change now impacting ‘all regions’ of the U.S., Biden says
The federal government’s fifth National Climate Assessment, released Tuesday, details how climate change is affecting every corner of the country.
Ben Adler, Senior Editor – November 14, 2023
Every region of the United States is now seeing rapid warming due to climate change, according to the federal government’s fifth National Climate Assessment, which was released Tuesday.
“I’ve seen firsthand what the report makes clear: the devastating toll of climate change. And its existential threat to all of us,” President Biden said from the White House Tuesday morning. “I’ve walked the streets of Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Florida, Puerto Rico, where historic floods and hurricanes wiped out homes, hospitals, houses of worship.”
“This assessment shows us in clear scientific terms that climate change is impacting all regions, all sectors of the United States — not just some, all,” he added.
The report lays out in stark detail how climate change is already harming communities nationwide.
“Climate change is finally moving from an abstract future issue to a present, concrete, relevant issue. It’s happening right now,” the report’s lead author, Katharine Hayhoe, chief scientist at the Nature Conservancy and a professor at Texas Tech University, said in a statement.
Here are the key takeaways from the assessment.
Everyone is feeling the heat
National Park Service Rangers Gia Ponce (left) and Christina Caparelli are photographed by Ranger Nicole Bernard next to a digital display of an unofficial heat reading at Furnace Creek Visitor Center in Death Valley National Park in Death Valley, Calif., on July 16. (Ronda Churchill / AFP via Getty Images) (AFP via Getty Images)
This year is on pace to be the warmest on record globally, and in the U.S., the heat is being felt nationwide, according to the report, which the federal government is required by law to produce every five years:
Every single region has higher average temperatures today than it did between 1951 and 1980.
The U.S. is warming faster than most of the world. Since 1970, the Lower 48 states have warmed by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit, and Alaska by 4.2 degrees Fahrenheit, compared with the global average temperature rise of 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit.
Phoenix set a record this year with 54 days of high temperatures of 110 degrees Fahrenheit or greater, including 31 straight days over 110.
In Alaska, melting glaciers, thawing permafrost and disappearing sea ice are destroying the hunting and fishing-dependent economy. Some Indigenous communities may need to be relocated to flee rising sea levels.
Since warming is happening faster at higher latitudes, the report projects that the U.S. will warm about 40% more than the global average in the future.
Vehicles make their way through floodwater in Brooklyn, N.Y., on Sept. 29. (Ed Jones / AFP via Getty Images) (AFP via Getty Images)
Warmer air holds more moisture, so climate change is throwing the water cycle out of whack, researchers say. Since 2000, the western half of the country has endured a two-decade megadrought that has threatened freshwater supplies for millions of people.
But while annual rainfall has decreased in much of that region, the entire country has seen an increase in heavy precipitation events. As a result, this year saw a series of sometimes deadly flash floods from Californiato Vermont.
Burned trees from recent wildfires stand in a forest in Fort Chipewyan, Alberta, Canada, on Sept. 3. The United States has been inundated with wildfire smoke from Canada this year. (Victor R. Caivano/AP Photo) (ASSOCIATED PRESS)
Warmer temperatures and dried-out vegetation from drought lead to more frequent and severe wildfires. Wildfires and the smoke they create have been an increasingly prevalent and severe problem in the West in recent years, but this summer the Northeast and Midwest were also at times enveloped in thick smoke from Canada’s record-setting wildfire season.
An economic toll
The report notes a sharp rise in the number of billion-dollar disasters in the U.S., with one occurring every three weeks since 2018. In the 1980s, the country experienced a billion-dollar weather disaster once every four months, according to the assessment.
“Extreme events cost the U.S. close to $150 billion each year — a conservative estimate that does not account for loss of life, health care-related costs or damages to ecosystem services,” the report stated.
Growing threats
The report also identifies frequent flooding due to sea-level rise and more powerful storms as a threat to low-lying regions across the country. Health risks, such as food and water contamination, increased air pollution from smoke, dust and pollen are also expected to worsen.
“Climate change threatens vital infrastructure that moves people and goods, powers homes and businesses, and delivers public services,” the report states.
The U.S. has begun to combat climate change
President Joe Biden delivers remarks on his administration’s actions to address the climate crisis in the South Court Auditorium of the White House on Tuesday. (Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images) (AFP via Getty Images)
The report also notes that U.S. greenhouse gas emissions dropped 12% between 2005 and 2019 thanks to the adoption of renewable energy sources like wind and solar energy.
The Biden administration has attempted to build on this progress through regulatory measures, like stiff new fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. And Congress approved $369 billion for investments in clean energy and electric vehicles in the Inflation Reduction Act. But those measures are only projected to cut emissions by 40% by 2030, not the 50% Biden has pledged to the international community.
A need to adapt, and to act
States and cities across the country have begun retrofitting infrastructure to meet the challenges of climate change, and measures such as enhanced storm drain capacity and improved forest management have increased in every region since the last assessment in 2018, according to the assessment.
But the report finds that faster, more ambitious adaptation investments are needed to minimize the still-growing costs of climate change.
No place in the US is safe from the climate crisis, but a new report shows where it’s most severe
Ella Nilsen – November 14, 2023
The effects of a rapidly warming climate are being felt in every corner of the US and will worsen over the next 10 years with continued fossil fuel use , according to a stark new report from federal agencies.
The Fifth National Climate Assessment, a congressionally mandated report due roughly every five years, warned that even though planet-warming pollution in the US is slowly decreasing, it is not happening nearly fast enough to meet the nation’s targets, nor is it in line with the UN-sanctioned goal to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius – a threshold beyond which scientists warn life on Earth will struggle to cope.
This year’s assessment reflects the reality that Americans can increasingly see and feel climate impacts in their own communities, said Katharine Hayhoe, a distinguished climate scientist at Texas Tech University and contributor to the report.
“Climate change is affecting every aspect of our lives,” Hayhoe told CNN.
Some of the report’s sweeping conclusions remain painfully familiar: No part of the US is truly safe from climate disasters; slashing fossil fuel use is critical to limit the consequences, but we’re not doing it fast enough; and every fraction of a degree of warming leads to more intense impacts.
But there are some important new additions: Scientists can now say with more confidence when the climate crisis has made rainstorms, hurricanes and wildfires stronger or more frequent, long-term drought more severe and heat more deadly.
The remains of a vehicle in a burned neighborhood after wildfires in Lahaina in Maui, Hawaii, on August 18. – Bryan Anselm/New Jersey State Council for the Arts Fellowship/Redux
This summer alone, the Phoenix area baked through a record 31 consecutive days above 110 degrees, a shocking heatwave that was partly responsible for more than 500 heat-related deaths in Maricopa County in 2023 – its deadliest year for heat on record.
President Joe Biden will deliver remarks on Tuesday and is expected to unveil more than $6 billion in funding to strengthen climate resilience “by bolstering America’s electric grid, investing in water infrastructure upgrades, reducing flood risk to communities, and advancing environmental justice for all,” an administration official said.
The US needs “a transformation of the global economy on a size and scale that’s never occurred in human history” to “create a livable future for ourselves and our children,” White House senior climate adviser John Podesta told reporters.
Here are five significant takeaways from the federal government’s sweeping climate report.
It’s easier to pinpoint which disasters were made worse by climate change
Climate change doesn’t cause things like hurricanes or wildfires, but it can make them more intense or more frequent.
For instance, warmer oceans and air temperatures mean hurricanes are getting stronger faster and dumping more rainfall when they slam ashore. And hotter and drier conditions from climate change can help vegetation and trees become tinderboxes, turning wildfires into megafires that spin out of control.
“Now thanks to the field of attribution, we can make specific statements,” Hayhoe said, saying attribution can help pinpoint certain areas of a city that are now more likely to flood due to the effects of climate change. “The field of attribution has advanced significantly over the last five years, and that really helps people connect the dots.”
All regions are feeling climate change, but some more severely
There is no place immune from climate change, Biden administration officials and the report’s scientists emphasized, and this summer’s extreme weather was a deadly reminder.
Some states – including California, Florida, Louisiana and Texas – are facing more significant storms and extreme swings in precipitation.
Landlocked states won’t have to adapt to sea level rise, though some – including Appalachian states like Kentucky and West Virginia – have seen devastating flooding from rainstorms.
And states in the north are grappling with an increase in tick-borne diseases, less snow, and stronger rainstorms.
“There is no place that is not at risk, but there are some that are more or less at risk,” Hayhoe told CNN. “That is a factor of both the increasingly frequent and severe weather and climate extremes you’re exposed to, as well as how prepared (cities and states) are.”
Climate change is exacting a massive economic toll
Climate shocks on the economy are happening more frequently, the report said, evidenced by the new record this year for the number of extreme weather disasters costing at least $1 billion. And disaster experts have spent the last year warning the US is only beginning to see the economic fallout of the climate crisis.
Climate risks are hitting the housing market in the form of skyrocketing homeowners’ insurance rates. Some insurers have pulled out of high-risk states altogether.
Stronger storms wiping out certain crops or extreme heat killing livestock can send food prices soaring. And in the Southwest, the report’s researchers found that hotter temperatures in the future could lead to a 25% loss of physical work capacity for agricultural workers from July to September.
The US is cutting planet-warming pollution, but not nearly fast enough
Unlike the world’s other top polluters – China and India – planet-warming pollution in the US is declining. But it’s not happening nearly fast enough to stabilize the planet’s warming or meet the United States’ international climate commitments, the report explains.
The country’s annual greenhouse gas emissions fell 12% between 2005 and 2019, driven in large part by the electricity sector moving away from coal and toward renewable energy and methane gas, the latter of which is still a fossil fuel that has a significant global warming effect.
The decline is good news for the climate crisis, but look at the fine print and the picture is mixed.
The report finds US planet-warming emissions “remain substantial” and would have to sharply decline by 6% annually on average to be in line with the international 1.5-degree goal. To put that cut into perspective, US emissions decreased by less than 1% per year between 2005 and 2019 – a tiny annual drop.
Water – too much and not enough – is a huge problem for the US
One of the report’s biggest takeaways centers on the precarious future of water in the US, and how parts of the country are facing a future with either extreme drought and water insecurity, or more flooding and sea level rise.
Drought and less snowpack are huge threats to Southwest communities in particular. The report’s Southwest chapter, led by Arizona State University climate scientist Dave White, found the region was significantly drier from 1991 to 2020 than the three decades before.
White said that’s an ominous sign as the planet continues to warm, with significant threats to snowpack in California’s Sierra Nevada mountains and the Rockies – both of which provide crucial freshwater in the West.
White added that a lack of freshwater in the region also has significant economic and agricultural impacts, as it supports cities, farms, and Native American tribes.
“Mountains are our natural reservoirs in the region,” White told CNN. “Climate impacts on that mountain snowpack have really significant negative effects for the way our infrastructure operates. It’s just critical for us to protect those resources.”
Who’s to blame for climate change? Scientists don’t hold back in new federal report.
Dinah Voyles Pulver and Doyle Rice – November 14, 2023
Climate change is here and prompting unprecedented actions in every state to curb the greenhouse gas emissions fueling warming temperatures, but a new federal report out Tuesday says bigger, bolder steps are needed.
In remarks Tuesday morning, President Joe Biden announced more than $6 billion to bolster the electric grid, update water infrastructure, reduce flooding, and advance environmental justice.
“This assessment shows us in clear scientific terms, that climate change is impacting all regions, all sectors of the United States,” Biden said. “We’ve come to the point where it’s foolish for anyone to deny the impacts of climate change anymore.”
The assessment includes more evidence than ever before to demonstrate the cause and effects of the changing climate, said L. Ruby Leung, one of its authors. It also breaks from previous reports by saying unequivocally that humans are responsible for changes to Earth’s climate.
“It’s important for us to recognize that how much climate change we will be experiencing in the future depends on the choices that we make now,” said Leung, a climate scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and lead author on the earth sciences chapter.
All of the impacts people are feeling, like sea level rise and extreme weather events, she said “are tied to the global warming level, to how warm the earth becomes,” Leung said. “And that depends very much on the level of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.”
In other news, the United Nations released its latest analysis of national climate plans on Tuesday morning and found them “strikingly misaligned” with science. “The chasm between need and action is more menacing than ever,” said Secretary-General António Guterres. “It’s time for a climate ambition supernova in every country, city and sector.”
The impacts of climate change are felt in every corner of the country, the latest National Climate Assessment finds
What is the 2023 National Climate Assessment?
The massive assessment describes the climate and economic impacts Americans will see if further action is not taken to address climate change. The report, issued roughly every four years, was mandated by Congress in the late 1980s and is meant as a reference for the president, Congress, and the public.
“Too many people still think of climate change as an issue that’s distanced from us in space or time or relevance,” said Katharine Hayhoe, an author of the report and chief scientist at The Nature Conservancy.
The assessment “clearly explains how climate change is affecting us here in the places where we live, both now and in the future and across every sector of human and natural society,” Hayhoe said. It also shows that “the risks matter and so do our choices.”
Climate Nexus, a nonprofit communications organization, said the new report is “essential reading,” because it highlights the seriousness of current impacts and shows the existing pace of adaptation isn’t enough to keep pace with future climate changes.
“Without deeper cuts in global net greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated adaptation efforts, severe climate risks to the United States will continue to grow,” the report states. “Each additional increment of warming is expected to lead to more damage and greater economic losses.”
However, greater reductions in carbon emissions could reduce the risks and impacts, and have immediate health and economic benefits, the report states.
Millions are experiencing more extreme heat waves, with warmer temperatures and longer-lasting heat waves, the report states. It adds climate changes are apparent in every region of the country.
Among the noted effects:
◾ The number of nights with minimum low temperatures at or above 70 degrees has increased compared to 1901-1960 in every corner of the country except the northern Great Plains and Alaska.
◾ Average annual precipitation is increasing in most regions, except the Northwest, Southwest, and Hawaii.
◾ Relative sea levels are increasing along much of the coast, except for Oregon, Washington, and Alaska.
◾ In the 1980s, the country experienced on average a $1 billion disaster every four months but now experiences one every three weeks. This year, the country has set a new record with 25 billion-dollar disasters.
Climate scientists around the world say 2023 is almost certain to be the globe’s warmest year in recorded human history. The global mean temperature through October was 1.4 Celsius (more than 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit) above the preindustrial average.
So far this year, the nation is experiencing its 11th warmest year on record through October, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. However, 12 states are experiencing their warmest or second warmest year on record.
Growing evidence that humans are changing the climate
This assessment is most notable for the certainty scientists have gained about warming and its impacts, said Leung, who served as the lead author for the report’s Earth Systems Processes chapter, which lays the scientific groundwork and is used to illustrate points throughout the report.
The chapter, a collaboration among more than a dozen authors, was intended to answer such questions as whether humans are causing global warming, whether warming is changing extreme weather and climate events and how much warming the planet might expect to see.
In prior reports, scientists often hedged their statements, for example saying they were 90% sure humans were responsible for the changes being seen,” Leung said. “In this NCA 5 report, we are now saying that we are totally sure.”
Starting from the 1900s, the observed warming has been caused by human activities, she said. “It’s definitive.”
Another key difference is scientists reduced by 50% the uncertainty in how much temperatures would warm if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doubles, she said. In previous assessments that number had hovered around a range from 2.7 degrees to 8 degrees. “It was a pretty big range,” she said. “Our goal has always been to narrow this down.”
Thanks to the increase in instrumental observations, satellite data, the study of the paleoclimate, and higher resolution computer modeling, scientists now have amassed more evidence than ever before, giving them more certainty, she said. “Now we can say that the global warming that is caused by a doubling of the CO2 in the atmosphere should be between 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit and 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit.”
The Fifth National Climate Assessment shows the U.S. has warmed rapidly since the 1970s.
Reducing greenhouse gas emissions
Efforts to adapt to climate change, reduce net greenhouse gas emissions, and be more energy efficient are underway in every U.S. region and have expanded since 2018, the report concludes.
Greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. fell 12% between 2005 and 2019, mostly driven by changes in the way electricity is produced, the assessment concluded. The nation burns less coal, but more natural gas, which is cleaner. Because of the electrical industry’s 40% reduction in emissions, the transportation sector took the lead as the industry with the most emissions.
Growth in the capacity of wind, solar, and battery storage is supported by the falling costs of those technologies, and that ultimately means even more emissions reductions, the report states. For example, wind and solar energy costs have dropped 70% and 90%, respectively.
While the options for cleaner technologies and lower energy use have expanded, the authors found they aren’t happening fast enough for the nation to meet the goal of achieving a carbon-neutral energy system.
Without deeper cuts in global net greenhouse gas emissions and accelerated adaptation efforts, the scientists found severe climate risks to the United States will continue to grow. Each additional increment of warming is expected to lead to more damage and greater economic losses compared to previous increments of warming, and the risks of catastrophic consequences also increase.
But the report also finds that reducing greenhouse gas emissions and removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere can limit future warming and associated increases in many risks, and bring immediate health and economic benefits.
What others are saying about the report:
The scientific assessment is “the latest in a series of alarm bells and illustrates that the changes we’re living through are unprecedented in human history,” said Kristina Dahl, a principal climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists and a contributor to the report. “The science is irrefutable: we must swiftly reduce heat-trapping emissions and enact transformational climate adaptation policies in every region of the country to limit the stampede of devastating events and the toll each one takes on our lives and the economy.”
The report illustrates three things, said Arati Prabhakar, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
◾ The events Americans have already experienced firsthand are “unfolding as predicted.”
◾ Communities in every state and territory have taken action.
◾ People across the nation can use the assessment to take future actions.
For example, Prabhakar said the report could be used by a water utility manager in Chicago trying to understand extreme rainfall, an urban planner deciding where to locate cooling centers in Texas, or a manager of a Southeastern hospital trying to get ahead of the diseases ticks and mosquitoes are bringing into their region as a result of the changing climate.
What an increase of 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit over pre-industrial temperatures would feel like in the United States.
Mind-altering ketamine becomes latest pain treatment, despite little research or regulation
Matthew Perrone – November 6, 2023
Dr. Padma Gulur, a Duke University pain specialist, stands for a portrait on Friday, Oct. 27, 2023, in Durham, N.C. Prescriptions for ketamine have soared in recent years as doctors adopt the mind-altering drug as an alternative pain treatment. Gulur and other specialists see potential for ketamine as a pain therapy, but warn it also carries risks of safety and abuse. (AP Photo/Matt Kelley)Medical equipment used to customize ketamine infusions for patients is seen at the Duke Specialty Infusion Center, Friday, Oct. 27, 2023, in Durham, N.C. Ketamine prescriptions have soared in recent years as an alternative to opioids for pain. But with little research on its effectiveness, some experts worry about the risks of overprescribing another powerful drug that carries risks of safety and abuse. (AP Photo/Matt Kelley)The Duke Specialty Infusion Center is seen prior to opening for patients, Friday, Oct. 27, 2023, in Durham, N.C. Ketamine prescriptions have soared in recent years as an alternative to opioids for pain. But with little research on its effectiveness, some experts worry about the risks of overprescribing another powerful drug that carries risks of safety and abuse. (AP Photo/Matt Kelley)Dr. Padma Gulur, a Duke University pain specialist, stands for a portrait on Friday, Oct. 27, 2023, in Durham, N.C. Prescriptions for ketamine have soared in recent years as doctors adopt the mind-altering drug as an alternative pain treatment. Gulur and other specialists see potential for ketamine as a pain therapy, but warn it also carries risks of safety and abuse. (AP Photo/Matt Kelley)Saline fluid runs through a tube demonstrating how ketamine would be administered to a patient at the Duke Speciality Infusion Center on Friday, Oct. 27, 2023, in Durham, N.C. Ketamine prescriptions have soared in recent years as an alternative to opioids for pain. But with little research on its effectiveness, some experts worry about the risks of overprescribing another powerful drug that carries risks of safety and abuse. (AP Photo/Matt Kelley)A lockbox is held to show where ketamine is placed into while administered at the Duke Speciality Infusion Center, Friday, Oct. 27, 2023, in Durham, N.C. Ketamine prescriptions have soared in recent years as an alternative to opioids for pain. But with little research on its effectiveness, some experts worry about the risks of overprescribing another powerful drug that carries risks of safety and abuse. (AP Photo/Matt Kelley)
WASHINGTON (AP) — As U.S. doctors scale back their use of opioid painkillers, a new option for hard-to-treat pain is taking root: ketamine, the decades-old surgical drug that is now a trendy psychedelic therapy.
Prescriptions for ketamine have soared in recent years, driven by for-profit clinics and telehealth services offering the medication as a treatment for pain, depression, anxiety and other conditions. The generic drug can be purchased cheaply and prescribed by most physicians and some nurses, regardless of their training.
With limited research on its effectiveness against pain, some experts worry the U.S. may be repeating mistakes that gave rise to the opioid crisis: overprescribing a questionable drug that carries significant safety and abuse risks.
“There’s a paucity of options for pain and so there’s a tendency to just grab the next thing that can make a difference,” said Dr. Padma Gulur, a Duke University pain specialist who is studying ketamine’s use. “A medical journal will publish a few papers saying, ‘Oh, look, this is doing good things,’ and then there’s rampant off-label use, without necessarily the science behind it.”
When Gulur and her colleagues tracked 300 patients receiving ketamine at Duke, more than a third of them reported significant side effects that required professional attention, such as hallucinations, troubling thoughts and visual disturbances.
Ketamine also didn’t result in lower rates of opioid prescribing in the months following treatment, a common goal of therapy, according to Gulur. Her research is under review for medical journal publication.
PSYCHEDELIC EXPERIENCE
Ketamine was approved more than 50 years ago as a powerful anesthetic for patients undergoing surgery. At lower doses, it can produce psychedelic, out-of-body experiences, which made it a popular club drug in the 1990s. With its recent adoption for pain, patients are increasingly encountering those same effects.
Daniel Bass, of Southgate, Kentucky, found the visual disturbances “horrifying.” His doctors prescribed four- to six-hour IV infusions of ketamine for pain related to a rare bone and joint disorder. Seated in a bare hospital room with no stimulation or guidance on the drug’s psychological effects, Bass says he felt “like a lab rat.”
Still, he credits ketamine with reducing his pain during the year that he received twice-a-month infusions.
“No matter how horrific an experience is, if it allows me to be more functional, I will do it,” Bass said.
Ketamine targets a brain chemical messenger called glutamate, which is thought to play a role in both pain and depression. It’s unclear whether the psychedelic experience is part of the drug’s therapeutic effect, though some practitioners consider it essential.
“We want patients to disassociate or feel separate from their pain, depression or anxiety,” said Dr. David Mahjoubi, owner of Ketamine Healing Clinic in Los Angeles. “If they feel like they’re just sitting in the chair the whole time, we actually give them more.”
Mahjoubi’s practice is typical of the burgeoning industry: He offers IV ketamine for alcohol addiction, chronic pain, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder. The ketamine doses for those indications are well below those used for surgery, but Mahjoubi favors higher doses for pain than for psychiatric conditions.
Patients pay cash because most insurers don’t cover non-surgical uses of ketamine, none of which are approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Mahjoubi’s background is in anesthesiology, not psychiatry or addiction.
Patients can pay extra for ketamine nasal sprays and tablets to use between infusions. Those formulations are also not FDA approved and are compounded by specialty pharmacies.
Sending ketamine through the mail has become its own profitable business for telehealth services, such as MindBloom, which jumped into the space after regulators relaxed online prescribing rules during COVID-19.
Pain specialists who study ketamine say there’s little evidence for those versions.
“The literature for the nasal and oral formulations is pretty scant,” said Dr. Eric Schwenk of Thomas Jefferson University. “There’s just not a lot of good evidence to guide you.”
Demand for ketamine has sent prescriptions soaring more than 500% since 2017, according to Epic Research, which analyzed the trend using a database of more than 125 million patients. In each year, pain was the No. 1 condition for which ketamine was prescribed, though depression has been rising quickly.
The prescribing boom has led to shortages of manufactured ketamine, driving up sales of compounded versions.
There is more evidence for ketamine’s use against depression than for pain. In 2019, the FDA approved a ketamine-related chemical developed by Johnson & Johnson for severe depression. The drug, Spravato, is subject to strict FDA safety rules on where and how it can be administered by doctors.
Guidelines from pain societies note some evidence for ketamine’s use in complex regional pain, a chronic condition that usually affects the limbs. But the experts found “weak or no evidence” for ketamine in many more conditions, including back pain, migraines, fibromyalgia and cancer pain.
THE ‘WILD WEST’ OF KETAMINE PRESCRIBING
While the science behind ketamine is murky, the business model is clear: Physicians can purchase ketamine for less than $100 a vial and charge $500 to $1,500 per infusion.
The recent boom has been fueled, in part, by venture capital investors. Another set of consulting businesses offer to help doctors set up new clinics.
A blog post from one, Ketamine Startup, lists “Five reasons you should open a ketamine clinic,” including: “You want to be your own boss” and “You want to take control of your money-making ability.”
The clinics are facing increasing competition from telehealth services like MindBloom and Joyous, which connect potential patients with physicians who can prescribe ketamine remotely and send it through the mail.
In May, federal regulators were scheduled to roll back the COVID-era policy that allowed online prescribing of high-risk drugs like ketamine and opioids. But the Drug Enforcement Administration, facing backlash for telehealth companies and physicians, agreed to extend the flexible approach through 2024.
The current landscape is a “wild west,” said Dr. Samuel Wilkinson, a Yale University psychiatrist who prescribes both Spravato and ketamine for depression. U.S. physicians have “quite a bit of latitude” to prescribe drugs for unapproved, or off-label, uses.
“There’s good things about that and not-so-good things about that,” he said.
When used at high doses, ketamine can cause bladder damage, sometimes seen in people who use the drug recreationally. Far less is known about the neurological effects of long-term use. Ketamine was linked to brain abnormalities in rat studies, FDA regulators note.
Last month, the FDA warned doctors and patients against compounded versions of ketamine, including lozenges and pills, saying the agency does not regulate their contents and cannot assure their safety. The warning followed a similar advisory last year about nasal spray versions of ketamine.
But most compounding pharmacies are small operations, overseen by state officials, not the FDA.
In April, Massachusetts’ board of pharmacy flagged the FDA’s warning to local pharmacies, but noted that state officials wouldn’t take any steps to stop “the continued compounding and dispensing of ketamine nasal spray.”
The FDA likewise has little leverage over physicians promoting ketamine, even those making exaggerated or misleading claims.
Drugmakers are subject to strict FDA regulation in how they promote their medicines — with requirements to balance risk and benefit information. Those rules don’t apply to physicians.
Even when the FDA has tried to regulate risky in-office procedures, such as unproven stem cell infusions, the agency has had a mixed track record of prevailing in court.
For now, experts say it’s unlikely regulators will go beyond their recent warnings about off-label ketamine.
“There’s an element of whack-a-mole and it’s essentially beyond their regulatory purview,” said Dr. Caleb Alexander, a drug safety researcher at Johns Hopkins University. “These clinics would represent yet another front that they would be hard pressed to manage and address.”
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Startup wants to dump planet-saving substance on beaches and in ocean to help clear the air — could it work?
Susan Elizabeth Turek – November 7, 2023
Ocean waters are already an abundant resource in the battle for clean air, and San Francisco-based startup Vesta hopes to utilize another substance on our beaches and in the ocean to remove 1 billion tons of carbon pollution annually.
Bloomberg reported that the potentially planet-saving substance is olivine, a mineral that removes carbon dioxide (CO2) as part of the natural process that occurs when it dissolves in seawater.
According to IEAGHG, which funds the research and development of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology, CCS has been around since the 1920s, yet there were only five major CCS projects globally about a decade ago.
Since then, the potential for the technology has gained ground, with a number of new initiatives in development. Scientists are reportedly cautious, however, about investing too much hope in CCS.
Another potential roadblock to the plan? Cost.
The National Academy of Sciences projects it will take between $100 to $150 to remove just a single ton of CO2, per Bloomberg. Yet Vesta reportedly believes it could remove a ton of CO2 for only $21.
If that projection is accurate, the startup’s technology could go a long way in helping our planet.
Our oceans absorb about 31% of harmful carbon pollution. Unfortunately, that can also disrupt the natural balance of the environment and raise the acidity of the ocean, which can harm shellfish, corals, and other marine life, as well as people who rely on fisheries.
Research is ongoing to determine whether dumping large amounts of olivine in the environment would have any negative impacts, but so far, Vesta has discovered “no adverse ecological effect whatsoever” at a test beach in New York’s Hamptons, as Tom Green, Vesta’s CEO, told Bloomberg.
In order to further expand the application of its carbon-capture technology, the startup is reportedly eyeing the Hajar Mountains, which frame the coast of Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
The range has one of the largest deposits of olivine globally, Bloomberg reports, and Vesta believes the warm waters of the region could increase the efficiency of its technology.
It’s not even December and the US has already footed an unprecedented number of $1 billion bills for disasters nationwide
Laurelle Stelle – November 7, 2023
In the first 10 months of 2023, the U.S. has weathered droughts, floods, hurricanes, and wildfires — at least 24 of which were severe enough to cause over $1 billion apiece in damages. That’s a new record, Bloomberg reported, based on data through Oct. 10, with more than two months to go.
What’s happening?
According to Bloomberg, referencing a report from the National Centers for Environmental Information, the first nine months of 2023 saw $67.1 billion of disasters causing 373 deaths.
For years, billion-dollar disasters have been growing more common nationwide. The average between 2017 and 2021 was a devastating one every 18 days, compared to what Bloomberg says was the historical average since 1980 of 8.5 per year, or one every 43 days.
But in 2023, that pace is already at roughly one every 15 days — almost three times as fast as the historical average — assuming no other billion-dollar disasters are tallied through the end of December.
That’s also leaving out several disasters that have already happened, but whose costs haven’t been fully assessed yet. As Bloomberg points out, Hurricane Hillary, recent hail storms in Texas, and the flooding in New York each have the potential to top that $1 billion mark.
Why are there so many disasters happening?
The driving cause behind these disastrous events is the Earth’s rising temperature. As the average temperature of the planet rises due to heat-trapping air pollution, the weather gets less stable and more prone to extremes.
Dry areas often get drier and more prone to heat waves, fires, and droughts. Wet areas often get wetter, with increased flooding and storms. The strain on our infrastructure leads to dangerous complications like power outages, making the problem worse.
People across America are seeing the results. Even people not in the direct path of the destruction are feeling the pinch, as insurers raise their rates to offset the increase in claims. Some companies are completely pulling out of disaster-prone states like Florida and California.
What’s being done about these major disasters?
After every one of these incidents, state and federal agencies respond with disaster relief funds and services to help ease the burden. For example, in September, President Joe Biden authorized disaster relief for victims of Hurricane Idalia and those with contaminated drinking water due to saltwater intrusion in Louisiana.
Long-term, the best solution is to reduce air pollution to lower the temperature of the Earth. That means switching from gas to electric wherever possible; minimizing waste and the use of disposable plastic; and supporting policies and products that minimize pollution.
Burned Out: Documents Reveal The Gas Industry’s Use Of Tobacco Tactics Over Gas Stove Emissions
A new investigation illuminates the gas industry’s 50-year PR campaign weaponizing science to promote doubt over the health effects of gas stoves and obstruct regulation.
By Brendan Melle – November 7, 2023
An article in American Gas Association Monthly’s June 1973 issue details a PR workshop held earlier that year. Credit: DocumentCloud
In the 1970s, Dr. Bernard Goldstein, a young professor at the New York University School of Medicine, researched the health impacts of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) produced by gas stoves. In a series of studies, Goldstein and his colleagues identified a higher incidence of respiratory problems among schoolchildren from homes with gas stoves. Fifty years on, Goldstein, now emeritus professor of Environmental and Occupational Health at the University of Pittsburgh, recently told NPR “it’s way past time that we were doing something about gas stoves.”
Explanation for this 50-year delay can be found in the hundreds of pages of documents referenced in a new report by the Climate Investigations Center (CIC), covered by NPR. The report illustrates the gas industry’s multi-decade PR campaign dating back to the 1970s to manufacture controversy over the health effects of gas stove emissions and avoid regulation. This PR campaign relied on tactics used by Big Tobacco to promote doubt and uncertainty over the link between cigarettes and cancer.
The documents uncovered by CIC reveal that the gas industry funded its own scientific studies using the same laboratories, consultants, and statisticians as Big Tobacco; and that it was advised by the same public relations firm that masterminded the tobacco strategy — Hill & Knowlton — specifically by the Hill & Knowlton executives responsible for the tobacco account.
Led by its trade group the American Gas Association (AGA), and advised by Hill & Knowlton, the gas industry sponsored its own studies into the health effects of gas stove emissions, then amplified findings to promote doubt — without consistently disclosing its financial ties. While a growing body of independent science identified a higher prevalence of respiratory problems in gas-stove homes, the AGA-funded studies found “no association” between gas stove emissions and respiratory illness. The industry used these studies to influence public opinion, undermine public health efforts, and block regulation.
This shaped federal regulation of both indoor and outdoor air pollution. Gas industry studies influenced decisions taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the 1980s and 1990s not to revise outdoor NO2 standards. Likewise, in 1986 when the Consumer Product Safety Commission sought guidance about the development of potential measures limiting gas stove NO2 emissions, AGA-sponsored studies featured prominently in deliberations, leading to the conclusion that “the evidence was somewhat inconsistent” and further research was needed.
This gas industry influence campaign continues to the present day. In December 2022, when a peer-reviewed study estimated that “nearly 13 percent of childhood asthma cases in the United States can be linked to having a gas stove in the home,” AGA paid the consulting firm Gradient Corporation to criticize the data. Gradient has a long history of defending industry clients against public health research.
Responding to detailed questions from CIC, AGA’s President and CEO Karen Harbert acknowledged that the gas industry has “collaborated” with “experts” to “inform and educate regulators” about the safety of gas stoves. “Our focus is on the facts and independent analysis,” said Harbert. The documents, however, suggest otherwise.
We sat down with Rebecca John, the researcher and author of CIC’s report, to talk through the key documents that informed the investigation; all of the documents referred to in the report are publicly available on DocumentCloud. The following conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Brendan DeMelle
Before we get into the documents, take us behind the scenes into your research. Was there a moment in which you realized that the gas industry had been handed, and was using, Big Tobacco’s playbook?
Rebecca John
That’s a great question and, actually, there were two moments. The first, when I found an article from a gas industry publication stating that AGA had sponsored its own studies at Battelle Laboratories in the early 1970s. I had seen these studies heavily referenced in EPA and academic literature without any mention of AGA’s funding. So that was a serious “wow” moment — the influence of this behind-the-scenes funding was immediately clear. I then found another AGA document referencing the specific titles of the studies it had funded and the names of the researchers. It was clear to me that these studies, combined with the way that the gas industry seemed to be using its self-sponsored research to challenge independent science and reassure the public, resembled the tobacco strategy.
Excerpts from industry documents showing AGA sponsorship of studies. See bothdocuments in DocumentCloud.
This made me wonder whether Hill & Knowlton, the architects of that strategy, might have been involved. So I started looking in old gas-industry magazines for potential leads. One of these, from 1972, included a listing for a “Public Relations Workshop Report” and there it was in black-and-white: a Hill & Knowlton executive center stage at AGA’s 1972 PR Workshop, recommending key facets of the firm’s tobacco playbook to the gas industry. And not just any Hill & Knowlton executive but Richard Darrow, its then president, who had previously been responsible for the tobacco account! That felt like history leaping off the page.
DEMELLE
That’s incredible. So walk us through the timeline — when did independent scientists begin to become concerned about the health impacts of gas stoves? Was the gas industry already thinking about the issue?
JOHN
Concerns about the health impacts of gas stoves go back to the early 1900s but things began to crystallize in the 1960s with advances in laboratory-based understanding of NO2 as a respiratory irritant, alongside anecdotal evidence of patients suffering from gas-stove-related conditions. In 1970, EPA researchers found a link between outdoor NO2 and respiratory problems in schoolchildren, which led to the launch of the agency’s first study into the health effects of indoor gas stove emissions. These EPA researchers found peak NO2 levels from gas stoves of 1,000 parts per billion (ppb) — around 20 times higher than the legal outdoor standard. They also found that homes with gas stoves reported more respiratory problems than those with electric stoves. A few months later, the New York Times reported on the study, bringing national attention to the issue, and an op-ed in the Yale Law Journal described indoor air pollution, as a “menace” that required “comprehensive federal legislation.”
American Gas Association Monthly in 1982 provided insight into growing industry concern about gas stoves. See the entire document in DocumentCloud.
Documents show that by 1970 the gas industry — which had been trying to position gas as a “clean burning” alternative to coal-fired electricity generation — was aware it had a potential problem with NO2 emissions. In response to these EPA studies, it began to examine gas stove emissions.
DEMELLE
So the industry knew public concern about the health impacts of gas stoves could be an existential threat. And the documents you found show that it turned to the PR firm Hill & Knowlton, which had worked with Big Tobacco and is credited with creating the “tobacco strategy.” What is that strategy and why is it relevant in this case?
JOHN
By 1972, when the gas industry turned to Hill & Knowlton for help, the PR firm was already expert in making this kind of threat go away. Thanks to successful litigation against cigarette companies, we actually know a lot about the tobacco strategy — the tactics that Hill & Knowlton used to sow doubt over the health harms of smoking and protect cigarette sales. The documents obtained through litigation now form part of the invaluable Industry Documents Library at the University of California San Francisco, and show exactly how Big Tobacco spent millions of dollars on research to defend and protect the industry. These documents, along with other findings, also demonstrate howmultiple industries have employed this strategy to deny the health and environmental hazards of asbestos, lead, plastics, toxic chemicals, CFCs, and carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. Our new report shows that gas stove emissions should also be added to that list.
DEMELLE
You found that not only did the gas industry work with Hill & Knowlton, it specifically turned to the same executives who had advised Big Tobacco. What did Hill & Knowlton tell the gas industry to do?
JOHN
So in 1972, Richard Darrow, one of the architects of Hill & Knowlton’s tobacco strategy, told the gas industry that it should mount “massive consistent, long-range public relations programs” to cope with its pollution problems. Once I knew that Darrow had spoken at the PR Workshop, I tracked down a complete version of his speech which showed him advising the industry that “continuing research” should be a part of its daily activities and that it should use this research to “quiet” consumer fears over gas appliances in the home and get ahead of bad news.
If it did this effectively, Darrow promised that the industry would be able to make its “voice heard” and play a role in “shaping the decisions” that would affect the nation’s future and, by extension, the industry’s ability to profit.
American Gas Association Monthly from June 1972 details Richard Darrow’s advice to the gas industry. See the entire statement in DocumentCloud.
The following year, Carl Thompson, another central figure in Hill & Knowlton’s work for tobacco, repeated a similar message to the gas industry: If it didn’t help inform the public, people would get all their information from the industry’s critics.
What’s striking is the similarity between this advice Darrow and Thompson gave to the gas industry in the 1970s and one of Hill & Knowlton’s earliest recommendations to its tobacco clients in the 1950s — that they should seek to reassure the public through the communication of “weighty scientific views” that held there was no proof that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer. What we see very clearly in the documents is that when faced with public concerns about gas stove emissions in the early 1970s, the gas industry would fund “weighty scientific views” of its own.
Hill & Knowlton’s 1953 recommendation to Big Tobacco to reassure the public through “weighty scientific views.” See the entire document in DocumentCloud.
DEMELLE
How did the gas industry go about getting those “weighty scientific views”?
JOHN
Well, first of all they didn’t waste any time. Barely two months after Darrow advised the gas industry to adopt a policy of “continuing research,” the AGA started funding its own epidemiological studies at Battelle, a private lab that had previously conducted research for Hill & Knowlton’s clients, including the American Petroleum Institute (API) and Big Tobacco. Interestingly, agreements between Battelle and various tobacco firms show that Battelle had a track record of agreeing to publish information that was “consistent with the Sponsor’s interests and wishes.”
Two researchers from the Ohio State University College of Medicine also joined the Battelle scientists, giving the AGA-funded research an appearance of greater credibility. This is important because one of the key services Hill & Knowlton provided for its tobacco clients was recruiting carefully selected scientists who would provide a veneer of credibility while conducting research likely to generate a controversy over the link between cigarettes and cancer. And records show that at least three members of the research team from Battelle and OhioState may have been selected due to their previous interests and approach.
Hill & Knowlton’s advice to the gas industry in 1956 to sponsor research at “leading universities.” See the entire document in DocumentCloud.
Additionally, documents we found also show that this wasn’t the first time Hill & Knowlton had recommended such a strategy to the gas industry. As early as the mid 1950s, a Hill & Knowlton team, including Richard Darrow, had advised the gas industry to sponsor research at “leading universities or research institutions” which it would be able to use to question the accuracy of facts from “government and outside sources.”
DEMELLE
It’s chilling to see how systematic and long-range these influence campaigns are. What were some key industry-funded studies, and what were their conclusions?
JOHN
Based on what we know, the gas industry funded two major sets of epidemiological studies — first in the 1970s, and again in the late 1980s and early 1990s. In contrast to a growing body of non-industry-funded research, which increasingly identified an association between gas stove emissions and respiratory problems, the 1970s studies conducted by the Battelle and Ohio State researchers (Mitchell et al., 1974; and Keller et al., 1974) found no evidence for gas-stove-related respiratory problems. Two similar follow up studies (Keller et al., 1979 I & II) were published in the journal Environmental Research without any disclosure of AGA-funding. To this day, AGA-funding is not disclosed in the journal’s onlineversions. Then, in the late 1980s, the gas industry, this time under the direction of the Gas Research Institute (GRI), which had taken over AGA’s research program, funded another major study in partnership with the Health Effects Institute — a research organization co-funded by the EPA and 28 automobile industry companies. This study (Samet et al., 1993) to which GRI contributed upwards of $1 million, or approximately a third of the funding, again found no association between gas stoves and respiratory illness.
One of the AGA-funded studies, published by Environmental Research in 1979 with no declaration of AGA funding by the authors. See the entire document in DocumentCloud.
DEMELLE
What impact did these studies have on policy and regulation? And was the industry taking other steps to impact policy?
JOHN
Yes the industry was absolutely doing other things. As well as funding epidemiological studies, the gas industry was also funding third-party consultants and statisticians to attack research — another tactic that had proven highly effective for Big Tobacco under the direction of Hill & Knowlton. Again, industry funding of these third parties was not always disclosed.
Gas industry representatives then amplified these paid-for findings to promote doubt and maximize uncertainty. On some occasions the industry went one step further, using this apparent uncertainty as a springboard to make much bolder claims. For example, in 1982, a GRI spokesman declared outright that “emissions from unvented gas appliances do not cause any undesirable effects.” During this period, the gas industry was also pursuing marketing and advertising campaigns, product placement deals in movies and TV shows, and celebrity tie-ins — another tobacco favorite — with famous cooks such as Julia Child. I know, is nothing sacred?!
American Gas Association Monthly from 1978 included an article about its partnership with Julia Child. See the entire document in DocumentCloud.
Coming back to your question about the impact these studies had on policy and regulation, we can see quite clearly in the historical record that they disrupted what might otherwise have been an emerging consensus regarding the health effects of gas stove emissions. And, from the late 1970s up to as late as the 1990s, industry-funded studies contributed to decisions by EPA regulators that the evidence was “not conclusive” and more research was needed.
One document from 1978 shows the actual moment an industry representative insists that the EPA include the AGA-funded studies in its assessment of the health harms — which, of course, it did. A later EPA document from 1982 contains a table that provides striking visual evidence of this influence: The agency considered nine gas stove studies, four of which found an association between gas stoves and respiratory problems, while five found no evidence of an association. Four of these five papers that found no association were the undisclosed AGA studies conducted by the Battelle/Ohio State researchers. So you can see just how powerful an influence these AGA-funded studies had in shifting the balance of evidence in the industry’s favor. This influence continued over subsequent decades. The outdoor NO2 standard was only revised in 2010 and regulations for NO2 still stop at the doorway of U.S. homes.
This table from a 1982 EPA paper illustrates the AGA’s influence on policy: The highlighted rows are studies that were funded by the AGA. See the entire document in DocumentCloud.
DEMELLE
How is the gas industry still using these tobacco tactics?
JOHN
So the gas industry continues to use tobacco tactics in a variety of ways. It’s still sponsoring its own research focusing on gas stove emissions, as well as new literature reviews that attack independent health effects research. For example, late last year a major study attributed 1 in 8 cases of childhood asthma in the U.S. to the presence of a gas stove in the home. In response, the AGA funded a literature review conducted by Gradient, a private consulting firm. And, just like the reviews commissioned by the gas industry in the 1980s, Gradient’s review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prove a causal relationship between gas cooking or indoor NO2 and asthma. Since then, the gas industry has amplified the results of its studies, making spurious complaints against academicresearch to push back against the evidence and hiring influencers to portray gas cooking in a positive light. These are all classic tobacco tactics.
DEMELLE
Despite the industry’s continued efforts to fight regulation and downplay the health harms of gas stoves, are people beginning to be more aware of or concerned about the risks of gas stoves?
JOHN
I think people are becoming more aware. Definitely. For one thing, people do seem to be waking up to the fact that cooking on a gas stove means that you are combusting a fossil fuel in your home and that this is causing pollutants to build up indoors — not only NO2 but also benzene, a known carcinogen, and the powerful greenhouse gas methane.
The science has also grown. In 2010 when the EPA introduced a tighter standard for outdoor NO2, it noted that a substantial amount of new research had contributed to its decision, especially studies that show children and people with asthma are more likely to develop respiratory problems related to NO2 exposure. Since then other studies have confirmed this association, as well as a link between indoor NO2 exposure and morbidity in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder.
On top of this, the health impacts of gas stove emissions may disproportionately affect lower-income households and people of color, many of whom already live in neighborhoods with polluted outdoor air. Pollutant concentrations tend to be higher in smaller living spaces, in kitchens without a working ventilation hood, and in homes where windows are kept shut against outdoor pollution. A 2020 report by the Asthma and Allergy Foundation found that the burden of asthma falls more heavily on Black, Hispanic, and Native American populations, with mortality and emergency room visits higher for these groups. I think it’s also important to note that researchers who have worked in this area for decades, who may have previously concluded that more research was needed, are now saying that steps should be taken to protect those who are susceptible and that we should not wait any longer to begin preventive action against the negative effects of gas stove emissions.
DEMELLE
What’s the one big takeaway you hope that readers glean from these documents and your research?
JOHN
To me, the importance of this work lies in revealing how the fossil fuel industry has maintained — and continues to maintain — the energy status quo, despite the health and climate risks.
Brendan is Executive Director of DeSmog. He is also a freelance writer and researcher specializing in media, politics, climate change and energy. His work has appeared in Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post, Grist, The Washington Times and other outlets.
