View previous stories
	Climate Change is an Existential Threat to Humanity by ICJ, Grantham Research Institute, agencies   Aug. 2025   As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data, by Pallavi Sethi - Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment   At a time when the global climate crisis is escalating, some governments are choosing to distort and conceal the evidence of its impacts.   In the seven months since taking office, the Trump administration has been steadily erasing the evidence of climate science. This is no longer just a matter of denying science or delaying action, it is about controlling who gets to create, share, and access knowledge.   It is an epistemic assault, one that we have seen happen before. In Canada, nearly a decade ago, Stephen Harper’s government silenced climate scientists and destroyed data. In 2012, the Venezuelan government removed environmental statistics from public view.   And in Brazil in 2020, the Bolsonaro administration tried to discredit data related to deforestation and fired the officer behind it. These cases point to a disturbing pattern of governments trying to conceal facts, a phenomenon becoming increasingly blatant in the US.   Even as climate disasters become more frequent and extreme, such as the recent Texas floods that claimed 135 lives, the Trump administration is gutting the very systems needed to understand and respond to the crisis.   Proposed budget cuts to federal agencies, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), are undermining their ability to monitor climate risks, develop solutions and protect communities.   However, there is a growing movement where scientists and grassroot organisations have come together to protect crucial climate data.   The Trump administration is aggressively rolling back climate action, including erasing scientific data, slashing research funding, and removing terms like “climate change” from federal websites.   In the proposed fiscal budget for 2026, the administration plans to cut NOAA’s budget by 27 per cent, which would end its Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR). This could impact the country’s ability to accurately predict extreme weather.   In the latest blow, the administration has proposed to repeal the EPA’s 2009 endangerment finding, the legal basis for nearly all federal climate regulations. The scientific finding, under the Clean Air Act, based on extensive evidence, concluded that greenhouse gases threaten public health and safety.   The repeal would strip the EPA from regulating greenhouse gases from new vehicles, power plants, and other sources of pollution. If the rollback is carried out, it will be one of the most damaging environmental actions by a US government.   Another concerning target of the Trump administration has been the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii, the longest-running station for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide. The facility, which was launched in 1956, produced the Keeling Curve (a daily record of global atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration), and brought global attention to the rapid increase in greenhouse gas levels.   Now, President Trump wants to shut this laboratory despite expert warnings that this move would impact the understanding of “how climate is changing, at what pace, and where.”   Beyond gutting regulations, the administration is also erasing scientific evidence.   It has removed the online website that hosted the National Climate Assessment (NCA) reports, published every four years, and dismissed hundreds of staff working on the next edition. Without the NCA reports, cities could struggle to prepare for climate disasters.   These actions represent a deliberate effort not just to discredit climate evidence but to suppress it entirely. It is also a rejection of evidence-based governance where both the scientific findings and the institutions responsible for producing them are systematically undermined.   Institutional censorship not only undermines scientific integrity but also erodes public trust in democratic institutions. This type of censorship can also affect international cooperation and slow progress, especially since the US is the second largest carbon emitter.   The suppression of climate data by the US government has global implications. The international scientific community depends on the US for critical data which helps in responding to climate disasters.   Agencies such as NOAA, EPA and NASA have long been providers of free and publicly accessible information to experts all over the world. Since agencies like NOAA monitor vast areas, including entire oceans, researchers in the Global South, for instance, rely heavily on them to monitor and respond to environmental challenges.   The Centre for Sustainable Development at the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) in India uses NOAA’s climate datasets to track weather and ocean conditions in the Indian Ocean. The Institute uses this information to advise government agencies on how to best prepare and recover from natural disasters. Similarly, scientists at Singapore’s Earth Observatory rely on NOAA data to model and predict rising sea levels, which is critical for strengthening Singapore’s coastal resilience.   Disruptions to such data also risk deepening existing scientific and geopolitical inequalities. Many scientific institutions in wealthier nations may have the ability to develop robust data sources. However, many in the Global South lack the technical infrastructure and financial resources to do the same.   Therefore, limiting access to US climate datasets can especially impact the ability of vulnerable nations to address climate change effectively. In addition, when a powerful country like the US withdraws from climate leadership, it risks sending a dangerous message to other nations that climate inaction is acceptable. This can embolden governments to scale back on their own efforts and undermine collective progress.   Despite efforts to suppress climate data, scientists and grassroots organisations are working together to protect this vital information. For instance, the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative archives data that affects the communities most at risk from Trump’s proposed policies.   The Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science in Germany, the European Space Agency, and the National Centre for Scientific Research in France have archived data from US agencies like NOAA and EPA.   As the climate crisis worsens, it is concerning to see powerful governments censor scientific data. But the growing resistance from scientists, civil society and academic institutions proves that knowledge cannot be easily erased. It is also an important reminder that governments cannot be the sole custodians of scientific knowledge. Instead, we should view science as a shared and transnational public resource that we must protect and defend.   http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/inside-trumps-campaign-to-censor-climate-science/ http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/digital-threats/what-does-information-integrity-have-to-do-with-climate/ http://www.un.org/en/climatechange/information-integrity http://www.unesco.org/en/information-integrity-climate-change http://www.ciel.org/news/531-carbon-capture-and-storage-lobbyists-gained-access-to-cop30-climate-talks/ http://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02868-1   http://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2025/09/national-academies-publish-new-report-reviewing-evidence-for-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-u-s-climate-health-and-welfare http://blog.ucs.org/kate-cell/disinformation-undermines-our-right-to-science/ http://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122025/trumps-epa-focus-delay-rescind-dismantle/ http://www.ucs.org/resources/access-denied http://www.ucs.org/resources/dirty-air-dirty-deeds http://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/white-house-pushes-to-dismantle-leading-climate-and-weather-research-center http://news.ucar.edu/133054/ucar-statement-reports-nsf-ncar-could-be-dismantled http://researchworks.ucar.edu/hurricanes/ http://researchworks.ucar.edu/tornadoes-hail/ http://researchworks.ucar.edu/wildfires/   http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan/ http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/11/fossil-fuel-infrastructure-rights-critical-ecosystems-at-risk/ http://climate.law.columbia.edu/Silencing-Science-Tracker http://clxtoolkit.com/publications/report-loss-and-damage-litigation-against-carbon-majors/ http://climateintegrity.org/news/view/new-report-big-oils-deceptive-climate-ads http://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/75/12/1016/8303627 http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/10/un-expert-says-strengthening-impact-assessments-essential-facing-planetary   July 2025   Climate Change is an Existential Threat to Humanity   The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued its advisory opinion on the obligations of States in respect of climate change, read out by the President of the Court, Judge Iwasawa Yuji, on Wednesday.   The UN’s principal judicial body ruled that States have an obligation to protect the environment from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and act with due diligence and cooperation to fulfill this obligation.   This includes the obligation under the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.   The Court further ruled that if States breach these obligations, they incur legal responsibility and may be required to cease the wrongful conduct, offer guarantees of non-repetition and make full reparation depending on the circumstances.   UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the historic decision. "This is a victory for our planet, for climate justice and for the power of young people to make a difference," he said. “The world must respond.”   The case was “unlike any that have previously come before the court,” President of the International Court of Justice Judge Yuji Iwasawa said while reading the court’s unanimous advisory opinion outlining the legal obligations of United Nations member states with regard to climate change.   This case was not simply a “legal problem” but “concerned an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet,” Iwasawa said.   “A complete solution to this daunting and self-inflicted problem requires the contribution of all fields of human knowledge, whether law, science, economics or any other; above all, a lasting and satisfactory solution requires human will and wisdom at the individual social and political levels to change our habits and current way of life to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come”.   "Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act," court president Yuji Iwasawa said. "The legal consequences resulting from the commission of an internationally wrongful act may include … full reparations to injured states in the form of restitution, compensation and satisfaction."   The court added that a "sufficient direct and certain causal nexus" had to be shown "between the wrongful act and the injury".   The Court used Member States’ commitments to both environmental and human rights treaties to justify this decision. UN Member States are parties to a variety of environmental treaties, including ozone layer treaties, the Biodiversity Convention, the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement and many more, which oblige them to protect the environment for people worldwide and for future generations.   The right to “a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the enjoyment of many human rights,” since Member States are parties to numerous human rights treaties, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they are required to guarantee the enjoyment of such rights by addressing climate change.   In September 2021, the Pacific Island State of Vanuatu announced that it would seek an advisory opinion from the Court on climate change. This initiative was inspired by the youth group Pacific Island Students Fighting Climate Change, which underscored the need to act to address climate change, particularly in small island States.   After the country gaind the support of other UN Member States, the UN General Assembly, on 29 March 2023, adopted a resolution requesting an advisory opinion from the ICJ on two questions: (1) What are the obligations of States under international law to ensure the protection of the environment? and (2) What are the legal consequences for States under these obligations when they cause harm to the environment?   The ICJ ruling was welcomed by Ralph Regenvanu, Minister of Climate Change Adaptation, Meteorology & Geo-Hazards, Energy, Environment and Disaster Management for the Republic of Vanuatu.   “Today’s ruling is a landmark opinion that confirms what we, vulnerable nations have been saying, and we’ve known for so long, that states do have legal obligations to act on climate change, and these obligations are guaranteed by international law. They’re guaranteed by human rights law, and they’re grounded in the duty to protect our environment, which we heard the court referred to so much,” Regenvanu said.   Mr Regenvanu hailed the court's decision as a "landmark milestone". "It's a very important course correction in this critically important time," he said. "Even as fossil fuel expansion continues under the US's influence, along with the loss of climate finance and technology transfer, and the lack of climate ambition following the US's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, major polluters, past and present, cannot continue to act with impunity and treat developing countries as sacrifice zones to further feed corporate greed."   Margaretha Wewerinke-Singh, legal counsel for Vanuatu’s ICJ case, said the opinion meant that the “era where fossil fuel producers can freely produce and can argue that their climate policies are a matter of discretion—they’re free to decide on the climate policies—that era is over. We have entered an era of accountability, in which states can be held to account for their current emissions if they’re excessive but also for what they have failed to do in the past.”   Vishal Prasad, the director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change and one of the students who initiated the case, said the advisory opinion would play a major role in holding polluters accountable.   "The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities," he said. "It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations, and a future."   ICJ president Yuji Iwasawa said the climate "must be protected for present and future generations" and the adverse effect of a warming planet "may significantly impair the enjoyment of certain human rights, including the right to life".   The detailed ICJ advisory opinion dealt with obligations of states under various climate conventions and treaties and humanitarian law. The court concluded that in terms of the climate agreements, state parties:   To the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have an obligation to adopt measures with a view to contributing to the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change.   Have additional obligations to take the lead in combating climate change by limiting their greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing their greenhouse gas sinks and reservoirs.   To the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, have a duty to cooperate with each other in order to achieve the underlying objective of the convention. To the Kyoto Protocol must comply with applicable provisions of the protocol.   To the Paris Agreement have an obligation to act with due diligence in taking measures in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities capable of making an adequate contribution to achieving the temperature goal set out in the agreement.   To the Paris Agreement have an obligation to prepare, communicate and maintain successive and progressive, nationally determined contributions, which, when taken together, are capable of achieving the temperature goal of limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels.   State parties to the Paris agreement have an obligation to pursue measures which are capable of achieving the objectives set out in their successive nationally determined contributions.   State parties to the Paris agreement have obligations of adaptation and cooperation, including through technology and financial transfers, which must be performed in good faith.   In addition, the court was of the opinion that customary international law sets forth obligations for states to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.   These obligations include the following:   States have a duty to prevent significant harm to the environment by acting with due diligence and to use all means at their disposal to prevent activities carried out within their jurisdiction or control from causing significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities.   States have a duty to cooperate with each other in good faith to prevent significant harm to the climate system and other parts of the environment, which requires sustained and continuous forms of cooperation by states when taking measures to prevent such harm.   State parties to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the ozone layer and to the protocol and to the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete ozone layer and its Kigali amendment, the Convention on Biological Diversity, and the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in those countries experiencing serious drought and/or desertification, particularly in Africa, have obligations under these treaties to ensure the protection of the climate system and other parts of the environment from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.   State parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea have an obligation to adopt measures to protect and preserve the marine environment, including from the adverse effects of climate change, and to cooperate in good faith.   However, the court did not end there; it was of the opinion that states have obligations under international human rights law and are required to take “measures to protect the climate system and other parts of the environment.”   The court said a clean, healthy and sustainable environment was a precondition for exercising many human rights, such as the right to life, the right to health, the right to an adequate standard of living, including access to water, food and housing.   * ICJ Summary: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (7pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-pre-01-00-en.pdf   * ICJ complete advisory: Obligation of States in respect of climate change (140pp): http://www.icj-cij.org/sites/default/files/case-related/187/187-20250723-adv-01-00-en.pdf   http://news.un.org/en/story/2025/07/1165475 http://webtv.un.org/en/asset/k1t/k1tey5ro2w http://www.icj-cij.org/case/187/press-releases http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/turk-hails-landmark-icj-ruling-affirming-states-human-rights-obligations http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/institute-responds-to-international-court-of-justice-advisory-opinion/ http://www.ciel.org/news/icj-climate-opinion-ends-fossil-fuel-impunity/ http://wwf.panda.org/wwf_news/press_releases/?14459466/ICJ-advisory-opinion-climate-change http://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/07/global-international-court-of-justices-landmark-opinion-bolsters-fight-for-climate-justice-and-accountability/ http://blog.ucs.org/delta-merner/five-reasons-why-the-icj-climate-advisory-opinion-matters/ http://www.clientearth.org/latest/press-office/press-releases/world-s-highest-court-confirms-countries-must-act-to-avert-climate-catastrophe-in-a-once-in-a-generation-legal-decision/   http://earth.org/landmark-moment-for-climate-justice-reactions-pour-in-after-icj-delivers-historic-opinion-on-states-climate-change-obligations/ http://www.dw.com/en/worlds-top-court-says-healthy-environment-is-a-human-right/a-73373617 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jul/23/healthy-environment-is-a-human-right-top-un-court-rules http://www.ipsnews.net/2025/07/climate-change-existential-threat-to-humanity-says-icj/ http://www.ciel.org/project-update/advancing-climate-justice-at-the-icj/   http://www.sei.org/about-sei/press-room/production-gap-report-2025-press-release-2 http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/johan-rockstrom-addresses-heads-of-state-during-united-nations-general-assembly-201cfailure-is-not-inevitable-it-is-a-choice201d http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/seven-of-nine-planetary-boundaries-now-breached-2013-ocean-acidification-joins-the-danger-zone http://www.planetaryhealthcheck.org/ http://news.exeter.ac.uk/research/new-reality-as-world-reaches-first-climate-tipping-point/ http://global-tipping-points.org/ http://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adv2906 http://forestdeclaration.org/resources/forest-declaration-assessment-2025/ http://globalwitness.org/en/campaigns/forests/banks-make-26-billion-in-a-decade-of-financing-deforesting-companies/ http://www.ipbes.net/nexus/media-release http://livingplanet.panda.org/   http://climateandhealthalliance.org/press-releases/cross-cutting-report-reveals-devastating-global-health-impacts-of-fossil-fuels-thru-production-life-cycle-across-human-lifespan http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/ec12gc27-general-comment-no-27-2025-economic-social http://www.ohchr.org/en/calls-for-input/2025/call-inputs-fossil-fuel-based-economy-and-human-rights http://globalcommonsalliance.org/news/new-research-reveals-path-to-prosperity-for-planet-and-people-if-earths-critical-resources-are-better-shared/ http://earth4all.life/news/causing-environmental-damage-should-be-a-criminal-offence-say-72-of-people-in-g20-countries-surveyed/   http://www.carbonbrief.org/un-five-reasons-why-switching-to-renewables-is-smart-economics http://www.sierraclub.org/articles/2025/06/banking-climate-chaos-global-banks-backslide-climate-commitments-amid-surge-fossil http://fossilfueltreaty.org/news http://clubmadrid.org/taxing-polluter-profits-a-call-for-fair-climate-finance/ http://views-voices.oxfam.org.uk/2025/06/who-should-pay-for-climate-damage-polluters-tax http://taxjustice.net/reports/reclaiming-tax-sovereignty-to-transform-global-climate-finance/ http://climatenetwork.org/2025/06/25/tax-justice-the-missing-element-on-the-road-to-belem/ http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/international-cooperation-on-fossil-fuel-levies-could-raise-billions-for-climate-finance http://tinyurl.com/mtnrb4s8 http://tinyurl.com/4knuumjp http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press-release/75582/global-survey-finds-8-out-of-10-people-support-taxing-oil-and-gas-corporations-to-pay-for-climate-damages/   http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/luciano-lliuya-v-rwe-a-major-step-forward-for-climate-justice/ http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/publication/global-trends-in-climate-change-litigation-2025-snapshot/ http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/06/de-fossilising-economies-key-course-correction-climate-change-and-human http://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/g25/070/22/pdf/g2507022.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/07/un-experts-hail-landmark-inter-american-court-opinion-states-extensive http://blogs.law.columbia.edu/climatechange/2025/07/15/the-right-to-a-healthy-environment-as-a-catalyst-for-urgent-and-ambitious-climate-action-at-the-iacthr/ http://climate.law.columbia.edu/   http://www.pik-potsdam.de/en/news/latest-news/pace-of-warming-has-doubled-since-1980s http://www.savethechildren.net/news/climate-change-icj-ruling-landmark-win-children http://www.rightsoffuturegenerations.org/the-principles http://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/documents/hrbodies/hrcouncil/sessions-regular/session57/advance-versions/A-HRC-57-30-AEV.pdf http://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/general-comments-and-recommendations/crccgc26-general-comment-no-26-2023-childrens-rights http://www.genevaenvironmentnetwork.org/resources/updates/human-rights-climate-change-and-the-role-of-geneva/ http://www.idea.int/stockholm-series-of-public-lectures-climate-change-democracy http://www.ohchr.org/en/meeting-summaries/2025/10/day-one-forum-human-rights-democracy-and-rule-law-climate-emergency-wake http://www.ohchr.org/en/meeting-summaries/2025/10/day-two-forum-human-rights-democracy-and-rule-law-human-rights-democracy Visit the related web page
	Climate extremes, food price spikes, and their wider societal risks by Environmental Research Letters, agencies   July 2025   Extreme weather has stoked food price rises around the world in recent years, with low income earners bearing most of the economic pain and health impacts, according to new research.   The research links last year’s surges in the price of potatoes in the UK, cabbages in South Korea, onions in India, and cocoa in Ghana to weather extremes that “exceeded all historical precedent prior to 2020”.   Such price jumps not only affect local food security and health, particularly for the poorest in society, but have knock-on effects around the world.   The report 'Climate extremes, food price spikes, and their wider societal risks', published in the journal Environmental Research Letters includes contributions from the UK’s Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU), the European Central Bank (ECB), the Food Foundation, the Barcelona Supercomputing Center and Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research.   The study investigated examples across 18 countries between 2022 and 2024 where price spikes were associated with heat, drought and heavy precipitation.   “We can see that there’s a broad global context for this happening in recent years that extends all the way from East Asia through Europe and also to North America,” said Maximillian Kotz, a post-doctoral fellow at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center and the lead author of the study. “Our paper is a call to action for us to consider these wider effects of food price increases in response to climate change for our societies.”   Climate extremes, food price spikes, and their wider societal risks   2024 was the hottest year on record, with global temperatures exceeding 1.5 °C above preindustrial climate conditions for the first time and records broken across large parts of Earth’s surface. Among the widespread impacts of exceptional heat, rising food prices are beginning to play a prominent role in public perception, now the second most frequently cited impact of climate change experienced globally, following only extreme heat itself.   Recent econometric analysis confirms that abnormally high temperatures directly cause higher food prices, as impacts on agricultural production translate into supply shortages and food price inflation.   Amongst the examples we identify, recent spikes in the price of food were often associated with heat, drought and heavy precipitation conditions that were so extreme as to completely exceed all historical precedent prior to 2020.   For example, heatwaves across East Asia during 2024 led to unprecedented monthly temperatures across virtually all of South Korea and Japan, as well as large parts of China and India. Government statistics indicate that these events lead to substantial increases in the price of Korean cabbage (70% higher in September 2024 compared to September 2023), Japanese rice (48% higher in September 2024 compared to September 2023), and overall vegetable prices in China (30% increase between June and August).   Far from being confined to Asia, prominent impacts were also seen across advanced Western economies. With California accounting for over 40% of US vegetable production, unprecedented drought across California and Arizona in 2022 contributed to an 80% year-on-year increase in US vegetable producer prices by November 2022. With Spain producing over 40% of global olive oil, unprecedented droughts in Southern Europe across 2022/23 drove year-on-year price increases of 50% across the EU by January 2024, on top of price increases in the previous year.   As well as effects in domestic markets, recent climate extremes also raised global market prices of important food commodities. For example, Ghana and the Ivory Coast produce nearly 60% of global cocoa. Unprecedented monthly temperatures across the majority of both countries in February 2024, on top of a prolonged drought in the prior year, led to increases in global market prices of cocoa of around 300% by April 2024 compared to the previous year. Similar effects were observed for coffee following heatwaves and drought in Vietnam and Brazil in 2024.   Such effects in international markets bring challenges for suppliers and potential price rises for consumers in countries far from the region directly affected by weather extremes.   These climate-driven food price spikes can aggravate risks across a range of sectors of society. First, rising food prices have direct implications for food security, particularly for low-income households.   This can result in (a) households spending the same but buying less (either going hungry or depending on sources of charity); (b) spending the same but buying cheaper options (typically cutting out nutritious foods like fruits and vegetables which are more expensive sources of calories) (c) spending an even higher proportion of their income on food (with knock on effects on other areas of essential expenditure). These effects can be strongly regressive given the substantial disparities in the share of income spent on food by low- and high-income households.   For example, in the USA the lowest income quintile spends approximately 33% of income on food compared to 8% in the highest income quintile. The fact that larger price increases occur in hotter and typically poorer countries will further amplify these effects.   Second, food price increases exacerbate risks for public health. When price increases shift consumer spending towards cheaper, often less nutritious options, or when climate extremes directly affect the prices of nutritious foods such as fresh fruit and vegetables, this can have knock-on consequences for the quality of diets.   With diet-related diseases responsible for more deaths than any other risks,climate-induced price increases could thereby exacerbate a range of health outcomes from malnutrition and associated co-morbidities (particularly among children whose nutritional needs are higher), to a range of chronic diet-related conditions including coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes and many cancers.   Combined with the growing body of evidence connecting food insecurity and poor diets with mental health outcomes, this implies strong risks for the health sector and necessary public spending from climate-induced food price increases.   Third, recent evidence indicates that heat impacts on food prices also raise headline inflation. Central bank mandates for price stability may become increasingly challenging to deliver if more frequent extreme weather events make food prices less stable domestically and in global markets.   This is particularly a risk for developing economies, where the weight of food prices in headline inflation is much greater. These challenges may be magnified if persistent temperature increases cause a sustained upward pressure on inflation, or inflation volatility results in lower credibility and a de-anchoring of inflation expectations.   Moreover, raising interest rates to dampen inflationary effects risks exacerbating any reduction in economic growth that may also be caused by the extreme event.   Fourth, food price inflation associated with climate-extremes may come to bear increasing political relevance. Anecdotal evidence from across history often cites food price increases as a precursor to political unrest and social upheaval (from the French and Russian revolutions of the 18th and 20th centuries, to the 2008/09 food crisis and 2011 Arab Spring).   Such links are substantiated further by evidence showing a robust relationship between food prices and social unrest at monthly time-scales. Moreover, high rates of inflation can directly alter election outcomes in modern democracies.   For example, high inflation reduced support for incumbent Democrats in the 2024 US election, and boosted support for extremist, anti-system and populist parties in elections held in advanced economies since 1948. These effects can be particularly strong when inflation affects real wages, as is the case with food prices.   Maximilian Kotz: “What we found is very strong evidence that abnormally high temperatures drive increases in the price of food and overall inflation,” he said, “and that therefore, under future climate change with heat intensifying, we’re going to be expecting to see more and more of these kinds of increases in consumer price indexes, broadly.”   “These effects are going to continue to become worse in the future. Until we get to net zero emissions extreme weather will only get worse, but it’s already damaging crops and pushing up the price of food all over the world.   http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ade45f http://eciu.net/media/press-releases/2025/uk-us-ethiopia-see-food-price-shocks-from-climate-extremes-raising-concerns-for-child-health http://insideclimatenews.org/news/21072025/weather-extremes-driving-up-food-prices/ http://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jul/21/rising-food-prices-driven-by-climate-crisis-threaten-worlds-poorest-report-finds http://www.lse.ac.uk/granthaminstitute/news/why-engaging-with-food-insecurity-in-the-context-of-climate-change-is-increasingly-important/ Visit the related web page
	View more stories