London, UK, Jan 23, 2025 – (JCN Newswire) – Brought to you by Sustainability Magazine, Sustainability LIVE: Net Zero is the premier event for sustainability leaders committed to achieving net zero and driving ESG transformation, returns to the QEII Centre, London, on 5-6 March 2025. The two-day event will bring together global sustainability and supply chain leaders to explore actionable solutions for achieving net zero, fostering ESG leadership, and driving sustainable business transformation. Unparalleled Insights & Industry-Leading ConversationsSustainability LIVE: Net Zero will feature an exceptional lineup of keynote speakers, panel discussions, fireside chats, and masterclasses from leading organisations shaping the future of sustainability. Attendees will gain firsthand insights into Scope 3 emissions reduction, ESG innovation, circular economy strategies, and sustainable supply chain transformation. Co-Located with Procurement & Supply Chain LIVE: SustainabilityIn a unique dual-event format, Sustainability LIVE: Net Zerowill run alongside Procurement & Supply Chain LIVE: Sustainability, creating a comprehensive platform for executives committed to advancing supply chain sustainability. With one ticket granting full access to both events, attendees will have the opportunity to network with industry peers, explore cross-sector sustainability challenges, and develop holistic strategies for environmental impact reduction. Who Will Be in Attendance?
The event is designed for C-level executives and senior decision-makers leading sustainability efforts in their organisations, including: Get Involved
Later this century, sometime towards my teenage son’s late middle age, climate change might torch 50 percent of the world’s GDP. I’ll say that again. Sometime around 2070–2090, climate change could be doing so much damage to ecological and human systems, and the links between them, that the global economy could contract by half. (For comparison: the U.S. economy shrank by roughly 30 percent in the Great Depression.) This projection may sound exaggerated to the point of being implausible. Yes, two entire regions of Los Angeles burned to the ground last week. Yes, preliminary estimates of the cost of this one disaster range from $40 to $250 billion. But U.S. GDP is roughly $27 trillion; global GDP $107 trillion. Wouldn’t the U.S. and world economies be orders of magnitude more gigantic by 2070? Surely climate change couldn’t wipe out all that wealth? According to the UK Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, it could. Actuaries are mathematicians who assess economic risk for banks, insurance companies, and governments. The Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA) is the professional association that regulates actuaries in the United Kingdom; it traces its roots to the nineteenth century. It’s hardly an environmental advocacy group, let alone a radical one. Yet last week it released a study in collaboration with scientists at the University of Exeter showing that economists have severely underestimated the potentially catastrophic economic costs of global heating. Again, worst-case scenario, we lose 50 percent of GDP this century. Even understanding the credentials behind the study, many people will still find this figure implausible. Why is that? Humanity is entering a climate regime that has no precedent in our species’ history. The last time there was this much CO2 in the atmosphere, the oceans were so much higher that the eastern coastline of what would become North America ended about one hundred miles west of where it is currently. The Arctic, now largely a frozen wasteland, was a lush pine wood populated by giant camels. And our economy is adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere faster than any other phenomenon in geological history has ever done. It is absurd to imagine that severely damaging the climate would not severely damage the economy, which relies on a stable climate, even in the coming decades. Many people—both policymakers and private citizens—seem to assume that economic growth will just continue as the planet heats up and the climate breaks down. But that belief is based on nothing—it’s a quasi-religious form of faith. It upholds two doctrines above all: that the economy is separate from nature and that technology can do all the work of ecosystems. This faith is the basis for all mainstream economic modeling about climate change: In those models, economic growth is “exogenous,” or just assumed. As the actuaries at the IFoA noted, economic climate modeling relies on “the assumption that an economic recession is impossible no matter how severe climate shocks become.” Hardly any economics research actually probes this assumption. As the Congressional Research Service puts it, “this field of study into the economic effects of climate change is relatively small [and] the relative dearth of studies makes it challenging to reach specific ‘mainstream’ conclusions about economic impacts.” The little research that exists downplays, in its models, the historical evidence for the damage that heat does to growth rates by adjusting the models with a variable for adaptation, which factors in future politics and technologies that are believed will reduce that damage. But given that adpatation has so far not meaningfully reduced climate impacts in aggregate, according to one comprehensive review of the data, the decision to include that variable expresses not much more than economists’ counterfactual belief in the transcendentpower of human ingenuity. This means that mainstream economic ideas about the relationship the biosphere and the economy are founded on assumptions, conjectures, and stipulations that have contradictory evidence, or no evidence, to back them up. Of course, you can read the economic history of the twentieth century as a kind of evidence for the belief that GDP, barring some relatively minor recessions, will always rise up and to the right over a longer period, and that human beings will always develop technologies to solve our problems. But you can use that history as evidence for the future only if you downplay the impacts of climate change to the point of creating disinformation—only if you lie by omission, in other words, about what might happen. Indeed, that is what the actuaries at IFoA implicitly accuse climate economists of doing. The study notes that mainstream economics underestimates the danger of climate change because it largely excludes from its models “the impacts of climate tipping points, climate-driven extreme events, human health impacts, resource or migration-driven conflict, geopolitical tension, nature-driven risks, or sea level rise.” To leave these impacts out of economic models, the study notes, is “analogous to carrying out a risk assessment of the impact of the Titanic hitting an iceberg but excluding from the model the possibility that the ship could sink, the shortage of lifeboats, and death from drowning or hypothermia.” Our economy looks impervious to climate change because economics, finance, and governments deliberately separate or “decouple” our ecology and the economy in their calculations: The value of what is known as “nature” and the costs of its destruction are not included in the prices we pay for things. What happens to the climate system—to everything the economy cordons off as “nature” or “natural resources”—are considered “externalities.” In economic jargon, the word “externalities” signifies costs that are not borne by the entity imposing them. This word is a little too on-the-nose in suggesting the way the costs of climate change are placed outside the economic analysis of what human beings do on this planet. Yet, as the IFoA actuaries put it, “prosperity and economic health are intertwined with and dependent on the Earth system.” Without accounting for the Earth system, our economy functions more like a Ponzi scheme in which we incrementally steal a livable climate from the future and call it GDP growth. The quasi-religious faith that economic growth will just continue is baked into not only climate economics, but also climate policymaking. So-called “mitigation pathways,” models that game out cost-effective policy options, also assume economic growth as a given. Mitigation will be cheaper in the future than it is now, these models stipulate, because as the economy grows everyone will be richer in the future and thus society will be more able to afford to decarbonize. Delaying the phase out of fossil fuels therefore appears cost-effective. Yet as this new study shows, the guarantee of future economic growth, if we don’t phase out fossil fuels, is just a fantasy. The core information driving international climate politics has so far been founded on nothing—on air. On the central belief of Capitalism, our secular religion, that growth is inevitable, and that with intelligent investment and innovation alone we will achieve immortality by leaving the future better off than the past. What this new economic research—not just the IFoA study, but this one, this one, and this one—suggests is that we have been worshipping false gods. As the actuaries warn, current economic climate-change models “do not recognize that there is a risk of ruin.” These models, they say, are not fit to inform decisionmaking, for they are not even “roughly right,” but “precisely wrong.” The truth is we must phase out fossil fuels and stop adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere in order to sustain the conditions for prosperity and stave off the ever-growing risk of ruining the world for the next generation—including our very own children. Genevieve Guenther is the founding director of End Climate Silence and the author of The Language of Climate Politics.
As we approach 2025, the world of interior design is poised for an exciting transformation, with a strong emphasis on sustainability, craftsmanship, and cultural authenticity. Experts predict that a blend of artisanal decor, vintage revival, and eco-friendly elements will dominate Indian homes. According to Krsnaa Mehta, Senior Vice President – Executive Director, India Circus by Krsnaa Mehta, artisanal decor will see a significant rise in popularity. “As people increasingly prioritize sustainability and individuality, handcrafted, locally-made items are gaining momentum over mass-produced pieces," he notes. The desire for authenticity and culturally rooted decor is driving this trend, with Indian craftsmanship taking center stage. Handmade furniture, textiles such as handwoven rugs and handpainted mugs, handcrafted ceramics, and decorative arts infused with traditional techniques will experience a resurgence. “We can expect to see block printing adorning walls, textiles, and accessories, adding character to home interiors," says Mehta. The fusion of Indian craftsmanship with modern design aesthetics will offer functional yet artistic pieces that align with urban sensibilities. Customized, handcrafted pieces like artisanal lighting, wooden sculptures, and terracotta pottery are likely to feature prominently in 2025. Nyishi, Principal Architect, Splendour Living, highlights additional key trends shaping interiors in 2025:
Swipe Left For Next Video
As these trends take hold, the growing focus on “Made in India" products and the desire for cultural representation will further solidify the importance of Indian artistry in shaping the homes of tomorrow. Homeowners in 2025 will increasingly seek decor that reflects their values of sustainability, heritage, and authenticity. Latest Blogs
Click here to sign in with or Forget Password? Learn more share this! Share Twit Share Email January 23, 2025 This article has been reviewed according to Science X’s editorial process and policies. Editors have highlighted the following attributes while ensuring the content’s credibility: fact-checked peer-reviewed publication trusted source proofread by Selena Langner, Georgia Institute of Technology Exponential growth in big data and computing power is transforming climate science, where machine learning is playing a critical role in mapping the physics of our changing climate. “What is happening within the field is revolutionary,” says School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Associate Chair and Professor Annalisa Bracco, adding that because many climate-related processes—from ocean currents to melting glaciers and weather patterns—can be described with physical equations, these advancements have the potential to help us understand and predict climate in critically important ways. Bracco is the lead author of a new review paper providing a comprehensive look at the intersection of AI and climate physics. The result of an international collaboration between Georgia Tech’s Bracco, Julien Brajard (Nansen Environmental and Remote Sensing Center), Henk A. Dijkstra (Utrecht University), Pedram Hassanzadeh (University of Chicago), Christian Lessig (European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts), and Claire Monteleoni (University of Colorado Boulder), the paper, “Machine learning for the physics of climate,” was recently published in Nature Reviews Physics. “One of our team’s goals was to help people think deeply on how climate science and AI intersect,” Bracco shares. “Machine learning is allowing us to study the physics of climate in a way that was previously impossible. Coupled with increasing amounts of data and observations, we can now investigate climate at scales and resolutions we’ve never been able to before.” The team showed that ML is driving change in three key areas: accounting for missing observational data, creating more robust climate models, and enhancing predictions, especially in weather forecasting. However, the research also underscores the limits of AI—and how researchers can work to fill those gaps. “Machine learning has been fantastic in allowing us to expand the time and the spatial scales for which we have measurements,” says Bracco, explaining that ML could help fill in missing data points—creating a more robust record for researchers to reference. However, like patching a hole in a shirt, this works best when the rest of the material is intact. “Machine learning can extrapolate from past conditions when observations are abundant, but it can’t yet predict future trends or collect the data we need,” Bracco adds. “To keep advancing, we need scientists who can determine what data we need, collect that data, and solve problems.” Machine learning is often used when improving climate models that can simulate changing systems like our atmosphere, oceans, land, biochemistry, and ice. “These models are limited because of our computing power, and are run on a three-dimensional grid,” Bracco explains. Below the grid resolution, researchers need to approximate complex physics with simpler equations that computers can solve quickly, a process called “parameterization.” Discover the latest in science, tech, and space with over 100,000 subscribers who rely on Phys.org for daily insights. Sign up for our free newsletter and get updates on breakthroughs, innovations, and research that matter—daily or weekly. Machine learning is changing that, offering new ways to improve parameterizations, she says. “We can run a model at extremely high resolutions for a short time, so that we don’t need to parameterize as many physical processes—using machine learning to derive the equations that best approximate what is happening at small scales,” she explains. “Then we can use those equations in a coarser model that we can run for hundreds of years.” While a full climate model based solely on machine learning may remain out of reach, the team found that ML is advancing our ability to accurately predict weather systems and some climate phenomena like El Niño. Previously, weather prediction was based on knowing the starting conditions—like temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure—and running a model based on physics equations to predict what might happen next. Now, machine learning is giving researchers the opportunity to learn from the past. “We can use information on what has happened when there were similar starting conditions in previous situations to predict the future without solving the underlying governing equations,” Bracco says. “And all while using orders-of-magnitude less computing resources.” Bracco emphasizes that while AI and ML play a critical role in accelerating research, humans are at the core of progress. “I think the in-person collaboration that led to this paper is, in itself, a testament to the importance of human interaction,” she says, recalling that the research was the result of a workshop organized at the Kavli Institute for Theoretical Physics—one of the team’s first in-person discussions after the COVID-19 pandemic. “Machine learning is a fantastic tool—but it’s not the solution to everything,” she adds. “There is also a real need for human researchers collecting high-quality data, and for interdisciplinary collaboration across fields. I see this as a big challenge, but a great opportunity for computer scientists and physicists, mathematicians, biologists, and chemists to work together.” More information: Annalisa Bracco et al, Machine learning for the physics of climate, Nature Reviews Physics (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s42254-024-00776-3
Journal information:Nature Reviews Physics Provided by Georgia Institute of Technology Explore further Facebook Twitter Email Feedback to editors 59 minutes ago 0 3 hours ago 0 4 hours ago 0 4 hours ago 0 8 hours ago 0 15 minutes ago 18 minutes ago 25 minutes ago 29 minutes ago 32 minutes ago 45 minutes ago 52 minutes ago 59 minutes ago 1 hour ago 1 hour ago 9 minutes ago 9 hours ago Jan 16, 2025 Jan 14, 2025 Jan 3, 2025 Jan 2, 2025 More from Earth Sciences Jul 28, 2024 Jul 23, 2024 Dec 5, 2024 Nov 19, 2024 Dec 23, 2024 Jul 9, 2024 2 hours ago 23 hours ago 22 hours ago 23 hours ago Jan 22, 2025 Jan 21, 2025 Machine learning is significantly advancing climate science by enhancing the understanding and prediction of climate phenomena. It aids in filling gaps in observational data, improving climate models, and enhancing weather forecasts. While ML can extrapolate from existing data, it cannot yet predict future trends independently. The integration of ML with traditional methods allows for high-resolution modeling and better parameterization of complex systems. However, human expertise remains crucial for data collection and interdisciplinary collaboration. This summary was automatically generated using LLM. Full disclaimer Use this form if you have come across a typo, inaccuracy or would like to send an edit request for the content on this page. For general inquiries, please use our contact form. For general feedback, use the public comments section below (please adhere to guidelines). Please select the most appropriate category to facilitate processing of your request Thank you for taking time to provide your feedback to the editors. Your feedback is important to us. However, we do not guarantee individual replies due to the high volume of messages. Your email address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the email. Neither your address nor the recipient’s address will be used for any other purpose. The information you enter will appear in your e-mail message and is not retained by Phys.org in any form.
Get weekly and/or daily updates delivered to your inbox. You can unsubscribe at any time and we’ll never share your details to third parties. More informationPrivacy policy We keep our content available to everyone. Consider supporting Science X’s mission by getting a premium account. Medical research advances and health news The latest engineering, electronics and technology advances The most comprehensive sci-tech news coverage on the web
We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below. As wildfires continue to rage across the Los Angeles area, their toll on lives, homes, and natural landscapes is undeniable. Less obvious are the health impacts, such as respiratory issues caused by smoke inhalation and mental health strains of evacuation and loss, that could stretch far beyond the burn zone and linger for years to come. Stanford researchers are working to uncover the full scope of wildfire-related health risks and how public health strategies can mitigate them. Below, four Stanford experts spanning the fields of environmental science, medicine, and public health discuss what we know about wildfires’ health impacts, what remains a mystery, and how communities can better protect themselves from the increasingly common threat. Lisa Patel, a clinical associate professor of pediatrics in the Stanford School of Medicine, is the lead author of Climate Resilient Schools: A Call to Action,a report that details wildfire impacts on children’s health and recommends policy solutions. Sharon Chinthrajah, an associate professor of medicine and pediatrics, studies allergies and asthma. Marshall Burke, an associate professor in the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability, studies air quality impacts to human health and recently published a preprint study showing how wildfire smoke has single-handedly set back progress on clean air in the U.S. Jessica Yu, a research scientist at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment’sClimate and Energy Policy Program, studies the intersection of human and planetary health, with a focus on the public health impacts of wildfire smoke. (See more Stanford experts on wildfires.) Is wildfire smoke more dangerous than other forms of air pollution? How can we gauge the danger, and protect against it? Burke: The data pretty clearly say that there is no safe level of exposure to wildfire smoke: the more exposure we get, the worse a range of health outcomes. The data also pretty clearly show that our notion of sensitive groups should probably be greatly expanded. In addition to kids, elderly populations, or anyone else with preexisting conditions, like asthma, we need to think about populations like pregnant people whose birth outcomes can be substantially affected by exposure. Portable indoor filtration is often the best option for many households, and well-fitting N95 masks can help when outside. Patel: We estimate that wildfire smoke is about 10 times as toxic as the regular air pollution we breathe from the burning of fossil fuels. Given the toxicity of wildfire smoke and that we can expect children to be exposed to these toxic events more often, I think it’s best to err on the side of caution. Children are a sensitive population and should be limiting their time outdoors during poor air quality days. Schools need to have filtration systems in place to keep indoor air quality clean for students, whether that is HVAC systems or portable air cleaners. Yu: Wildfire smoke contains a variety of pollutants, and its composition depends on factors such as the type of fuel being burned, such as vegetation and housing materials, the intensity of the fire, and atmospheric conditions. These factors can lead to the release of fine particulate matter, harmful gases, volatile organic compounds, and toxic substances, like benzene and heavy metals. Fine particulate matter from wildfire smoke is particularly dangerous because it can penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, potentially causing damage to multiple body systems, including the cardiovascular and nervous systems. How could repeated exposure to wildfire smoke influence the development or exacerbation of respiratory conditions in children? Are there any counterintuitive findings regarding susceptibility or resilience among different pediatric populations? Patel: Acutely, we see more children showing up in our emergency room with asthma, wheezing, bronchitis, and pneumonia. While we don’t know long-term outcomes for what these repeated exposures mean for children, each new study that comes out should increase our concern. Studies that follow children 2-4 years after exposure to smoke form large wildfires show reduced lung function, increased antibiotic use, and increased healthcare utilization. Yu: Infants breathe more air per unit of body weight than adult, and toxicological studies indicate that the respiratory system continues to develop until around 21 years of age. This underscores why pediatric populations are particularly vulnerable to adverse health outcomes from wildfire smoke. However, it’s important to recognize that the toxicological impacts of wildfire smoke on developing respiratory systems extend beyond young children to include adolescents, teens, and young adults. Chinthrajah: Schools and outdoor extracurricular programs, like sports, are using AQI thresholds to determine when to limit exposure and shuttle kids indoors. However, with repeated exposures, we need to examine these approaches to make sure we are truly limiting exposure over time. Children with respiratory conditions, such as asthma, are even more susceptible. What is the role of climate change in recent wildfire activity and smoke trends? Burke: Climate change, and in particular increasing fuel aridity brought about by hotter temperatures and variable rainfall, is playing a central role in the recent rapid increase in wildfire activity and smoke exposure throughout the US. It is certainly not the only factor, but is substantially amplifying the risk brought about by other factors, which include a century of fire suppression that has left abundant fuels in our wildlands, as well as increased human construction and activity in the wildland-urban interface. We can say with strong confidence that climate change has made these events much more likely and much more severe. Studies indicate that individuals in wealthier areas tend to seek more information and take protective actions during wildfire smoke events compared to those in lower-income neighborhoods. What might this imply for public health interventions? Patel: We need to make sure we are accessing multiple channels of communication and in multiple languages so that people receive information in an appropriate and timely way. Some health systems are starting to utilize opt-in alerts for threats like extreme heat or poor air quality in which vulnerable patients receive text communications to take appropriate precautions. As these threats worsen, we need to think more about what health systems can do to better reach patients who are vulnerable.
