Understanding the Acceleration of Climate Change Around the World
On Thursday, October 31, the Association of Foreign Press Correspondents in the United States (AFPC-USA) hosted an educational program designed to address the rapid acceleration of climate change across the globe, providing international correspondents with essential tools to enhance their reporting on this critical issue by incorporating recent scientific findings. Our expert panel explored emerging trends, the profound impacts on ecosystems and human societies, and the urgent actions required to mitigate these changes. By emphasizing the importance of effective climate communication, this session aimed to equip international correspondents with the knowledge and skills necessary to inspire and support meaningful climate action.
The educational program featured two speakers: Peter Schlosser, the Vice President and Vice Provost of Global Futures, the University Global Futures Professor, and director of the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory at Arizona State University; and Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist whose research focuses on understanding the impacts of climate change on people and the planet. She is the Chief Scientist for The Nature Conservancy and a Horn Distinguished Professor and Endowed Professor of Public Policy and Public Law at Texas Tech University.
The program was moderated by Khushboo Razdan, a correspondent based in Washington, D.C. who works for The South China Morning Post.
This educational program for international correspondents is supported by Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory, Arizona State University as part of a series that aims to bridge the gap between scientific expertise and journalism while fostering greater understanding and collaboration between parliamentarians and journalists. Journalists amplify climate policies and initiatives, raising public awareness, while parliamentarians rely on the media to spotlight urgent environmental issues and drive sustainable solutions. The Global Futures Laboratory has also produced a video explaining the basics of climate science that you can view below.
AFPC-USA is solely responsible for the content of this educational program. Below foreign correspondents can find a summary of the discussion.
SCHLOSSER’S PRESENTATION
In his presentation, Schlosser discusses the accelerated impact of climate change within the broader context of human influence on the Earth, now considered the Anthropocene era. He explains how human activity has pushed the planet beyond its natural boundaries, resulting in pressures on life-supporting systems and affecting ecosystems globally. This situation, Schlosser argues, is evident not only in scientific findings but also in extreme weather events that have become more frequent and intense.
Key points include:
Over centuries, humanity has reshaped the planet without strategic oversight, leading to a state where natural boundaries are crossed. Human impact is visible from the atmosphere to the oceans, marking a new geological era with significant environmental repercussions.
Schlosser links the global warming trend to fossil fuel dependency. He notes that exponential energy use has resulted in rising carbon dioxide levels, driving atmospheric temperature increases. He asserts that basic physics confirm this warming effect, as evidenced by consistent carbon measurements and historical temperature records. Despite modest gains in renewable energy, fossil fuels dominate global energy use.
Schlosser highlights that climate change effects are no longer abstract; they’re being felt worldwide. He references extreme events such as record summer temperatures in 2023 and the hottest summer of 2024, both driven by increased atmospheric and ocean temperatures. These changes bring about severe droughts, intensified wildfires, and increased flooding, with dry areas becoming drier and wet areas wetter, further stressing local and global ecosystems.
He emphasizes that a 1.5°C rise in global temperature may seem minimal but has significant impacts. Historically, a 5°C difference separates an ice age from today’s climate, so even minor changes can lead to massive ecological shifts. The increase in extreme temperatures—projected to affect billions by 2075—illustrates how sensitive Earth’s climate system is to temperature fluctuations.
Specific examples of climate impacts are highlighted, such as Hurricane Helene, which brought unprecedented rainfall to Asheville, North Carolina. Schlosser notes a shift in storm dynamics, with more severe flooding caused by increased water uptake from warmer oceans. In the southwestern U.S., he reports a megadrought spanning over two decades, the worst in 1,200 years, posing severe challenges to water resources and public health.
Schlosser addresses urbanization’s role in climate change, citing Phoenix’s rising temperatures due to both global warming and local heat retention from infrastructure. This "urban heat island" effect exacerbates temperature increases, showing how climate change combines with human infrastructure to amplify local warming.
That society is running out of time to mitigate these changes. Schlosser critiques the lack of sufficient action since the Paris Agreement, with emissions cuts and CO2 removal falling far behind targets. To meet a 1.5°C limit, global emissions need to be cut by half by 2030—a goal that current trends indicate will not be met.
Schlosser identifies promising opportunities for economic growth through climate action, such as the development of renewable energy, green hydrogen, and sustainable food systems. He stresses that the cost of inaction far exceeds the costs associated with adopting these solutions.
Concluding his presentation, Schlosser stresses that effective action must begin immediately—not decades from now. He calls on both individuals and societies to make critical choices to support life-sustaining systems and prevent further environmental degradation. This, he argues, requires commitment, adaptive behavior, and a change in narrative from climate fatalism to proactive engagement.
He notes: “If we have to make different choices, we are experiencing sacrifice. I would say if we are not making different choices, we will face a much higher sacrifice. The cost of inaction is much higher than the cost of action now.”
ON HIS WORK AT THE JULIE ANN WRIGLEY GLOBAL FUTURES LABORATORY
Peter Schlosser
Schlosser describes the Julie Ann Wrigley Global Futures Laboratory as an innovative, future-focused academic institution aiming to address planetary challenges through an integrated, holistic approach. Instead of a traditional “laboratory” setting with scientists conducting experiments in isolation, the GFL is a prototype of a new university model designed to tackle global environmental and social challenges comprehensively. Their mission is not only to understand the root causes of planetary pressures but also to envision and create sustainable futures where future generations can shape their lives within resilient environments.
The laboratory concentrates on solutions to mitigate and adapt to climate change rather than solely forecasting climate impacts. This includes developing and implementing technologies for carbon capture, which passively removes CO₂ from the atmosphere to stabilize warming. Schlosser suggests that these technologies, if widely scaled, could even contribute to global cooling over time.
The laboratory addresses urban challenges, specifically the heat island effect, where cities experience higher temperatures due to dense infrastructure. GFL explores various materials and building designs that can mitigate these effects, making urban spaces cooler and more livable.
It explores and emphasizes the social dimension of climate impacts, recognizing that disadvantaged groups often bear the greatest climate burdens. The lab seeks ways to support vulnerable populations facing extreme heat by researching potential interventions like cooling centers and improved housing infrastructure. They are also sensitive to social and legal barriers; for instance, undocumented individuals might avoid cooling centers due to fears of legal repercussions. Notably, it is investigating ways to make such resources accessible without these risks.
Moreover, the laboratory focuses on fostering resilience at multiple levels—from local to global scales. This involves examining what makes communities more resilient, identifying key adaptive practices, and implementing supportive infrastructure that enables people to cope with climate extremes.
At one point, reflecting on the laboratory’s understanding of the human lives at the center of this research, he says: “We are not just looking at the physical environment, we also look at all the people around us who are suffering from heat and there is a social component in it that those who are already disadvantaged, they are the ones who bear the brunt of the effects.”
He also highlights several key innovations needed to mitigate climate change impacts. He advocates for both negative emissions (removing CO₂ from the atmosphere) and emission cuts to prevent further warming. While the technical knowledge exists, he stresses that scaling up these efforts has been too slow. Beyond technical solutions, Schlosser emphasizes the need to support people facing intensifying climate pressures, like heat waves, droughts, and floods. He also points out that climate solutions must address climate injustice, ensuring vulnerable populations receive resources to manage these challenges effectively.
HAYHOE’S INSIGHTS AS AN ATMOSPHERIC SCIENTIST
Hayhoe views climate change as an existential crisis that directly threatens human survival, not just an isolated environmental issue. She argues that society’s development has been based on the flawed assumption of Earth as an "infinite" and "flat" resource, ignoring the limits of a finite, interconnected planet. This mindset has led to widespread pollution and degradation, for which we often fail to account economically, despite the severe health impacts. She emphasizes that fossil fuel pollution alone claims more lives each year than COVID-19 has since its onset.
Furthermore, she highlights that climate change worsens disasters worldwide, from hurricanes and floods to typhoons, inflicting economic, health, and infrastructure costs that go far beyond traditional environmental concerns. Hayhoe asserts that climate change is a multifaceted crisis involving economics, health, geopolitics, ethics, and education, necessitating widespread conversation across media and society. She concludes that addressing climate change is essential for humanity’s survival and for preserving nature.
She says: “These are economic issues, they are health issues, they are infrastructure issues, they're even geopolitical issues and they are certainly moral issues, ethical issues and educational issues. We need to be having these conversations across the spectrum on every page, so to speak, of the newspaper in every outlet that we have because our future literally depends on this. It's not about saving the planet, it is about saving us and the nature on which all of our lives depend.”
Katharine Hayhoe
ON COMMUNICATING CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUES TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC
Hayhoe stresses that simply talking about climate change more frequently is crucial, as data shows this isn’t happening nearly enough. She shares public opinion data from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, highlighting that while many people worldwide—especially in countries like the U.S.—are worried about climate change, they rarely discuss it in daily conversations or hear about it regularly in the media. She suggests that prominent voices can have a significant impact, pointing to how figures like Greta Thunberg in Sweden have raised the visibility of climate issues in their countries.
Hayhoe SAYS that most people are already concerned, but they often feel helpless or uncertain about what actions to take. Research across 65 countries reveals that “doom and gloom” headlines attract the most attention but do little to spur action, often leaving readers feeling immobilized by fear. She challenges journalists to shift from solely presenting alarming data to also highlighting solutions and actionable steps.
To inspire meaningful engagement, Hayhoe advocates for storytelling that fosters both a “head-to-heart” and “heart-to-hands” connection. This means making climate change personal by showing how it impacts individuals and communities locally and now, not only distant places or future scenarios. Then, the focus should shift to practical solutions people can implement or support. Hayhoe believes this approach can help move the public from passive concern to active involvement, ultimately encouraging collective action on climate change.
Schlosser says that climate reporting should bridge scientific data and relatable storytelling to effectively communicate with the public. He notes that scientists typically lack training in translating complex or abstract research into accessible narratives. To address this, he suggests fostering stronger connections and dialogue between journalists and scientists, where journalists help convey scientific insights in ways that resonate with their audiences. This collaborative approach, he believes, could make climate data more understandable and impactful.
While training scientists in communication is beneficial, Schlosser believes greater impact could be achieved by partnering scientists with journalists who understand how to contextualize events in relatable terms. This teamwork would enable journalists to shape climate stories that are not only accurate but also engaging and relatable.
He also points out that communication is shifting rapidly, especially with the growth of social media, which can sometimes make it hard to gauge the effectiveness of messaging. He hopes for more collaborative efforts, like this session, where both fields can learn what each needs to reach and resonate with people. By working together, he believes scientists and journalists can more effectively reach people’s “hearts and hands” and drive collective action on climate change.
Hayhoe underscores the need for accessible, empathetic communication when discussing climate issues. She advocates for translating big, abstract numbers into relatable terms; for instance, she compares global temperature rise to a human body with a fever, a metaphor that makes the consequences more understandable and urgent. Similarly, rather than presenting overwhelming statistics, Hayhoe recommends telling individual stories that foster empathy, as neuroscience shows storytelling aligns brainwaves and helps people connect emotionally. (“Metaphors are very important, but stories are really important because neuroscientists show that when we tell stories brainwaves align with each other and we invoke empathy and we can enter into understanding other people's perspectives by telling stories about real people,” she says.)
She also emphasizes the importance of scientifically-informed messaging. While she herself is a climate scientist, she relies on social science experts for guidance on effective communication techniques. For instance, research by the Potential Energy Coalition found that messages framed around maternal concerns could motivate climate action across political divides, leading Hayhoe and others to form "Science Moms," a group aimed at reaching parents with climate information in relatable terms.
Global research also revealed that "love"—especially for future generations—is a primary motivation for people worldwide to care about climate action. Hayhoe often begins climate conversations by tapping into something her audience already values, whether that’s family, nature, or local community, rather than trying to impose new priorities on them. By starting with "the heart," then connecting to practical actions ("the hands"), she shows people that their existing values make them well-suited to advocate for climate action, making the issue feel personal and within reach.
ON WHAT IS CONTRIBUTING TO THE WORLD MISSING ITS PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD TARGETS
Schlosser suggests that the failure to meet the Paris Climate Accords targets stems from a combination of “beliefs, values, and economic and political factors.” He argues that while many people recognize climate change as a problem, few see it as an immediate existential threat, which affects their voting behavior and leads them to prioritize other concerns over climate policy. Schlosser emphasizes the importance of voting as a powerful tool for driving climate action, as elected leaders ultimately shape policy and determine whether nations meet their climate pledges.
The Paris Accord, unlike the Kyoto Protocol, allows each nation to set its own climate targets, which can make it easier for leaders to prioritize short-term economic stability over long-term environmental goals. Schlosser points out that political rhetoric often frames climate investments as detrimental to the economy, stoking fears of economic hardship and job loss. This narrative, he argues, distracts from the reality that climate action could actually strengthen the economy by creating new, sustainable jobs and preserving essential life-supporting systems. He emphasizes that investing in climate action now will save immense future costs, prevent potential catastrophe, and help to secure a habitable planet for future generations.
To illustrate the urgency of action, Schlosser likens humanity’s current trajectory to “driving a car on red” without knowing the size of the fuel reserve. Despite clear warning signs, society is still “accelerating” toward environmental limits without slowing down or seeking solutions. Schlosser notes that this reflects a deeper disconnect—many people don’t see themselves as part of Earth’s life-support systems and fail to realize that humanity’s survival depends on protecting the environment. He calls for a shift in perspective to understand our dependence on these systems and a willingness to act now to prevent irreversible damage.
In her response, Hayhoe builds on Schlosser’s points by explaining how economic models have traditionally delayed climate action, assuming it’s cheaper to wait. However, a recent study from the Potsdam Institute refutes this, showing that acting now costs six times less than addressing the future consequences of climate inaction. Despite this clear economic rationale, Hayhoe identifies two main obstacles to climate action: individual inaction and systemic barriers.
First, Hayhoe explains that people often don’t realize the impact of their voices in advocating for change. Individual actions like choosing green products alone aren’t sufficient; systemic change is essential. Fossil fuels and other polluting industries are subsidized, creating a system that incentivizes unsustainable choices and discourages cleaner options like efficient infrastructure and sustainable agriculture.
To drive this systemic change, Hayhoe stresses the importance of using one’s voice, arguing that public demand for policy reform is far more influential than individual lifestyle changes. She highlights how scientists, healthcare professionals, and journalists play key roles as trusted messengers, but emphasizes that family and friends are the most influential voices of all. Ultimately, she points to the example of youth climate movements to illustrate how collective voices can generate the societal pressure necessary for meaningful change.
ON HOW DIFFERENT COUNTRIES ARE RESPONDING TO CLIMATE ISSUES
Schlosser describes how climate responses vary significantly by country, influenced by political will, economic incentives, cultural values, and geographical conditions. He notes that Scandinavian and European countries tend to lead in climate action, showing greater political commitment to sustainability despite challenges. For instance, in Germany, solar panels, wind farms, and rigorous environmental regulations are more common—even in areas less ideal for solar energy, like the cloudy regions of Europe. There is also a cultural and political acceptance in Europe that allows regulations aimed at environmental protection to persist without prompting widespread opposition.
In other regions, climate action is often driven more by economic interests than environmental priorities. Schlosser highlights China and India as examples where growth in solar energy and electric vehicles is largely motivated by economic advantages. Though these efforts may not be rooted in environmental concerns, they contribute to the global shift toward greener technologies, such as electric and hydrogen-powered vehicles.
Schlosser argues that underlying value systems play a crucial role in shaping a country’s approach to climate action. Cultural proximity and awareness of environmental damage also influence responses, as nations where environmental degradation is more visible may feel a greater urgency to act. Ultimately, he believes that “a shift in values” and a broader cultural understanding of environmental stewardship are essential for meaningful, long-term climate action across different regions.
ON MISINFORMATION
In her response about addressing misinformation, Hayhoe NOTES the alarming speed at which false information spreads compared to the truth, particularly in the age of social media. She quotes a saying, attributed to Mark Twain, that illustrates this phenomenon: a lie can travel around the world faster than the truth can even get started. This has been confirmed by research from MIT, which showed that false information is shared on Twitter six times faster than accurate information. Hayhoe argues that education is a vital tool in combating misinformation. Teaching people critical thinking skills, such as verifying sources and understanding biases, can significantly enhance their ability to identify falsehoods online, including misinformation generated by AI.
Focusing on climate change, Hayhoe explains that the scientific understanding of climate change dates back to the 1850s, with significant advancements in knowledge and warnings to governments occurring by the 1960s. However, she points out that deliberate disinformation about climate change began emerging in the late 1980s and early 1990s, coinciding with a growing recognition of climate change as an urgent issue. The purpose of this disinformation is not to genuinely question the science, which is widely accepted and utilized in various technologies, but rather to obstruct action on climate solutions. This disinformation often suggests that the solutions to climate change, such as electric vehicles or wind energy, are worse than the current fossil fuel-based systems.
Hayhoe stresses the need for accurate and clear communication about climate change, asserting that it is real, human-induced, and serious, while also highlighting that viable solutions exist. While no solutions are perfect, they are significantly better than the harmful practices currently in use, which cause far more fatalities than those attributed to the pandemic. Journalism plays a critical role here, she says, in delivering accurate information.
ON WHY POLITICIANS AVOID DISCUSSING CLIMATE CHANGE
Hayhoe highlights a significant cognitive barrier: many people, including politicians, compartmentalize issues into separate categories or "buckets." They perceive climate change as an isolated concern rather than recognizing its interconnectedness with other critical issues such as the economy, health, jobs, and national security. She emphasizes that climate change is not just another issue at the end of a list; it is fundamentally a “hole” in every other bucket. This perspective means that climate change directly impacts essential aspects of life, such as insurance rates, air quality, food prices, and overall public health.
Hayhoe argues that if we do not address climate change, we cannot effectively fill or manage any other area of concern. She calls for a shift in how climate change is discussed in the media, advocating for it to be included not only on environmental pages but also across all sections—business, lifestyle, and news. Her vision is that once the issue is sufficiently addressed, climate scientists could shift their focus back to historical studies rather than ongoing climate crises, essentially aiming to “work themselves out of a job.”
Additionally, Hayhoe notes the political dynamics at play in the U.S., where climate change has become one of the most politically polarized topics over the past 15 years. Politicians may avoid the subject during elections because they believe focusing on it could alienate voters. She argues that discussing climate change could actually influence voter preferences, even though the scientific reality of climate change remains consistent regardless of political affiliation. She expresses frustration that many people still view climate change through a political lens rather than recognizing its universal implications for all facets of society.
She says: “I think that talking more about climate would make people vote more for one person than the other, but I'm sure it's a strategic decision they've made because a thermometer doesn't give you a different answer depending on how you vote. But a lot of people unfortunately today still believe it does.”
Schlosser notes the challenge of making the issue visible to the public. He reiterated Hayhoe's point that many people struggle to recognize climate change as the underlying problem affecting all areas of life—what he refers to as the "hole in all the buckets."
He stresses the collaborative role of science and journalism in addressing this gap. Journalists have a responsibility to integrate climate change into discussions about various topics, prompting politicians to confront their positions on the issue. Schlosser suggests that media professionals should ask pointed questions about climate change during debates and interviews, exploring how candidates perceive its impacts on the economy and other critical areas.
Schlosser also acknowledges that there are some positive developments, such as initiatives like the CHIPS and Science Act, which provide resources for climate-related activities. However, he argues that these efforts are insufficient on their own. He calls for a greater emphasis on climate change during political campaigns and debates, highlighting that journalists have not been consistently proactive in bringing it to the forefront of political discussions. He believes it is crucial for the media to hold politicians accountable by insisting on climate change being part of the conversation, rather than allowing it to be sidelined.
