Public Health and Environmental Impacts of the May 2025 Algal Bloom in South Australia

In May 2025, South Australia experienced a significant harmful algal bloom (HAB) along its coastal regions, prompting public health advisories and environmental concern. Characterized by a rapid proliferation of algae in marine environments, this event affected popular beach areas and raised issues around both human health and ecological impact. Local health practitioners reported a spike in respiratory and dermatological complaints among residents and beachgoers. While such blooms are not unprecedented, the scale and health implications of this episode have drawn renewed attention to coastal management and public communication strategies during environmental health events.

Understanding Harmful Algal Blooms

Harmful algal blooms (HABs) occur when colonies of algae—simple aquatic plants that live in the sea and freshwater—grow out of control while producing toxic or harmful effects on people, fish, shellfish, marine mammals, and birds. The bloom in South Australia was attributed to favorable conditions including elevated sea surface temperatures, nutrient runoffs, and calm waters, which together create an ideal environment for algal proliferation.

The dominant species involved in the May 2025 bloom was identified as Karenia mikimotoi, a type of dinoflagellate known for causing respiratory issues and irritation upon exposure. Unlike cyanobacteria, which often turn water bright green, Karenia blooms are less visually dramatic but pose serious risks through aerosolized toxins. Although this species is not typically lethal to humans, its impact on marine ecosystems and potential for health disruptions warrant close scrutiny. Its persistence near heavily frequented beaches increased the likelihood of exposure among residents and tourists.

Environmental Impact

The May 2025 algal bloom in South Australia posed significant risks to the coastal and marine ecosystems, affecting both aquatic life and shoreline biodiversity. Algal blooms deplete oxygen levels in the water as they decay, creating hypoxic conditions—or "dead zones"—that can lead to large-scale fish kills and disrupt the food chain. In this event, local authorities reported a marked decline in fish activity and unusual behavior among marine species, consistent with oxygen stress and toxin exposure.

Marine habitats, particularly sensitive estuarine areas and seagrass beds, were also affected. Seagrasses, which serve as crucial breeding grounds and carbon sinks, can suffer damage from prolonged algal coverage, leading to reduced photosynthesis and eventual habitat degradation. Bird species that rely on fish and crustaceans as primary food sources may experience cascading effects due to the disruption of their prey base.

In addition to ecological consequences, the bloom affected the aesthetic and recreational value of the coast. Water discoloration and foul odors discouraged tourism and local beach use, impacting community well-being and local economies. The event underscored how environmental disturbances, especially in coastal zones, are increasingly intersecting with human health, economic livelihoods, and the urgency for integrated environmental response strategies.

Human Health Implications

The harmful algal bloom in South Australia during May 2025 led to a noticeable increase in health complaints among the local population, particularly in communities situated near affected coastal areas. General practitioners across the region reported a spike in cases involving conjunctivitis, skin rashes, respiratory irritation, and exacerbation of asthma symptoms. Individuals walking along the shoreline or engaging in water-based activities were especially vulnerable, as exposure can occur through direct skin contact, inhalation of aerosolized toxins, or ingestion of contaminated water droplets.

Children, the elderly, and individuals with pre-existing respiratory conditions were most at risk. Despite reassurances that the algae involved in this bloom were not acutely toxic or harmful for long-term health, the short-term symptoms caused significant discomfort and concern, particularly due to the lack of immediate and clear public health communication.

Compounding the issue was the limited guidance available to frontline healthcare providers. The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) criticized the absence of coordinated updates from SA Health, which left many doctors unprepared to advise patients accurately. Without consistent messaging or proactive warnings, the burden of addressing patient concerns often fell on practitioners lacking the resources to interpret environmental data in a clinical context.

Government Response and Communication Challenges

The South Australian government, through its Department for Environment and Water (DEW) and SA Health, initiated several measures to monitor and manage the harmful algal bloom. These included ongoing water quality testing, public advisories posted online, and local signage at affected beaches. However, the response has been widely criticized for lacking urgency and failing to effectively communicate risks to both the public and healthcare professionals.

The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) voiced strong concerns about the "radio silence" from SA Health regarding practical guidance for general practitioners. According to RACGP spokesperson Dr. Emily Kirkpatrick, the failure to issue timely alerts or detailed symptom profiles left GPs ill-equipped to diagnose or advise patients presenting with bloom-related health issues. Many practitioners learned of the outbreak only through patient symptoms or media coverage.

Public signage was also deemed inadequate. While SA Health claimed that appropriate notices were posted in impacted areas, beachgoers reported a lack of visible or accessible warnings. This communication gap led to continued exposure and a higher rate of avoidable health complaints. The event highlighted systemic weaknesses in South Australia’s environmental health response framework—particularly in connecting environmental monitoring with public health practice in real-time.

Recommendations for Future Response

The May 2025 algal bloom exposed critical gaps in South Australia's capacity to manage environmental health crises, especially at the intersection of ecosystem monitoring and human health protection. To mitigate future impacts, a more integrated and responsive communication strategy is essential.

First, real-time data sharing between environmental agencies and health departments must be prioritized. This includes equipping general practitioners with concise, actionable updates through established health networks. Public alerts—whether through signage, local media, or digital platforms—should be clear, timely, and multilingual where necessary.

Additionally, the development of a centralized environmental health dashboard could streamline information dissemination to both medical professionals and the general public. Ongoing investment in coastal monitoring infrastructure, including satellite data and in-situ sensors, will also be crucial for early detection and forecasting of harmful blooms.

Finally, policy frameworks should incorporate public health preparedness into climate resilience planning, recognizing that environmental events increasingly carry human health dimensions.

Conclusion

The harmful algal bloom that affected South Australia's coastline in May 2025 underscores the growing intersection between environmental change and public health. While the bloom did not result in fatalities, it highlighted systemic vulnerabilities in how information is communicated during ecological disturbances. From respiratory complaints to disrupted marine life, the consequences were multifaceted and far-reaching. Effective mitigation depends not only on scientific monitoring but also on public awareness and inter-agency coordination. As climate variability increases the frequency and intensity of such events, proactive planning and integrated response systems will be essential to protect both environmental and human health.

Escalating Occupational Risks from Extreme Weather – A Climate Wake-Up Call

As climate change accelerates, its consequences are becoming increasingly visible in every corner of society. One of the most alarming—and often overlooked—impacts is on the global workforce. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released its State of the Global Climate 2024 report in March 2025, warning that extreme weather events are driving a significant rise in occupational health and safety risks. These risks, once considered seasonal or localized, are now global, year-round concerns.

From searing heat waves to hazardous air quality caused by wildfires, the workplace has become a frontline of climate vulnerability. Workers in sectors such as agriculture, construction, and emergency services face heightened exposure to environmental hazards that threaten both their short-term safety and long-term health. The WMO’s findings underscore a growing urgency: without systemic changes in infrastructure, climate adaptation, and labor policy, the human cost of climate change will continue to rise.

The WMO’s State of the Global Climate 2024 offers a stark portrayal of the world’s changing climate and its impacts on human health and labor. The report confirms that 2024 was the hottest year on record, with global average temperatures reaching 1.45°C above pre-industrial levels. The number of extreme heat events significantly increased, particularly across southern Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and large parts of Asia.

One of the report's most critical findings is the connection between extreme heat and declining labor productivity. In regions like South and Southeast Asia, extreme heat reduced effective working hours in outdoor jobs by as much as 15–20% during the hottest months. The risk of heat-related illnesses such as heatstroke, dehydration, and cardiovascular stress rose dramatically.

Additionally, the WMO highlights how climate-driven wildfires and air pollution are contributing to higher exposure to harmful particulate matter (PM2.5), particularly in North America and Australia. These pollutants increase the risk of respiratory diseases among outdoor workers. Combined with rising sea levels and increased flooding in coastal and delta regions, the report paints a clear picture: the climate crisis is becoming a workplace health crisis.

Certain sectors are disproportionately affected by the intensifying impacts of climate change. According to the WMO and supporting data from the International Labour Organization (ILO), outdoor and manual laborers are among the most at risk. This includes workers in agriculture, construction, transportation, mining, and emergency services.

Agricultural workers, especially in countries with tropical or subtropical climates, face long hours of sun exposure, inadequate access to water, and increased pesticide volatility due to heat. In South Asia, where much of the farming workforce operates without formal protections, rising temperatures are translating into higher rates of illness and death.

Construction workers are similarly vulnerable. Urban heat islands amplify already high temperatures on job sites, while low-income or migrant workers often lack proper equipment or labor rights to push back against unsafe conditions. Emergency responders—including firefighters, disaster relief personnel, and paramedics—are increasingly deployed in dangerous, unpredictable environments made worse by heat, storms, or smoke.

Women, informal workers, and migrants in these sectors face additional challenges, such as limited access to healthcare and legal protections. Without focused interventions, the gap between climate resilience and vulnerability among labor groups will continue to widen.

Real-world events over the past year illustrate the rising toll of extreme weather on workers. In Southern Europe, 2024 saw an unprecedented heatwave that forced outdoor laborers in Spain, Greece, and Italy to halt work for multiple days due to life-threatening conditions. Despite emergency regulations, some workers continued without adequate protections, leading to a spike in heat-related hospitalizations.

In Australia, widespread wildfires during the southern hemisphere summer exposed outdoor workers to extremely hazardous air quality for weeks. Reports of respiratory issues among agricultural and utility workers surged, prompting unions to demand tighter air-quality safety standards.

Meanwhile, Bangladesh experienced severe flooding in coastal regions, disrupting factories and exposing workers in the garment industry to unsafe building conditions. Power outages and inadequate emergency plans created additional health risks for employees forced to work during the storms.

These examples echo the WMO’s core message: occupational risks are no longer occasional side effects of extreme weather—they are now structural challenges that require immediate attention and long-term planning.

Policymakers and labor organizations are beginning to respond to the growing threat of climate-driven occupational hazards. The ILO has been working with national governments to implement climate-adaptive labor protections, including heat stress action plans, early warning systems, and mandatory hydration and rest breaks in high-risk sectors.

In the European Union, several countries—including Spain and France—have adopted new occupational safety standards triggered by temperature thresholds. These rules allow workers to suspend work during extreme heat and ensure access to shade, water, and cooling stations. In India, pilot programs have introduced "heat action plans" in major cities, providing heat alerts, public awareness campaigns, and infrastructure support for outdoor laborers.

Technological solutions are also emerging. In Africa, several governments are using mobile alerts to warn workers of upcoming extreme weather. The private sector is beginning to adopt wearable sensors that track heat stress and environmental exposure in real time.

Despite these advances, implementation remains uneven. The WMO report stresses that efforts must scale quickly—particularly in low- and middle-income countries where climate impacts are most severe and labor protections weakest.

The WMO’s findings make clear that climate adaptation is no longer optional—it is essential to protecting the global workforce. Governments must embed occupational safety into national climate strategies, and employers must take proactive steps to safeguard employees through infrastructure, education, and technology. Global institutions must ensure funding reaches the most vulnerable regions and sectors. Most importantly, labor protections must evolve as fast as the climate is changing. Climate justice and worker safety are deeply intertwined—and addressing one requires addressing the other. The workplace is now a climate front line, and the time to act is now.

New Federal Rules on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reporting: What Businesses Need to Know

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are a primary driver of climate change, making transparency in corporate emissions reporting a critical step toward global sustainability. Governments worldwide have been tightening regulations to ensure businesses accurately disclose their environmental impact. In the United States, new federal rules now require companies to report their GHG emissions more transparently, marking a significant shift in climate accountability.

These regulations aim to provide investors, regulators, and the public with clearer insights into corporate carbon footprints. By standardizing emissions reporting, the government seeks to close loopholes that previously allowed companies to underreport or misrepresent their environmental impact. This move aligns with broader global efforts, including the European Union’s mandatory sustainability reporting framework.

As companies prepare for these new requirements, they face both challenges and opportunities. Understanding the implications of these regulations will be crucial for businesses navigating the evolving landscape of environmental compliance.

Background: The Need for Stricter GHG Reporting

For years, corporate greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting has been largely inconsistent, with many companies voluntarily disclosing emissions data using different methodologies. While some businesses have taken proactive steps toward transparency, others have faced criticism for underreporting or omitting key emissions sources, creating a gap in accurate climate data. This lack of standardization has made it difficult for investors, regulators, and the public to assess corporate environmental impact effectively.

The growing urgency of the climate crisis has increased pressure on governments to tighten regulations. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have been working to establish clear, enforceable reporting requirements that align with global sustainability goals. Additionally, international frameworks such as the European Union’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) have influenced the push for stricter regulations in the U.S.

Beyond regulatory pressure, stakeholders—including investors, customers, and environmental advocates—are demanding greater accountability. Companies that fail to provide transparent emissions data risk reputational damage and potential legal consequences. The new federal rules aim to address these concerns by requiring standardized, verifiable disclosures, ensuring that businesses take responsibility for their environmental impact.

Details of the New Federal Rules

The new federal rules on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reporting represent a significant shift in corporate climate disclosure, but recent statements from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) indicate that some aspects of the regulations are still under review. Legal challenges and stakeholder concerns have led to reconsideration of certain provisions, particularly regarding Scope 3 emissions reporting and compliance costs for smaller businesses.

Key Changes in the SEC Climate Disclosure Rules:

• Mandatory Reporting of Scope 1 and Scope 2 Emissions

  • Scope 1: Direct emissions from company operations.

  • Scope 2: Indirect emissions from purchased energy.

• Scope 3 Emissions Reporting Still Under Review

  • Originally proposed as mandatory for large companies, but now facing legal and industry pushback.

  • Final rules may limit Scope 3 disclosures to certain industries or make them voluntary.

• Third-Party Verification Requirements

  • Companies must ensure the accuracy of emissions data through independent audits.

• Regulatory Uncertainty and Legal Challenges

  • The SEC is facing lawsuits and political opposition, which could delay or modify final implementation.

While the rules aim to align with global reporting standards, the final version will likely be adjusted to address industry concerns and legal risks. Companies should prepare for stricter reporting requirements but remain aware that aspects of the regulation may still change.

Impacts on Businesses and Industries

The uncertainty surrounding the SEC’s climate disclosure rules is creating both challenges and opportunities for businesses. While the move toward greater transparency is seen as a positive step for environmental accountability, the potential costs and legal complexities are raising concerns among corporate leaders.

Compliance Challenges and Costs

One of the biggest concerns is the financial burden of compliance, especially for small and mid-sized companies. Businesses will need to invest in emissions tracking systems, conduct third-party audits, and integrate climate risk assessments into their financial disclosures. If Scope 3 reporting remains part of the final rules, companies with large supply chains could face significant compliance challenges.

Benefits: Transparency, Investor Confidence, and Sustainability

Despite these challenges, clear and standardized reporting could provide long-term business benefits. Investors and regulators increasingly favor companies with strong environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies, and greater transparency may enhance corporate reputation and access to sustainable investment opportunities. Companies that proactively adopt emissions reduction strategies may also gain a competitive edge as sustainability expectations continue to rise.

Regulatory Uncertainty and Potential Changes

With legal challenges still unfolding, some companies are waiting for final rule adjustments before making major investments in emissions tracking. Businesses should stay informed and prepare for compliance while remaining adaptable to potential modifications in the reporting requirements.

Reactions and Future Implications

The SEC’s revised approach to climate disclosure has sparked mixed reactions. Environmental advocates and ESG-focused investors argue that the rules need to be stronger to ensure full corporate accountability. They are particularly concerned about Scope 3 emissions potentially being dropped from mandatory reporting, as supply chain emissions often make up the majority of a company’s carbon footprint.

On the other hand, business leaders and industry groups have pushed back, citing high compliance costs and legal risks. Some argue that the SEC’s involvement in climate disclosure oversteps its authority, leading to lawsuits and potential delays in implementation.

Looking ahead, businesses should expect continued debate and possible modifications before the rules take full effect. However, the trend toward greater emissions transparency is unlikely to reverse, meaning companies will need to invest in sustainability reporting regardless of how the final SEC rules take shape.

Conclusion

The SEC’s new greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting rules mark a significant step toward corporate climate accountability, but ongoing legal challenges and regulatory uncertainty mean businesses must remain adaptable. While Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions reporting will likely become standard, the debate over Scope 3 disclosures highlights the complexities of enforcing climate transparency.

For companies, the shift toward stricter reporting represents both a challenge and an opportunity. Proactive businesses that invest in emissions tracking and sustainability efforts will gain a competitive edge in an evolving regulatory landscape. Regardless of final SEC rulings, the push for greater corporate climate accountability is here to stay.

EU Moves Forward with Single-Use Plastic Ban: Reducing Marine Pollution

Plastic pollution is one of the most pressing environmental challenges of our time, with single-use plastics contributing significantly to the degradation of ecosystems, especially marine environments. Every year, millions of tons of plastic waste end up in oceans, harming wildlife and disrupting natural processes. Items like plastic straws, cutlery, and packaging often break down into microplastics, which are ingested by marine animals and enter the food chain, posing risks to human health as well.

The European Union (EU) has taken a leading role in addressing this issue, recognizing the urgent need to reduce plastic waste and its damaging impact on marine life. In line with its broader environmental goals, the EU has introduced stringent measures to limit the production and use of single-use plastics, aiming to curtail pollution at the source and set a precedent for global environmental policy.

Background: The EU’s History with Plastic Regulations

The European Union has long been at the forefront of environmental regulation, including efforts to reduce plastic pollution. Over the past decade, the EU has introduced a series of measures aimed at managing plastic waste and promoting more sustainable alternatives. The first significant steps came in 2015 with the EU’s Circular Economy Action Plan, which included objectives to reduce plastic consumption and increase recycling rates across member states.

In 2018, the EU adopted the European Strategy for Plastics in a Circular Economy, marking a pivotal moment in its approach to tackling plastic pollution. This strategy aimed to transition from a "take-make-dispose" model to a more sustainable, closed-loop system. A central component was addressing single-use plastics, which account for a large percentage of marine litter.

Following years of consultation and impact assessments, the European Parliament approved a directive in 2019 to ban the production and sale of specific single-use plastic items, such as straws, cutlery, and food containers, by 2021. This marked a significant escalation in the EU's plastic regulations, reflecting the growing urgency to combat marine pollution. The rationale behind these efforts was clear: the longer plastic pollution goes unchecked, the more devastating its impact on marine ecosystems and human health will be.

Key Provisions of the Single-Use Plastic Ban

The European Union's Single-Use Plastics Directive, adopted in 2019, targets the most common plastic products found in European waters, which are responsible for 70% of marine litter. The ban, fully enforced across EU member states by 2021, focuses on several key provisions aimed at curbing plastic pollution at its source.

First, the directive prohibits the sale of specific single-use plastic items such as plastic cutlery, plates, straws, stirrers, and balloon sticks. These products are banned entirely due to the availability of affordable and environmentally friendly alternatives. Additionally, the directive places restrictions on other single-use plastic items like food containers and cups. While not fully banned, these products are subject to strict reduction targets, requiring EU member states to significantly cut their use over time.

Beyond consumer goods, the ban also introduces mandatory Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) schemes. Under these regulations, manufacturers of plastic products are required to cover the costs of waste management, cleanup, and public awareness campaigns. This financial responsibility creates an incentive for companies to innovate and produce more sustainable packaging solutions.

The directive also sets ambitious recycling goals. By 2025, the EU aims to achieve a 90% collection rate for plastic bottles. Moreover, manufacturers are required to incorporate at least 25% recycled content into new plastic bottles by 2025, increasing to 30% by 2030.

These measures represent a comprehensive approach to reducing plastic waste, combining outright bans with gradual reduction targets and promoting innovation in sustainable alternatives.

Environmental and Economic Impacts

The EU’s single-use plastic ban is expected to have significant environmental benefits, particularly in reducing marine pollution. By targeting plastic products that frequently end up in oceans, the directive aims to lower the volume of plastic waste entering marine ecosystems. This, in turn, should decrease the risk of marine animals ingesting plastics or becoming entangled in debris, both of which have been major contributors to species decline and biodiversity loss. Long-term, the reduction of plastic waste will also help address the growing issue of microplastics, which not only harm marine life but can also find their way into the human food chain.

From an economic perspective, the ban has created both opportunities and challenges. On one hand, industries related to eco-friendly packaging and alternative materials, such as biodegradable products or reusable items, have seen increased demand. This shift has spurred innovation, leading to new business opportunities and job creation in green industries. The EU’s directive, by emphasizing sustainable practices, positions Europe as a leader in the global green economy.

However, the transition has also posed difficulties for some businesses, particularly those heavily reliant on plastic manufacturing. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in sectors such as food packaging and disposable goods face rising costs as they switch to alternative materials. There are concerns over supply chain disruptions, especially in the early stages of the ban’s implementation. Nevertheless, with proper support and adaptation, the long-term economic benefits of a cleaner environment are expected to outweigh the initial challenges.

Challenges and Criticisms

While the EU’s single-use plastic ban has garnered widespread support from environmental groups, it has also faced criticism from certain industries and political circles. Manufacturers of plastic goods have argued that the timeline for the ban's implementation is too short, leaving little room for supply chains to adapt. Some business associations have raised concerns about the economic impact, particularly on smaller companies that may struggle to transition to alternative materials.

Additionally, enforcement across all member states presents a challenge, as different countries may have varying levels of compliance and infrastructure to support the new regulations.

Looking Ahead: The Global Implications

The EU’s single-use plastic ban sets a powerful example for other nations in the global fight against marine pollution. As one of the world’s largest markets, the EU’s decisive action could influence international policies and prompt other countries to adopt similar measures. Already, several nations—including Canada and New Zealand—have introduced bans or restrictions on single-use plastics, mirroring the EU’s approach.

The global implications extend beyond environmental impact. By fostering innovation in sustainable materials and waste management, the EU is setting new standards for eco-friendly business practices. International companies, especially those operating in multiple markets, may begin voluntarily aligning with the EU’s stringent regulations to future-proof their operations. This could drive a broader cultural shift toward sustainability, with increased pressure for global cooperation on marine pollution and other environmental issues. Ultimately, the EU's efforts signal that tackling plastic waste is not only an environmental necessity but also a global economic opportunity.

Earth’s Future, Now With 8 Billion Humans

Humanity has long been chasing that 8 billion number for our global population. As of November 2022, we have surpassed it with only increasing trends in sight. With such a large international population and growing numbers, what kind of new stressors will be placed on the planet? 

Global warming is already a direct indicator of influence on the planet. Humans have permanently changed how we interact with Earth's natural resources, but now it's clear that the reliance on those resources will be put to the utmost test. Populations will put immense pressure on nature, forcing humans to compete with other wildlife for water, food, and materials.

The problem not only arises with the total size of the global population but also with the rapid timeline to the astronomical number. Global population sizes previously always remained below 1 billion people on the planet at any given time until the late 18th century during the time of Napoleon. Rapid growth began to influence global numbers after the start of the Second World War when more than 1 billion people were added to the global population every 12 to 15 years. Key events spurred rapid growth over the last 300 years, including the industrial revolution, medical discoveries, technology, and global commerce trade. Currently, the human population is more than double what it was in 1970, doubling in just over 50 years.

Population analyses over the last few decades also draw attention to the uneven growth experienced worldwide. China and the USA are two places where population growth has been slowly leveling. At the same time, low-income regions like Sub-Saharan Africa and India are responsible for approximately 70 percent of the world’s population increases. There are difficulties to be faced in both scenarios because with leveling population growth, fewer individuals will support the enormous economies, and exponential growth in developing countries will continue to exacerbate already strained systems. The other caveat to increased global numbers is its likelihood to influence mass migrations and conflicts and further jeopardize at-risk environments. 

Experts are forecasting slower growth trends in the future, even though the population trends have been increasing exponentially. Their conclusions draw from increased knowledge and dispersal of contraceptives and safe sex to lower-income countries. Other factors influencing level growth trends include increased women’s rights worldwide, younger generations waiting to have families, and economic pressures driving living rates through the roof for most high-income countries. These forecasts are good news for slowing global population growth. Still, the world will likely not observe decreases until the latter half of this century, as fertility rates and population deaths will be important contributors to change. 
The urgency to allocate new green energy resources before it is too late is becoming increasingly evident. Experts agree that installing sustainable energy resources for low-income countries will greatly decrease their carbon emissions by supporting increasing population demands. Other changes must also be made in high-income countries responsible for more than double the carbon emissions released by the poorest half of the world.