Jean Jouzel

Climate change is causing measurable harm globally1,2. Political and legal efforts seek to link these damages with specific emissions, including in discussions of loss and damage (L&D)3,4; however, no quantitative definition of L&D exists5,6, nor is there a framework to link past and future emissions from specific sources to monetized, location-specific damages. Here we develop such a framework, which is integrated with recent efforts to estimate the social cost of carbon7. Using empirical estimates of the non-linear relationship between temperature and aggregate economic output, we show that future damages from past emissions—one component of L&D—are at least an order of magnitude larger than historical damages from the same emissions. For instance, one tonne of CO2 emitted in 1990 caused US$180 in discounted global damages by 2020 ($40–530) and will cause an additional $1,840 through 2100 ($500–5,700). Thus, settling debts for past damages will not settle debts for past emissions. In other illustrative esti

When James Prescott Joule lent his name to a unit of energy, he could not have foreseen today’s alarming calculations

Trump a lancé une attaque sans précédent contre l’environnement. Où est la riposte ? Les climatosceptiques s’attendaient à plus de résistance face à l’offensive en faveur des énergies fossiles. Mais les démocrates, les milliardaires et les militants sont restés silencieux. ...

As climate change accelerates, its effects are being felt in every corner of the world. A comprehensive global index developed by researchers at the University of Notre Dame has assessed the climate vulnerability and adaptive readiness of nearly 200 countries, revealing stark and troubling disparities between the world’s wealthiest and most impoverished nations.

Researchers identify sharp rise to about 0.35C every decade, after excluding natural fluctuations such as El Niño

What is currently happening in Brussels under the guise of regulatory simplification is being presented as something technical and logical. Less regulatory pressure, more competitiveness. A series of so-called omnibus bills are intended to streamline legislation. Reporting obligations are being limited and reassessments of raw materials postponed. It sounds like administrative efficiency. In Washington, things are moving even faster: Trump is dismantling the basis for climate laws while the world continues to warm up. The framing is the same: rules slow down businesses, and a slowed-down business community makes us poor. But that reasoning assumes something that is not true: that everyone wants the same thing from the market.

A recent UK national security assessment on biodiversity and ecosystem collapse made headlines, not for its dire warnings, but for its omissions. It's part of a larger trend of governments keeping climate security reports from the public.

Even as weather extremes worsen, the voices calling for the rolling back of environmental rules have grown louder and more influential

Science-based policies could successfully limit human-caused climate change, but when political parties are allowed to accept money from special interests, policies are distorted to the point of being ineffective. This is a solvable problem, but to clarify the situation and the needed actions, we need to first marshal the evidence. The draft Prologue of Sophie’s Planet is intended to help coherently organize the evidence. Here is Part III of V, with the final two paragraphs of Part II.

Welcome to the Global Climate Highlights 2025 report, compiled by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S). The Global Climate Highlights 2025 report provides authoritative climate data and concise insight on a global scale about 2025's climate conditions, covering surface and sea surface temperature, heat stress, sea ice extent in the Arctic and Antarctic, among others.