China’s complicated role in climate change

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

“Well, what about China?”

This is a comment I get all the time on the topic of climate change, both in conversations and on whatever social media site is currently en vogue. Usually, it comes in response to some statement about how the US and Europe are addressing the issue (or how they need to be).

Sometimes I think people ask this in bad faith. It’s a rhetorical way to throw up your hands, imply that the US and Europe aren’t the real problem, and essentially say: “if they aren’t taking responsibility, why should we?” However, amid the playground-esque finger-pointing there are some undeniable facts: China emits more greenhouse gases than any other country, by far. It’s one of the world’s most populous countries and a climate-tech powerhouse, and its economy is still developing. 

With many complicated factors at play, how should we think about the country’s role in addressing climate change?

China’s emissions are the highest in the world, topping 12 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2023, according to the International Energy Agency.

There’s context missing if we just look at that one number, as I wrote in my latest story that digs into recent global climate data. Since carbon dioxide hangs around in the atmosphere for centuries, we should arguably consider not just a country’s current emissions, but everything it’s produced over time. If we do that, the US still takes the crown for the world’s biggest climate polluter.

However, China is now in second place, according to a new analysis from Carbon Brief released this week. In 2023, the country exceeded the EU’s 27 member states in historical emissions for the first time.

This reflects a wider trend that we’re seeing around the world: Developing nations are starting to account for a larger fraction of emissions than they used to. In 1992, when countries agreed to the UN climate convention, industrialized countries (a category called Annex I) made up about one-fifth of the world’s population but were responsible for a whopping 61% of historical emissions. By the end of 2024, though, those countries’ share of global historical emissions will fall to 52%, and it is expected to keep ticking down.

China, like all nations, will need to slash its emissions for the world to meet global climate goals. One crucial point here is that while its emissions are still huge, there are signs that the nation is making some progress. 

China’s carbon dioxide’s emissions are set to fall in 2024 because of record growth in low-carbon energy sources. That decline is projected to continue under the country’s current policy settings, according to an October report from the IEA. China’s oil demand could soon peak and start to fall, largely because it’s seeing such a huge uptake of electric vehicles. 

One growing question: With all this progress and a quickly growing economy, should we be expecting China to do more than just make progress on its own emissions? 

As I wrote in the newsletter last week, the current talks at COP29 (the UN climate conference) are focused on setting a new, more aggressive global climate finance goal to help developing nations address climate change. China isn’t part of the group of countries that are required to pay into this pot of money, but some are calling for that to change given that it is the world’s biggest polluter. 

One interesting point here—China already contributes billions of dollars in climate financing each year to developing countries, according to research published earlier this month by the World Resources Institute. The country’s leadership has said it will only make voluntary contributions, and that developed nations should still be the ones responsible for mandatory payments under the new finance goals.

Talks at COP29 aren’t going very well. The COP29 president called for faster action, but progress toward a finance deal has stalled amid infighting over how much money should be on the table and who should pay up.

China’s complex role in emissions and climate action is far from the only holdup at the talks. Leaders from major nations including Germany and France canceled plans to attend, and the looming threat that the US could pull out of the Paris climate agreement is coloring the negotiations. 

But disagreement over how to think about China’s role in all this is a good example of how difficult it is to assign responsibility when it comes to climate change, and how much is at play in global climate negotiations. One thing I do know for sure is that pointing fingers doesn’t cut emissions. 


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Dig into the data with me in my latest story, which includes three visualizations to help capture the complexity of global emissions. 

Read more about why global climate finance is at the center of this year’s UN climate talks in last week’s edition of the newsletter

Keeping up with climate  

Fusion energy has been a dream for decades, and a handful of startups say we’re closer than ever to making it a reality. This deep dive looks at a few of the companies looking to be the first to deploy fusion power. (New York Times)
→ I recently visited one of the startups, Commonwealth Fusion Systems. (MIT Technology Review)

President-elect Donald Trump has tapped Chris Wright to lead the Department of Energy. Wright is head of the fracking company Liberty Energy. (Washington Post)

In the wake of Trump’s election, it might be time for climate tech to get a rebrand. Companies and investors might increasingly avoid using the term, opting instead for phrases like “energy independence” or “frontier tech,” to name a few. (Heatmap)

Rooftop solar has saved customers in California about $2.3 billion on utility bills this year, according to a new analysis. This result is counter to a report from a state agency, which found that rooftop panels impose over $8 billion in extra costs on consumers of the state’s three major utilities. (Canary Media)

Low-carbon energy needs much less material than it used to. Rising efficiency in making technology like solar panels bodes well for hopes of cutting mining needs. (Sustainability by Numbers)

New York governor Kathy Hochul has revived a plan to implement congestion pricing, which would charge drivers to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan. It would be the first such program in the US. (The City)

Enhanced geothermal technology could be close to breaking through into commercial success. Companies that aim to harness Earth’s heat for power are making progress toward deploying facilities. (Nature)
→ Fervo Energy found that its wells can be used like a giant underground battery. (MIT Technology Review)

Who’s to blame for climate change? It’s surprisingly complicated.

Once again, global greenhouse-gas emissions are projected to hit a new high in 2024. 

In this time of shifting political landscapes and ongoing international negotiations, many are quick to blame one country or another for an outsize role in causing climate change.

But assigning responsibility is complicated. These three visualizations help explain why and provide some perspective about the world’s biggest polluters.

Greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuels and industry reached 37.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2024, according to projections from the Global Carbon Budget, an annual emissions report released last week. That’s a 0.8% increase over last year.

Breaking things down by country, China is far and away the single biggest polluter today, a distinction it has held since 2006. The country currently emits roughly twice as much greenhouse gas as any other nation. The power sector is its single greatest source of emissions as the grid is heavily dependent on coal, the most polluting fossil fuel.

The US is the world’s second-biggest polluter, followed by India. Combined emissions from the 27 nations that make up the European Union are next, followed by Russia and Japan.

Considering a country’s current emissions doesn’t give the whole picture of its climate responsibility, though. Carbon dioxide is stable in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That means greenhouse gases from the first coal power plant, which opened in the late 19th century, are still having a warming effect on the planet today.

Adding up each country’s emissions over the course of its history reveals that the US has the greatest historical contribution—the country is responsible for about 24% of all the climate pollution released into the atmosphere as of 2023. While it’s the biggest polluter today, China comes in second in terms of historical emissions, at 14%.

If the EU’s member states are totaled as one entity, the group is among the top historical contributors as well. According to an analysis published November 19 by the website Carbon Brief, China passed EU member states in terms of historical emissions in 2023 for the first time. 

China could catch up with the West in the coming decades, as its emissions are significant and still growing, while the US and EU are seeing moderate declines.

Even then, though, there’s another factor to consider: population. Dividing a country’s total emissions by its population reveals how the average individual in each nation is contributing to climate change today. 

Countries with smaller populations and economies that are heavily reliant on oil and gas tend to top this list, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates.

Among the larger nations, Australia has the highest per capita emissions from fossil fuels, with the US and Canada close behind. Meanwhile, other countries that have high total emissions are farther down the list when normalized by population: China’s per capita emissions are just over half that of the US, while India’s is a small fraction.

Understanding the complicated picture of global emissions is crucial, especially during ongoing negotiations (including the current meeting at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan) over how to help developing nations pay for efforts to combat climate change. 

Looking at current emissions, one might expect the biggest emitter, China, to contribute more than any other country to climate finance. But considering historical contributions, per capita emissions, and details about national economies, other nations like the US, UK, and members of the EU emerge as those experts tend to say should feature prominently in the talks. 

What is clear is that when it comes to the emissions blame game, it’s more complicated than just pointing at today’s biggest polluters. Ultimately, addressing climate change will require everyone to get on board—we all share an atmosphere, and we’re all going to continue feeling the effects of a changing climate. 


Notes on data methodology: 

  • Emissions data is from the Global Carbon Project, which estimates carbon emissions based on energy use. Territorial emissions take into account energy and some industry, but don’t include land use emissions. 
  • Data from the European Union is the sum of its current 27 member states. The bloc is represented together because the EU generally negotiates together on the international stage. 
  • Historical emissions for some countries are disaggregated from former borders, including the former USSR and Yugoslavia. 
  • The per capita emissions map uses official World Bank boundaries, with the exception of Taiwan, which has separate emissions data in the Global Carbon Project. 
  • Western Sahara’s energy data are reported by Morocco, so its emissions are included in that total. Per capita emissions for Morocco are also used for Western Sahara on the map. 
  • More detailed information about the Global Carbon Project methods (including the particulars on how territorial emissions are broken down) is available here.
What’s on the table at this year’s UN climate conference

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

It’s time for a party—the Conference of the Parties, that is. Talks kicked off this week at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan. Running for a couple of weeks each year, the global summit is the largest annual meeting on climate change.

The issue on the table this time around: Countries need to agree to set a new goal on how much money should go to developing countries to help them finance the fight against climate change. Complicating things? A US president-elect whose approach to climate is very different from that of the current administration (understatement of the century).

This is a big moment that could set the tone for what the next few years of the international climate world looks like. Here’s what you need to know about COP29 and how Donald Trump’s election is coloring things.

The UN COP meetings are an annual chance for nearly 200 nations to get together to discuss (and hopefully act on) climate change. Greatest hits from the talks include the Paris Agreement, a 2015 global accord that set a goal to limit global warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) above preindustrial levels.

This year, the talks are in Azerbaijan, a petrostate if there ever was one. Oil and gas production makes up over 90% of the country’s export revenue and nearly half its GDP as of 2022. A perfectly ironic spot for a global climate summit!

The biggest discussion this year centers on global climate finance—specifically, how much of it is needed to help developing countries address climate change and adapt to changing conditions. The current goal, set in 2009, is for industrialized countries to provide $100 billion each year to developing nations. The deadline was 2020, and that target was actually met for the first time in 2022, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which keeps track of total finance via reports from contributing countries. Currently, most of that funding is in the form of public loans and grants.

The thing is, that $100 billion number was somewhat arbitrary—in Paris in 2015, countries agreed that a new, larger target should be set in 2025 to take into account how much countries actually need.

It’s looking as if the magic number is somewhere around $1 trillion each year. However, it remains to be seen how this goal will end up shaking out, because there are disagreements about basically every part of this. What should the final number be? What kind of money should count—just public funds, or private investments as well? Which nations should pay? How long will this target stand? What, exactly, would this money be going toward?

Working out all those details is why nations are gathering right now. But one shadow looming over these negotiations is the impending return of Donald Trump.

As I covered last week, Trump’s election will almost certainly result in less progress on cutting emissions than we might have seen under a more climate-focused administration. But arguably an even bigger deal than domestic progress (or lack thereof) will be how Trump shifts the country’s climate position on the international stage.

The US has emitted more carbon pollution into the atmosphere than any other country, it currently leads the world in per capita emissions, and it’s the world’s richest economy. If anybody should be a leader at the table in talks about climate finance, it’s the US. And yet, Trump is coming into power soon, and we’ve all seen this film before. 

Last time Trump was in office, he pulled the US out of the Paris Agreement. He’s made promises to do it again—and could go one step further by backing out of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) altogether. If leaving the Paris Agreement is walking away from the table, withdrawing from the UNFCCC is like hopping on a rocket and blasting in a different direction. It’s a more drastic action and could be tougher to reverse in the future, though experts also aren’t sure if Trump could technically do this on his own.

The uncertainty of what happens next in the US is a cloud hanging over these negotiations. “This is going to be harder because we don’t have a dynamic and pushy and confident US helping us on climate action,” said Camilla Born, an independent climate advisor and former UK senior official at COP26, during an online event last week hosted by Carbon Brief.

Some experts are confident that others will step up to fill the gap. “There are many drivers of climate action beyond the White House,” said Mohamed Adow, founding director of Power Shift Africa, at the CarbonBrief event.

If I could characterize the current vibe in the climate world, it’s uncertainty. But the negotiations over the next couple of weeks could provide clues to what we can expect for the next few years. Just how much will a Trump presidency slow global climate action? Will the European Union step up? Could this cement the rise of China as a climate leader? We’ll be watching it all.


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

In case you want some additional context from the last few years of these meetings, here’s my coverage of last year’s fight at COP28 over a transition away from fossil fuels, and a newsletter about negotiations over the “loss and damages” fund at COP27.

For the nitty-gritty details about what’s on the table at COP29, check out this very thorough explainer from Carbon Brief.

The White House in Washington DC under dark stormy clouds

DAN THORNBERG/ADOBE STOCK

Another thing

Trump’s election will have significant ripple effects across the economy and our lives. His victory is a tragic loss for climate progress, as my colleague James Temple wrote in an op-ed last week. Give it a read, if you haven’t already, to dig into some of the potential impacts we might see over the next four years and beyond. 

Keeping up with climate  

The US Environmental Protection Agency finalized a rule to fine oil and gas companies for methane emissions. The fee was part of the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. (Associated Press)
→ This rule faces a cloudy future under the Trump administration; industry groups are already talking about repealing it. (NPR)

Speaking of the EPA, Donald Trump chose Lee Zeldin, a former Republican congressman from New York, to lead the agency. Zeldin isn’t particularly known for climate or economic policy. (New York Times)

Oil giant BP is scaling back its early-stage hydrogen projects. The company revealed in an earnings report that it’s canceling 18 such projects and currently plans to greenlight between five and 10. (TechCrunch)

Investors betting against renewable energy scored big last week, earning nearly $1.2 billion as stocks in that sector tumbled. (Financial Times)

Lithium iron phosphate batteries are taking over the world, or at least electric vehicles. These lithium-ion batteries are cheaper and longer-lasting than their nickel-containing cousins, though they also tend to be heavier. (Canary Media
→ I wrote about this trend last year in a newsletter about batteries and their ingredients. (MIT Technology Review)

The US unveiled plans to triple its nuclear energy capacity by 2050. That’s an additional 200 gigawatts’ worth of consistently available power. (Bloomberg)

Five subsea cables that can help power millions of homes just got the green light in Great Britain. The projects will help connect the island to other power grids, as well as to offshore wind farms in Dutch and Belgian waters. (The Guardian)

The US is about to make a sharp turn on climate policy

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

Voters have elected Donald Trump to a second term in the White House.

In the days leading up to the election, I kept thinking about what four years means for climate change right now. We’re at a critical moment that requires decisive action to rapidly slash greenhouse-gas emissions from power plants, transportation, industry, and the rest of the economy if we’re going to achieve our climate goals.

The past four years have seen the US take climate action seriously, working with the international community and pumping money into solutions. Now, we’re facing a period where things are going to be very different. A Trump presidency will have impacts far beyond climate, but for the sake of this newsletter, we’ll stay focused on what four years means in the climate fight as we start to make sense of this next chapter. 

Joe Biden arguably did more to combat climate change than any other American president. One of his first actions in office was rejoining the Paris climate accord—Trump pulled out of the international agreement to fight climate change during his first term in office. Biden then quickly set a new national goal to cut US carbon emissions in half, relative to their peak, by 2030.

The Environmental Protection Agency rolled out rules for power plants to slash pollution that harms both human health and the climate. The agency also announced new regulations for vehicle emissions to push the country toward EVs.

And the cornerstone of the Biden years has been unprecedented climate investment. A trio of laws—the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the CHIPS and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act—pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into infrastructure and research, much of it on climate.

Now, this ship is about to make a quick turn. Donald Trump has regularly dismissed the threat of climate change and promised throughout the campaign to counter some of Biden’s key moves.

We can expect to see a dramatic shift in how the US talks about climate on the international stage. Trump has vowed to once again withdraw from the Paris agreement. Things are going to be weird at the annual global climate talks that kick off next week.

We can also expect to see efforts to undo some of Biden’s key climate actions, most centrally the Inflation Reduction Act, as my colleague James Temple covered earlier this year.

What, exactly, Trump can do will depend on whether Republicans take control of both houses of Congress. A clean sweep would open up more lanes for targeting legislation passed under Biden. (As of sending this email, Republicans have secured enough seats to control the Senate, but the House is uncertain and could be for days or even weeks.)

I don’t think the rug will be entirely pulled out from under the IRA—portions of the investment from the law are beginning to pay off, and the majority of the money has gone to Republican districts. But there will certainly be challenges to pieces, especially the EV tax credits, which Trump has been laser-focused on during the campaign.

This all adds up to a very different course on climate than what many had hoped we might see for the rest of this decade.

A Trump presidency could add 4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere by 2030 over what was expected from a second Biden term, according to an analysis published in April by the website Carbon Brief (this was before Biden dropped out of the race). That projection sees emissions under Trump dropping by 28% below the peak by the end of the decade—nowhere near the 50% target set by Biden at the beginning of his term.

The US, which is currently the world’s second-largest greenhouse-gas emitter and has added more climate pollution to the atmosphere than any other nation, is now very unlikely to hit Biden’s 2030 goal. That’s basically the final nail in the coffin for efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 °C (2.7 °F) over preindustrial levels.

In the days, weeks, and years ahead we’ll be covering what this change will mean for efforts to combat climate change and to protect the most vulnerable from the dangerous world we’re marching toward—indeed, already living in. Stay tuned for more from us.


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Trump wants to unravel Biden’s landmark climate law. Read our coverage from earlier this year to see what’s most at risk

It’s been two years since the Inflation Reduction Act was passed, ushering in hundreds of billions of dollars in climate investment. Read more about the key provisions in this newsletter from August

silhouette of a cow with letters C,T,G,A floating inside in brilliant orange light

MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW | GETTY

Another thing

Jennifer Doudna, one of the inventors of the gene-editing tool CRISPR, says the tech could be a major tool to help address climate change and deal with the growing risks of our changing world. 

The hope is that CRISPR’s ability to chop out specific pieces of DNA will make it faster and easier to produce climate-resilient crops and livestock, while avoiding the pitfalls of previous attempts to tweak the genomes of plants and animals. Read the full story from my colleague James Temple.

Keeping up with climate  

Startup Redoxblox is building a technology that’s not exactly a thermal battery, but it’s not not a thermal battery either. The company raised just over $30 million to build its systems, which store energy in both heat and chemical bonds. (Heatmap)

It’s been a weird fall in the US Northeast—a rare drought has brought a string of wildfires, and New York City is seeing calls to conserve water. (New York Times)

It’s been bumpy skies this week for electric-plane startups. Beta Technologies raised over $300 million in funding, while Lilium may be filing for insolvency soon. (Canary Media)

→ The runway for futuristic electric planes is still a long one. (MIT Technology Review)

Meta’s plan to build a nuclear-powered AI data center has been derailed by a rare species of bee living on land earmarked for the project. (Financial Times)

The atmospheric concentration of methane—a powerful greenhouse gas—has been mysteriously climbing since 2007, and that growth nearly doubled in 2020. Now scientists may have finally figured out the culprits: microbes in wetlands that are getting warmer and wetter. (Washington Post)

Greenhouse-gas emissions from the European Union fell by 8% in 2023. The drop is thanks to efforts to shut down coal-fired power plants and generate more electricity from renewables like solar and wind. (The Guardian)

Four electric school buses could help officials figure out how to charge future bus fleets. A project in Brooklyn will aim to use onsite renewables and smart charging to control the costs and grid stress of EV charging depots. (Canary Media)

Trump’s win is a tragic loss for climate progress

Donald Trump’s decisive victory is a stunning setback for climate change.

The Republican president-elect’s return to the White House means the US is going to squander precious momentum, unraveling hard-won policy progress that was just beginning to pay off, all for the second time in less than a decade. 

It comes at a moment when the world can’t afford to waste time, with nations far off track from any emissions trajectories that would keep our ecosystems stable and our communities safe. Under the policies in place today, the planet is already set to warm by more than 3 °C over preindustrial levels in the coming decades.

Trump could push the globe into even more dangerous terrain, by defanging President Joe Biden’s signature climate laws. In fact, a second Trump administration could boost greenhouse-gas emissions by 4 billion tons through 2030 alone, according to an earlier analysis by Carbon Brief, a well-regarded climate news and data site. That will exacerbate the dangers of heat waves, floods, wildfires, droughts, and famine and increase deaths and disease from air pollution, inflicting some $900 million in climate damages around the world, Carbon Brief found.

I started as the climate editor at MIT Technology Review just as Trump came into office the last time. Much of the early job entailed covering his systematic unraveling of the modest climate policy and progress that President Barack Obama had managed to achieve. I fear it will be far worse this time, as Trump ambles into office feeling empowered and aggrieved, and ready to test the rule of law and crack down on dissent. 

This time he’ll be staffed all the more by loyalists and idealogues, who have already made plans to force out civil servants with expertise and experience from federal agencies including the Environmental Protection Agency. He’ll be backed by a Supreme Court that he moved well to the right, and which has already undercut landmark environmental doctrines and weakened federal regulatory agencies. 

This time the setbacks will sting more, too, because the US did finally manage to pass real, substantive climate policy, through the slimmest of congressional margins. The Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allocated massive amounts of government funding to accelerating the shift to low-emissions industries and rebuilding the US manufacturing base around a clean-energy economy. 

Trump has made clear he will strive to repeal as many of these provisions as he can, tempered perhaps only by Republicans who recognize that these laws are producing revenue and jobs in their districts. Meanwhile, throughout the prolonged presidential campaign, Trump or his surrogates pledged to boost oil and gas production, eliminate federal support for electric vehicles, end pollution rules for power plants, and remove the US from the Paris climate agreement yet again. Each of those goals stands in direct opposition to the deep, rapid emissions cuts now necessary to prevent the planet from tipping past higher and higher temperature thresholds.

Project 2025, considered a blueprint for the early days of a second Trump administration despite his insistence to the contrary, calls for dismantling or downsizing federal institutions including the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. That could cripple the nation’s ability to forecast, track, or respond to storms, floods, and fires like those that have devastated communities in recent months.

Observers I’ve spoken to fear that the Trump administration will also return the Department of Energy, which under Biden had evolved its mission toward developing low-emissions technologies, to the primary task of helping companies dig up more fossil fuels.

The US election could create global ripples as well, and very soon. US negotiators will meet with their counterparts at the annual UN climate conference that kicks off next week. With Trump set to move back into the White House in January, they will have little credibility or leverage to nudge other nations to step up their commitments to reducing emissions. 

But those are just some of the direct ways that a second Trump administration will enfeeble the nation’s ability to drive down emissions and counter the growing dangers of climate change. He also has considerable power to stall the economy and sow international chaos amid escalating conflicts in Europe and the Middle East. 

Trump’s eagerness to enact tariffs, slash government spending, and deport major portions of the workforce may stunt growth, drive up inflation, and chill investment. All that would make it far more difficult for companies to raise the capital and purchase the components needed to build anything in the US, whether that means wind turbines, solar farms, and seawalls or buildings, bridges, and data centers. 

view from behind Trump on stage election night 2024 with press and crowd
President-elect Donald Trump speaks at an election night event in West Palm Beach, Florida.
WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY IMAGES

His clumsy handling of the economy and international affairs may also help China extend its dominance in producing and selling the components that are crucial to the energy transition, including batteries, EVs, and solar panels, to customers around the globe.

If one job of a commentator is to find some perspective in difficult moments, I admit I’m mostly failing in this one.

The best I can do is to say that there will be some meaningful lines of defense. For now ,at least, state leaders and legislatures can continue to enact and implement stronger climate rules. Other nations could step up their efforts to cut emissions and assert themselves as global leaders on climate. 

Private industry will likely continue to invest in and build businesses in climate tech and clean energy, since solar, wind, batteries, and EVs have proved themselves as competitive industries. And technological progress can occur no matter who is sitting in the round room on Pennsylvania Avenue, since researchers continue striving to develop cleaner, cheaper ways of producing our energy, food, and goods.

By any measure, the job of addressing climate change is now much harder. Nothing, however, has changed about the stakes. 

Our world doesn’t end if we surpass 2 °C, 2.5 °C, or even 3 °C, but it will steadily become a more dangerous and erratic place. Every tenth of a degree remains worth fighting for—whether two, four, or a dozen years from now—because every bit of warming that nations pull together to prevent eases future suffering somewhere.

So as the shock wears off and the despair begins to lift, the core task before us remains the same: to push for progress, whenever, wherever, and however we can. 

How a breakthrough gene-editing tool will help the world cope with climate change

Jennifer Doudna, one of the inventors of the breakthrough gene-editing tool CRISPR, says the technology will help the world grapple with the growing risks of climate change by delivering crops and animals better suited to hotter, drier, wetter, or weirder conditions.

“The potential is huge,” says Doudna, who shared the 2020 Nobel Prize in chemistry for her role in the discovery. “There is a coming revolution right now with CRISPR.”

Last month, the Innovation Genomics Institute (IGI), which Doudna founded, hosted the Climate & Agriculture Summit at the University of California, Berkeley, where speakers highlighted the role that genome editing can play in addressing the rising dangers of climate change. Doudna sat down for a brief interview with MIT Technology Review on the sidelines of the closed-door event.

She and her coauthors published their landmark paper on the technique in Science 12 years ago, demonstrating that a bacterial immune system could be programmed to locate and snip out specific sections of DNA. The earliest patients have begun receiving the first approved medical treatment created with the genomic scissors, a gene therapy for sickle-cell disease—and a growing list of foods created with CRISPR are slowly reaching grocery store shelves. 

Many more CRISPR-edited plants and animals are on the way, and a number of them were altered to promote traits that could help them survive or thrive in conditions fueled by climate change, beginning to fulfill one long-standing promise of genetic engineering. That includes the offspring of two cattle that Acceligen, a Minnesota-based precision breeding business, edited to have shorter coats better suited to hotter temperatures. In 2022, the US Food and Drug Administration determined that meat and other products from those cattle “pose low risk to people, animals, the food supply, and the environment” and can be marketed for sale to American consumers.

Other companies are harnessing CRISPR to develop corn with shorter, stronger stalks that could reduce the loss of crops to increasingly powerful storms; novel cover crops that can help sequester more carbon dioxide and produce biofuels; and animals that could resist zoonotic diseases that climate change may be helping to spread, including avian influenza.

For its part, IGI is working to develop rice that can withstand drier conditions, as well as crops that may suck up and store away more carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas driving climate change.

Older genetic modification techniques, which involve moving genes from one organism into another, have already delivered agricultural blockbusters, including crops that are resistant to herbicides and corn, potatoes, and soybeans with enhanced protections against pests. The use of such tools to alter crops sparked fears that so-called Frankenfoods would worsen allergies and cause diseases in humans, though these health worries were widely overblown

The grand hope is that CRISPR’s ability to precisely remove specific parts of the DNA within the existing genomes of plants and animals will make it faster and easier to create climate-resilient crops and livestock, avoiding many of the pitfalls of earlier breeding and editing techniques. The added promise is that the resulting products may prove more appealing to the public, since they often won’t carry DNA from other organisms—and won’t be labeled as bioengineered. (CRISPR can, however, be used to create such transgenic plants and animals as well.)

“It’s very exciting to see these products coming out, because they have real-world impacts that are incredibly important, especially as we’re dealing with the changing climate and with our expanding population,” says Doudna, a biochemistry professor at the University of California, Berkeley.

But there are still considerable obstacles to developing and commercializing transformative new crops and animals, as well as limits to how much the tool may help farmers and communities in regions that become excessively hot, dry, or wet in the coming decades. 

The coming CRISPRed foods

In recent years, the US Department of Agriculture has loosened its rules on governing and labeling genetically modified foods in ways that clear the path for many CRISPR alterations. 

The department still often oversees and requires disclosures for transgenic plants and animals. But it determined that it will not regulate foods when genome-editing tools like CRISPR are used to make “a single modification that could have otherwise been produced through conventional breeding” over longer time periods. 

“We’re simply providing a trait that could have occurred naturally,” Doudna says of the regulatory distinction. “It’s just that we accelerated that process with CRISPR.”

The USDA has confirmed to companies or research groups that several dozen crops developed through the use of CRISPR would be exempt from regulation, according to a review of public documents by MIT Technology Review

Harnessing CRISPR and similar technologies will be crucial to feed a growing global population without dramatically expanding the land, fertilizer, and other resources dedicated to farming, says Chavonda Jacobs-Young, the USDA’s chief scientist. Jacobs-Young appeared on stage at the UC Berkeley conference and also spoke with MIT Technology Review.

“We need high-tech tools,” she says. “That’s going to be an important key to us helping make sure that we have a safe, abundant, delicious … and affordable food supply.”

Chavonda Jacobs-Young and Jennifer Doudna
Chavonda Jacobs-Young, the USDA’s chief scientist, and UC Berkeley professor Jennifer Doudna, the UC Berkeley professor who co-developed CRISPR, spoke at the Innovation Genomics Institute’s Climate & Agriculture Summit.
GLENN RAMIT/INNOVATIVE GENOMICS INSTITUTE

Conventional breeding methods—which include cross-breeding varieties of plants and animals or using radiation or chemicals to create mutations—is a messy process. It can create numerous changes throughout the genome that aren’t necessarily beneficial, requiring significant trial and error to tease out improvements. 

“The exciting thing with CRISPR for gene editing is you can make changes exactly where you want them,” says Emma Kovak, senior food and agriculture analyst at the Breakthrough Institute. “It’s absolutely huge in terms of saving time and money.”

As powerful and precise as CRISPR is, however, it still takes considerable work to target the right part of the genome, to evaluate whether any changes provide the hoped-for benefits—and, crucially, to ensure that any edits don’t come at the cost of overall plant health or food safety.

But improved gene-editing tools have also helped to revive and accelerate research to better understand the complex genomes of plants, which are often several times longer than the human genome. This work is helping scientists identify the genes responsible for relevant traits and the changes that could deliver improvements.

Doudna says we’ll see many more crops altered to bolster resilience to climate change as the research in this field progresses.

“In the future, as we uncover more and more of those fundamental genetics of traits, then CRISPR can come in as a very practical application for creating the kinds of plants that will deal with these oncoming challenges,” she says.

Practical plants and polite cows

IGI’s efforts to develop a type of rice that could be more drought tolerant than standard varieties highlight both the promise and challenges ahead.

Several research groups have used CRISPR to disable a gene that influences the number of tiny pores in the plant’s leaves. These pores, known as stomata, allow rice to take in carbon dioxide, emit oxygen, and release water as a means of controlling temperature. The hope is that with fewer stomata, the plants could preserve more water in order to survive and grow in drier conditions. 

But it’s proved to be a tricky balancing act. Earlier research efforts knocked out the so-called STOMAGEN gene. That eliminated as much as 80% of pores, which certainly reduced water loss. But it also undermined the plants’ ability to absorb carbon dioxide and release oxygen, both of which are critical to photosynthesis. 

IGI researchers zeroed in on a different gene, EPFL10, which had a less dramatic effect, reducing the number of pores by about 20%. According to research that the group published, this tweak helped the plants preserve water but didn’t affect its ability to regulate temperatures or exchange gases.

“It takes plant breeding to the next level,” Doudna says of CRISPR. “We can adjust the numbers of those pores by dialing up or down certain genes … to the levels that actually support plant growth [and] allow farmers to produce rice of the quality and with the yields that they need, but without the loss of water.” 

The organization is also exploring ways that CRISPR could address climate change more directly. That includesa research program aimed at reducing the methane that cattle belch out, which is the primary source of greenhouse-gas emissions related to livestock.

IGI is working with researchers at the University of California, Davis, and elsewhere to explore whether CRISPR and other emerging tools could be used to alter microbes in the stomachs of cattle in ways that would reduce their production of the powerful greenhouse gas. 

A number of research groups and startups are working to reduce those emissions through feed additives, often derived from a type of seaweed. But the hope is that changes to the microbiome of cows could be permanent and inheritable, says Brad Ringeisen, executive director of the IGI.

“If we succeed, it could potentially be something that could be applicable to nearly every cow in the world,” he says.

Labeling and safety

Kovak says there are still plenty of challenges that could hold up the development of CRISPR-edited animals and plants, including the continuing regulatory obstacles facing products where foreign DNA is introduced or more complicated edits are made. So could the ongoing battles over the intellectual rights to the tool and the variants of it that are emerging, and the costs or burdens that companies must bear to make use of the technology.

Doudna herself has been at the center of a messy, bitter, and twisting dispute with the Broad Institute over ownership of the key CRISPR patents. (The Broad is affiliated with MIT, which owns MIT Technology Review.) Each group has secured numerous patents in various countries for certain aspects and varieties of the tool. 

The continuing legal battles have created complexity and uncertainty for companies hoping to harness CRISPR to develop commercial products. 

Doudna has founded or cofounded several startups, including Caribou Biosciences, which has sublicensed access to certain CRISPR patents for uses including agriculture. She didn’t respond to a follow-up question on this issue before press time.

“While we have seen a lot of progress in a relatively short time, having the various CRISPR patents controlled by a few entities has at times slowed or stopped some agricultural products from hitting the market,” the IGI’s Ringeisen said in an email response. 

But he adds that there’s been ongoing progress on discovering and using related gene-editing tools that aren’t already tied up in patents.

Meanwhile, natural-food retailers, skeptics of genetically modified organisms, and others have harshly criticized the USDA’s stance on governing and labeling genetically altered foods. They assert that altered crops have had harmful environmental consequences and that the rules don’t provide consumers with the transparency they need to make informed choices about the foods they buy and consume. 

Doudna stresses that it is crucial to use CRISPR and similar tools cautiously. But she says the US has struck the right balance in its approach to regulation and labeling.

“It’s really informed. It really is based on science,” she says. “Rather than looking at how that plant or crop was created, the question is, What is the final product?”

She says the IGI has strived to act as a “voice of reason” on these issues, helping to counter fears and misunderstandings by providing scientific information about how CRISPR can be used to treat human diseases, help farmers adapt to climate change, or address other threats in people’s lives.

“From the very beginning, of course, it was clear that this was going to be a powerful tool that could be misunderstood and could be misused,” she says. “But it also has tremendous potential to help us tackle a lot of these challenges.”

Inside a fusion energy facility

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

On an overcast day in early October, I picked up a rental car and drove to Devens, Massachusetts, to visit a hole in the ground.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems has raised over $2 billion in funding since it spun out of MIT in 2018, all in service of building the first commercial fusion reactor. The company has ambitions to build power plants, but currently the goal is to finish putting together its first demonstration system, the SPARC reactor. The plan is to have it operating by 2026.

I visited the company’s site recently to check in on progress. Things are starting to come together around the hole in the floor where SPARC will eventually be installed. Looking around the site, I found it becoming easier to imagine a future that could actually include fusion energy. But there’s still a lot of work left to do. 

Fusion power has been a dream for decades. The idea is simple: Slam atoms together and use the energy that’s released to power the world. The systems would require small amounts of abundant fuel and wouldn’t produce dangerous waste. The problem is, executing this vision has been much slower than many had hoped.

Commonwealth is one of the leaders in commercial fusion. My colleague James Temple wrote a feature story, published in early 2022, about the company’s attempts to bring the technology to reality. At the time, the Devens location was still a muddy construction site, with the steel and concrete just starting to go into the ground.

Things are much more polished now—when I visited earlier this month, I pulled into one of the designated visitor parking spots and checked in at a reception desk in a bustling office building before beginning my tour. There were two main things to see: the working magnet factory and the cluster of buildings that will house and support the SPARC reactor.

We started in the magnet factory. SPARC is a tokamak, a device relying on powerful magnets to contain the plasma where fusion reactions take place. There will be three different types of magnets in SPARC, all arranged to keep the plasma in position and moving around in the right way.

The company is making its own magnets powered with tape made from a high-temperature superconductor, which generates a magnetic field when an electric current runs through it. SPARC will contain thousands of miles’ worth of this tape in its magnets. In the factory, specialized equipment winds up the tape and tucks it into metal cases, which are then stacked together and welded into protective shells.  

After our quick loop around the magnet factory, I donned a helmet, neon vest, and safety glasses and got a short safety talk that included a stern warning to not stare directly at any welding. Then we walked across a patio and down a gravel driveway to the main complex of buildings that will house the SPARC reactor.

Except for some remaining plywood stairs and dust, the complex appeared to be nearly completed. There’s a huge wall of glass on the front of the building—a feature intended to show that the company is open with the community about the goings-on inside, as my tour guide, chief marketing officer Joe Paluska, put it.  

Four main buildings surround the central tokamak hall. These house support equipment needed to cool down the magnets, heat up the plasma, and measure conditions in the reactor. Most of these big, industrial systems that support SPARC are close to being ready to turn on or are actively being installed, explained Alex Creely, director of tokamak operations, in a call after my tour.

When it was finally time to see the tokamak hall that will house SPARC, we had to take a winding route to get there. A maze of concrete walls funneled us to the entrance, and I lost track of my left and right turns. Called the labyrinth, this is a safety feature, designed to keep stray neutrons from escaping the hall once the reactor is operating. (Neutrons are a form of radiation, and enough exposure can be dangerous to humans.) 

Finally, we stepped into a cavernous space. From our elevated vantage point on a metal walkway, we peered down into a room with gleaming white floors and equipment scattered around the perimeter. At the center was a hole, covered with a tarp and surrounded by bright-yellow railings. That empty slot is where the star of the show, SPARC, will eventually be installed.

tokamak hall at Commonwealth Fusion Systems
The tokamak hall at Commonwealth Fusion Systems will house the company’s SPARC reactor.
COMMONWEALTH FUSION SYSTEMS

While there’s still very little tokamak in the tokamak hall right now, Commonwealth has an ambitious timeline planned: The goal is to have SPARC running and the first plasma in the reactor by 2026. The company plans to demonstrate that it can produce more energy in the reactor than is needed to power it (a milestone known as Q>1 in the fusion world) by 2027.

When we published our 2022 story on Commonwealth, the plan was to flip on the reactor and reach the Q>1 milestone by 2025, so the timeline has slipped. It’s not uncommon for big projects in virtually every industry to take longer than expected. But there’s an especially long and fraught history of promises and missed milestones in fusion. 

Commonwealth has certainly made progress over the past few years, and it’s getting easier to imagine the company actually turning on a reactor and meeting the milestones the field has been working toward for decades. But there’s still a tokamak-shaped hole in suburban Massachusetts waiting to be filled. 


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

Read our 2022 feature on Commonwealth Fusion Systems and its path to commercializing fusion energy here

In late 2022, a reactor at a national lab in the US generated more energy than was put in, a first for the industry. Here’s what meeting that milestone actually means for clean energy

There’s still a lot of research to be done in fusion—here’s what’s coming next

Another company called Helion says its first fusion power plant is five years away. Experts are skeptical, to say the least.

AI e-waste

PHOTO ILLUSTRATION BY SARAH ROGERS/MITTR | PHOTOS GETTY

Another thing

Generative AI will add to our growing e-waste problem. A new study estimates that AI could add up to 5 million tons of e-waste by 2030. 

It’s a small fraction of the total, but there’s still good reason to think carefully about how we handle discarded servers and high-performance computing equipment, according to experts. Read more in my latest story

Keeping up with climate  

New York City will buy 10,000 induction stoves from a startup called Copper. The stoves will be installed in public housing in the city. (Heatmap)

Demand is growing for electric cabs in India, but experts say there’s not nearly enough supply to meet it. (Rest of World)

Pivot Bio aims to tweak the DNA of bacteria so they can help deliver nutrients to plants. The company is trying to break into an industry dominated by massive agriculture and chemical companies. (New York Times)

→ Check out our profile of Pivot Bio, which was one of our 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch this year. (MIT Technology Review)

At least 62 people are dead and many more are missing in dangerous flooding across Spain. (Washington Post

A massive offshore wind lease sale this week offered up eight patches of ocean off the coast of Maine in the US. Four sold, opening the door for up to 6.8 gigawatts of additional offshore wind power. (Canary Media)

Climate change contributed to the deaths of 38,000 people across Europe in the summer of 2022, according to a new study. (The Guardian)

→ The legacy of Europe’s heat waves will be more air-conditioning, and that could be its own problem. (MIT Technology Review)

There are nearly 9,000 public fast-charging sites in the US, and a surprising wave of installations in the Midwest and Southeast. (Bloomberg)

Some proposed legislation aims to ban factory farming, but determining what that category includes is way more complicated than you might think. (Ambrook Research)

Why agriculture is a tough climate problem to solve

This article is from The Spark, MIT Technology Review’s weekly climate newsletter. To receive it in your inbox every Wednesday, sign up here.

As a climate reporter, I’m all too aware of the greenhouse-gas emissions that come from food production. And yet, I’m not a vegan, and I do enjoy a good cheeseburger (at least on occasion). 

It’s a real problem, from a climate perspective at least, that burgers taste good, and so do chicken sandwiches and cheese and just about anything that has butter in it. It can be hard to persuade people to change their eating habits, especially since food is tied up in our social lives and our cultures. 

We could all stand to make some choices that could reduce the emissions associated with the food on our plates. But the longer I write about agriculture and climate, the more I think we’re also going to need to innovate around people’s love for burgers—and fix our food system not just in the kitchen, but on the farm. 

If we lump in everything it takes to get food grown, processed, and transported to us, agriculture accounts for between 20% and 35% of annual global greenhouse-gas emissions. (The range is huge because estimates can vary in what they include and how they account for things like land use, the impact of which is tricky to measure.) 

So when it came time to put together our list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch, which we released earlier this month, we knew we wanted to represent the massive challenge that is our food system. 

We ended up choosing two companies in agriculture for this year’s list, Pivot Bio and Rumin8. My colleague James Temple and I spoke with leaders from both these businesses at our recent Roundtables online event, and it was fascinating to hear from them about the problems they’re trying to solve and how they’re doing it. 

Pivot Bio is using microbes to help disrupt the fertilizer industry. Today, applying nitrogen-based fertilizers to fields is basically like putting gas into a leaky gas tank, as Pivot cofounder Karsten Temme put it at the event. 

Plants rely on nitrogen to grow, but they fail to take up a lot of the nitrogen in fertilizers applied in the field. Since fertilizer requires a ton of energy to produce and can wind up emitting powerful greenhouse gases if plants don’t use it, that’s a real problem.

Pivot Bio uses microbes to help get nitrogen from the air into plants, and the company’s current generation of products can help farmers cut fertilizer use by 25%. 

Rumin8 has its sights set on cattle, making supplements that help them emit less methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. Cows have a complicated digestive system that involves multiple stomachs and a whole lot of microbes that help them digest food. Those microbes produce methane that the cows then burp up. “It’s really rude of them,” quipped Matt Callahan, Rumin8’s cofounder and counsel, at the event. 

In part because of the powerful warming effects of methane, beef is among the worst foods for the climate. Beef can account for up to 10 times more greenhouse-gas emissions than poultry, for example. 

Rumin8 makes an additive that can go into the food or water supply of dairy and beef cattle that can help reduce the methane they burp up. The chemical basically helps the cows use that gas as energy instead, so it can boost their growth—a big benefit to farmers. The company has seen methane reductions as high as 90%, depending on how the cow is getting the supplement (effects aren’t as strong for beef cattle, which often don’t have as close contact with farmers and may not get as strong a dose of the supplement over time as dairy cattle do). 

My big takeaway from our discussion, and from researching and picking the companies on our list this year, is that there’s a huge range of work being done to cut emissions from agriculture on the product side. That’s crucial, because I’m personally skeptical that a significant chunk of the world is going to quickly and voluntarily give up all the tasty but emissions-intensive foods that they’re used to. 

That’s not to say individual choices can’t make a difference. I love beans and lentils as much as the next girl, and we could all stand to make choices that cut down our individual climate impact. And it doesn’t have to be all or nothing. Anyone can choose to eat a little bit less beef specifically, and fewer meat and animal products in general (which tend to be more emissions-intensive than plant-based options). Another great strategy is to focus on cutting down your food waste, which not only reduces emissions but also saves you money. 

But with appetites and budgets for beef and other emissions-intensive foods continuing to grow worldwide, I think we’re also going to need to see a whole lot of innovation that helps lower the emissions of existing food products that we all know and love, including beef. 

There’s no one magic solution that’s going to solve our climate problem in agriculture. The key is going to be both shifting diets through individual and community action and adopting new, lower-emissions options that companies bring to the table. 


Now read the rest of The Spark

Related reading

If you missed our Rountables event “Producing Climate-Friendly Food,” you can check out the recording here. And for more details on the businesses we mentioned, read our profiles on Pivot Bio and Rumin8 from our 2024 list of 15 Climate Tech Companies to Watch. 

There are also some fascinating climate stories from the new, food-focused issue of our print magazine: 

grid of batteries, part of an electric car driving down the road, a flame and an inset of PyroThin aerogels

STEPHANIE ARNETT/MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW | ASPEN AEROGEL (PYROTHIN,) AUDI (EV)

Another thing

As more EVs hit the roads, there’s a growing concern about battery fires, which are a relatively rare but dangerous occurrence. 

Aspen Aerogels is making super-light materials that can help suppress battery fires, and the company just got a huge boost from the US Department of Energy. Read more about the $670.6 million loan and the details of the technology in my latest story

Keeping up with climate  

Hurricane Milton disrupted the supply of fresh drinking water, so a Florida hospital deployed a machine to harvest it out of the air. (Wired

There may be a huge supply of lithium in an underground brine reservoir in Arkansas. Using this source of the crucial battery metal will require companies to scale up new ways of extracting it. (New York Times)

There’s been a flurry of new deals between Big Tech and the nuclear industry, but Amazon is going one step further with its latest announcement. The company is supporting development of a new project rather than just agreeing to step in once electricity is ready. (Heatmap)
→ Here’s why Microsoft is getting involved in a plan to revive a nuclear reactor at Three Mile Island. (MIT Technology Review)

Japan’s most popular rice is in danger because of rising temperatures. Koshihikari rice has a low tolerance for heat, and scientists are racing to breed new varieties that can handle a changing climate. (New York Times)

There are some pretty straightforward solutions that could slash methane emissions from landfills, including requiring more sites to install gas-capture systems. Landfills are the third-largest source of the powerful greenhouse gas. (Canary Media)

Heat pump sales have slowed in the US and stalled in Europe. The technology is struggling in part because of high interest rates, increasing costs, and misinformation about the appliances. (Washington Post)
→ Here’s everything you need to know about how heat pumps work. (MIT Technology Review)

The quest to protect farmworkers from extreme heat

On July 21, 2024, temperatures soared in many parts of the world, breaking the record for the hottest day ever recorded on the planet.

The following day—July 22—the record was broken again.

But even as the heat index rises each summer, the people working outdoors to pick fruits, vegetables, and flowers for American tables keep laboring in the sun.

The consequences can be severe, leading to illnesses such as heat exhaustion or heatstroke. Body temperature can rise so high that farmworkers are “essentially … working with fevers,” says Roxana Chicas, an assistant professor at Emory University’s School of Nursing. In one study by Chicas’s research team, most farmworkers tested were chronically dehydrated, even when they drank fluids throughout the day. And many showed signs of developing acute kidney injury after just one workday.

Chicas is part of an Emory research program that has been investigating farmworker health since 2009. Emphasizing collaboration between researchers and community members, the team has spent years working with farmworkers to collect data on kidney function, the risk of heat illness, and the effectiveness of cooling interventions.

The team is now developing an innovative sensor that tracks multiple vital signs with a goal of anticipating that a worker will develop heat illness and issuing an alert.

If widely adopted and consistently used, it could represent a way to make workers safer on farms even without significant heat protections. Right now, with limited rules on such protections, workers are often responsible for their own safety. “The United States is primarily focused on educating workers on drinking water [and] the symptoms of heat-related illness,” says Chicas, who leads a field team that tested the sensor in Florida last summer.

The sensor project, a collaboration between Emory and engineers at the Georgia Institute of Technology, got its start in 2022, when the team was awarded a $2.46 million, four-year grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. The sensor is now able to continuously measure skin temperature, heart rate, and physical activity. A soft device meant to be worn on the user’s chest, it was designed with farmworkers’ input; it’s not uncomfortable to wear for several hours in the heat, it won’t fall off because of sweat, and it doesn’t interfere with the physical movement necessary to do agricultural work.

To translate the sensor data into useful warnings, the team is now working on building a model to predict the risk of heat-related injury.

Chicas understands what drives migrant workers to the United States to labor on farms in the hot sun. When she was a child, her own family immigrated to the US to seek work, settling in Georgia. She remembers listening to stories from farmworker family members and friends about how hot it was in the fields—about how they would leave their shifts with headaches.

But because farmworkers are largely from Latin America (63% were born in Mexico) and nearly half are undocumented, “it’s difficult for [them] to speak up about [their] working conditions,” says Chicas. Workers are usually careful not to draw attention that “may jeopardize their livelihoods.”

They’re more likely to do so if they’re backed up by an organization like the Farmworker Association of Florida, which organizes agricultural workers in the state. FWAF has collaborated with the Emory program for more than a decade, recruiting farmworkers to participate in the studies and help guide them. 

There’s “a lot of trust” between those involved in the program, says Ernesto Ruiz, research coordinator at FWAF. Ruiz, who participated in data collection in Florida this past year, says there was a waiting list to take part in the project because there was so much interest—even though participants had to arrive at the break of dawn before a long day of work.

“We need to be able to document empirically, with uncontroversial evidence, the brutal working conditions that farmworking communities face and the toll it takes on their bodies.”

Ernesto Ruiz, research coordinator, Farmworker Association of Florida

Participants had their vital signs screened in support of the sensor research. They also learned about their blood glucose levels, cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL, and LDL. These readings, Ruiz says, “[don’t] serve any purpose from the standpoint of a predictive variable for heat-related injury.” But community members requested the additional health screenings because farmworkers have little to no access to health care. If health issues are found during the study, FWAF will work to connect workers to health-care providers or free or low-cost clinics.

“Community-based participatory research can’t just be extractive, eliciting data and narratives,” Ruiz says. “It has to give something in return.”

Work on technology to measure heat stress in farmworkers could feed back into policy development. “We need to be able to document empirically, with uncontroversial evidence, the brutal working conditions that farmworking communities face and the toll it takes on their bodies,” Ruiz says.

Though the Biden administration has proposed regulations, there are currently no federal standards in place to protect workers from extreme heat. (Only five states have their own heat standards.) Areas interested in adding protections can face headwinds. In Florida, for example, after Miami-Dade County proposed heat protection standards for outdoor workers, the state passed legislation preventing localities from issuing their own heat rules, pointing to the impact such standards could have on employers.

Meanwhile, temperatures continue to rise. With workers “constantly, chronically” exposed to heat in an environment without protective standards, says Chicas, the sensor could offer its own form of protection. 

Kalena Thomhave is a freelance journalist based in Pittsburgh.

Africa fights rising hunger by looking to foods of the past

The first time the rains failed, the farmers of Kanaani were prepared for it. It was April of 2021, and as climate change had made the weather increasingly erratic, families in the eastern Kenyan village had grown used to saving food from previous harvests. But as another wet season passed with barely any rain, and then another, the community of small homesteads, just off the main road linking Nairobi to the coast of the Indian Ocean, found itself in a full-fledged hunger crisis. 

By the end of 2022, Danson Mutua, a longtime Kanaani resident, counted himself lucky that his farm still had pockets of green: Over the years, he’d gradually replaced much of his maize, the staple crop in Kenya and several other parts of Africa, with more drought-resistant crops. He’d planted sorghum, a tall grass capped with tufts of seeds that look like arrowheads, as well as protein-rich legumes like pigeon peas and green gram, which don’t require any chemical fertilizers and are also prized for fixing nitrogen in soils. Many of his neighbors’ fields were completely parched. Cows, with little to eat themselves, had stopped producing milk; some had started dying. While it was still possible to buy grain at the local market, prices had spiked, and few people had the cash to pay for it. 

Mutua, a father of two, began using his bedroom to secure the little he’d managed to harvest. “If I left it out, it would have disappeared,” he told me from his home in May, 14 months after the rains had finally returned and allowed Kanaani’s farmers to begin recovering. “People will do anything to get food when they’re starving.”

The food insecurity facing Mutua and his neighbors is hardly unique. In 2023, according to the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization, or FAO, an estimated 733 million people around the world were “undernourished,” meaning they lacked sufficient food to “maintain a normal, active, and healthy life.” After falling steadily for decades, the prevalence of global hunger is now on the rise—nowhere more so than in sub-Saharan Africa, where conflicts, economic fallout from the covid-19 pandemic, and extreme weather events linked to climate change pushed the share of the population considered undernourished from 18% in 2015 to 23% in 2023. The FAO estimates that 63% of people in the region are “food insecure”—not necessarily undernourished but unable to consistently eat filling, nutritious meals.

In Africa, like anywhere, hunger is driven by many interwoven factors, not all of which are a consequence of farming practices. Increasingly, though, policymakers on the continent are casting a critical eye toward the types of crops in farmers’ plots, especially the globally dominant and climate-vulnerable grains like rice, wheat, and above all, maize. Africa’s indigenous crops are often more nutritious and better suited to the hot and dry conditions that are becoming more prevalent, yet many have been neglected by science, which means they tend to be more vulnerable to diseases and pests and yield well below their theoretical potential. Some refer to them as “orphan crops” because of this. 

Efforts to develop new varieties of many of these crops, by breeding for desired traits, have been in the works for decades—through state-backed institutions, a continent-wide research consortium, and underfunded scientists’ tinkering with hand-pollinated crosses. Now those endeavors have gotten a major boost: In 2023, the US Department of State, in partnership with the African Union, the FAO, and several global agriculture institutions, launched the Vision for Adapted Crops and Soils, or VACS, a new Africa-focused initiative that seeks to accelerate research and development for traditional crops and help revive the region’s long-­depleted soils. VACS, which had received funding pledges worth $200 million as of August, marks an important turning point, its proponents say—not only because it’s pumping an unprecedented flow of money into foods that have long been disregarded but because it’s being driven by the US government, which has often promoted farming policies around the world that have helped entrench maize and other food commodities at the expense of local crop diversity.

It may be too soon to call VACS a true paradigm shift: Maize is likely to remain central to many governments’ farming policies, and the coordinated crop R&D the program seeks to hasten is only getting started. Many of the crops it aims to promote could be difficult to integrate into commercial supply chains and market to growing urban populations, which may be hesitant to start eating like their ancestors. Some worry that crops farmed without synthetic fertilizers and pesticides today will be “improved” in a way that makes farmers more dependent on these chemicals—in turn, raising farm expenses and eroding soil fertility in the long run. Yet for many of the policymakers, scientists, and farmers who’ve been championing crop diversity for decades, this high-level attention is welcome and long overdue.

“One of the things our community has always cried for is how to raise the profile of these crops and get them on the global agenda,” says Tafadzwa Mabhaudhi, a longtime advocate of traditional crops and a professor of climate change, food systems, and health at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, who comes from Zimbabwe.

Now the question is whether researchers, governments, and farmers like Mutua can work together in a way that gets these crops onto plates and provides Africans from all walks of life with the energy and nutrition that they need to thrive, whatever climate change throws their way.

A New World addiction

Africa’s love affair with maize, which was first domesticated several thousand years ago in central Mexico, dates to a period known as the Columbian exchange, when the trans-Atlantic flow of plants, animals, metals, diseases, and people—especially enslaved Africans—dramatically reshaped the world economy. The new crop, which arrived in Africa sometime after 1500 along with other New World foods like beans, potatoes, and cassava, was tastier and required less labor than indigenous cereals like millet and sorghum, and under the right conditions it could yield significantly more calories. It quickly spread across the continent, though it didn’t begin to dominate until European powers carved up most of Africa into colonies in the late 19th century. Its uptake was greatest in southern Africa and Kenya, which both had large numbers of white settlers. These predominantly British farmers, tilling land that had often been commandeered from Africans, began adopting new maize varieties that were higher yielding and more suitable for mechanized milling—albeit less nutritious—than both native grains and the types of maize that had been farmed locally since the 16th century. 

“People plant maize, harvest nothing, and still plant maize the next season. It’s difficult to change that mindset.”

Florence Wambugu, CEO, Africa Harvest

Eager to participate in the new market economy, African farmers followed suit; when hybrid maize varieties arrived in the 1960s, promising even higher yields, the binge only accelerated. By 1990, maize accounted for more than half of all calories consumed in Malawi and Zambia and at least 20% of calories eaten in a dozen other African countries. Today, it remains omnipresent—as a flour boiled into a sticky paste; as kernels jumbled with beans, tomatoes, and a little salt; or as fermented dumplings steamed and served inside the husk. Florence Wambugu, CEO of Africa Harvest, a Kenyan organization that helps farmers adopt maize alternatives, says the crop has such cultural significance that many insist on cultivating it even where it often fails. “People plant maize, harvest nothing, and still plant maize the next season,” she says. “It’s difficult to change that mindset.”

Maize and Africa have never been a perfect match. The plant is notoriously picky, requiring nutrient-rich soils and plentiful water at specific moments. Many of Africa’s soils are naturally deficient in key elements like nitrogen and phosphorus. Over time, the fertilizers needed to support hybrid varieties, often subsidized by governments, depleted soils even further. Large portions of Africa’s inhabited areas are also dry or semi-arid, and 80% of farms south of the Sahara are occupied by smallholders, who work plots of 10 hectares or less. On these farms, irrigation can be spatially impractical and often does not make economic sense. 

It would be a stretch to blame Africa’s maize addiction for its most devastating hunger crises. Research by Alex de Waal, an expert in humanitarian disasters at Tufts University, has found that more than three-quarters of global famine deaths between 1870 and 2010 occurred in the context of “conflict or political repression.” That description certainly applies to today’s worst hunger crisis, in Sudan, a country being ripped apart by rival military governments. As of September, according to the UN, more than 8.5 million people in the country were facing “emergency levels of hunger,” and 755,000 were facing conditions deemed “catastrophic.”

overhead of a bowl of stew
Ground egusi seeds, rich in protein and B vitamins, are used in a popular West African soup.
ADAM DETOUR

For most African farmers, though, weather extremes pose a greater risk than conflict. The two-year drought that affected Mutua, for example, has been linked to a narrowing of the cloud belt that straddles the equator, as well as the tendency of land to lose moisture faster in higher temperatures. According to one 2023 study, by a global coalition of meteorologists, these climatic changes made that drought—which contributed to a 22% drop in Kenya’s national maize output and forced a million people from their homes across eastern Africa—100 times more likely. The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change expects yields of maize, wheat, and rice in tropical regions to fall by 5%, on average, for every degree Celsius that the planet heats up. Eastern Africa could be especially hard hit. A rise in global temperatures of 1.5 degrees above preindustrial levels, which scientists believe is likely to occur sometime in the 2030s, is projected to cause maize yields there to drop by roughly one-third from where they stood in 2005.  

Food demand continues to rise: Sub-Saharan Africa’s population, 1.2 billion now, is expected to surpass 2 billion by 2050.

Food demand, at the same time, will continue to rise: Sub-Saharan Africa’s population, 1.2 billion now, is expected to surpass 2 billion by 2050, and roughly half of those new people will be born and come of age in cities. Many will grow up on Westernized diets: Young, middle-class residents of Nairobi today are more likely to meet friends for burgers than to eat local dishes like nyama choma, roasted meat typically washed down with bottles of Tusker lager. KFC, seen by many as a status symbol, has franchises in a dozen Kenyan towns and cities; those looking to splurge can dine on sushi crafted from seafood flown in specially from Tokyo. Most, though, get by on simple foods like ugali, a maize porridge often accompanied by collard greens or kale. Although some urban residents consume maize grown on family farms “upcountry,” most of them buy it; when domestic harvests underperform, imports rise and prices spike, and more people go hungry. 

A solution from science?

The push to revive Africa’s indigenous crops is a matter of nutrition as well. An overreliance on maize and other starches is a big reason that nearly a third of children under five in sub-Saharan Africa are stunted—a condition that can affect cognition and immune system functioning for life. Many traditional foods are nutrient dense and have potential to combat key dietary deficiencies, says Enoch Achigan-Dako, a professor of genetics and plant breeding at the University of Abomey-Calavi in Benin. He cites egusi as a prime example. The melon seed, used in a popular West African soup, is rich in protein and the B vitamins the body needs to convert food into energy; it is already a lifeline in many places where milk is not widely available. Breeding new varieties with shorter growth cycles, he says, could make the plant more viable in drier areas. Achigan-Dako also believes that many orphan crops hold untapped commercial potential that could help farmers combat hunger indirectly. 

Increasingly, institutions are embracing similar views. In 2013, the 55-­member-state African Union launched the African Orphan Crops Consortium, or AOCC—a collaboration with CGIAR, a global coalition of 15 nonprofit food research institutions, the University of California, Davis, and other partners. The AOCC has since trained more than 150 scientists from 28 African countries in plant breeding techniques through 18-month courses held in Nairobi. It’s also worked to sequence the genomes of 101 understudied crops, in part to facilitate the use of genomic selection. This technique involves correlating observed traits, like drought or pest resistance, with plant DNA, which helps breeders make better-­informed crosses and develop new varieties faster. The consortium launched another course last year to train African scientists in the popular gene-editing technique CRISPR, which enables the tweaking of plant DNA directly. While regulatory and licensing hurdles remain, Leena Tripathi, a molecular biologist at CGIAR’s International Institute of Tropical Agriculture (IITA) and a CRISPR course instructor, believes gene-editing tools could eventually play a big role in accelerating breeding efforts for orphan crops. Most exciting, she says, is the promise of mimicking genes for disease resistance that are found in wild plants but not in cultivated varieties available for crossing.   

For many orphan crops, old-­fashioned breeding techniques also hold big promise. Mathews Dida, a professor of plant genetics and breeding at Kenya’s Maseno University and an alumnus of the AOCC’s course in Nairobi, has focused much of his career on the iron-rich grain finger millet. He believes yields could more than double if breeders incorporated a semi-dwarf gene—a technique first used with wheat and rice in the 1960s. That would shorten the plants so that they don’t bend and break when supplied with nitrogen-based fertilizer. Yet money for such projects, which largely comes from foreign grants, is often tight. “The effort we’re able to put in is very erratic,” he says.

VACS, the new US government initiative, was envisioned in part to help plug these sorts of gaps. Its move to champion traditional crops marks a significant pivot. The United States was a key backer of the Green Revolution that helped consolidate the global dominance of rice, wheat, and maize during the 1960s and 1970s. And in recent decades its aid dollars have tended to support programs in Africa that also emphasize the chemical-­intensive farming of maize and other commercial staples. 

Change, though, was afoot: In 2021, with hunger on the rise, the African Union explicitly called for “intentional investments towards increased productivity and production in traditional and indigenous crops.” It found a sympathetic ear in Cary Fowler, a longtime biodiversity advocate who was appointed US special envoy for global food security by President Joe Biden in 2022. The 74-year-old Tennessean was a co-recipient of this year’s World Food Prize, agriculture’s equivalent of the Nobel, for his role in establishing the Svalbard Global Seed Vault, a facility in the Norwegian Arctic that holds copies of more than 1.3 million seed samples from around the world. Fowler has argued for decades that the loss of crop diversity wrought by the global expansion of large-scale farming risks fueling future hunger crises.

VACS, which complements the United States’ existing food security initiative, Feed the Future, began by working with the AOCC and other experts to develop an initial list of underutilized crops that were climate resilient and had the greatest potential to boost nutrition in Africa. It pared that list down to a group of 20 “opportunity crops” and commissioned models that assessed their future productivity under different climate-change scenarios. The models predicted net yield gains for many: Carbon dioxide, including that released by burning fossil fuels, is the key input in plant photosynthesis, and in some cases the “fertilization effect” of higher atmospheric CO2 can more than nullify the harmful impact of hotter temperatures. 

According to Fowler’s deputy, Anna Nelson, VACS will now operate as a “broad coalition,” with funds channeled through four core implementing partners. One of them, CGIAR, is spearheading R&D on an initial seven of those 20 crops—pigeon peas, Bambara groundnuts, taro, sesame, finger millet, okra, and amaranth—through partnerships with a range of research institutions and scientists. (Mabhaudhi, Achigan-Dako, and Tripathi are all involved in some capacity.) The FAO is leading an initiative that seeks to drive improvements in soil fertility, in part through tools that help farmers decide where and what to plant on the basis of soil characteristics. While Africa remains VACS’s central focus, activities have also launched or are being planned in Guatemala, Honduras, and the Pacific Community, a bloc of 22 Pacific island states and territories. The idea, Nelson tells me, is that VACS will continue to evolve as a “movement” that isn’t necessarily tied to US funding—or to the priorities of the next occupant of the White House. “The US is playing a convening and accelerating role,” she says. But the movement, she adds, is “globally owned.”

Making farm-to-table work

In some ways, the VACS concept is a unifying one. There’s long been a big and often rancorous divide between those who believe Africa needs more innovation-­driven Green Revolution–style agriculture and those promoting ecological approaches, who insist that chemically intensive commercial crops aren’t fit for smallholders. In its focus on seed science as well as crop diversity and soil, VACS has something to offer both. Still, the degree to which the movement can change the direction of Africa’s food production remains an open question. VACS’s initial funding—roughly $150 million pledged by the US and $50 million pledged by other governments as of August—is more than has ever been earmarked for traditional crops and soils at a single moment. The AOCC, by comparison, spent $6.5 million on its plant breeding academy over a decade; as of 2023, its alumni had received a total of $175 million, largely from external grants, to finance crop improvement. Yet enabling orphan crops to reach their full potential, says Allen Van Deynze, the AOCC’s scientific director, who also heads the Seed Biotechnology Center at the University of California, Davis, would require an even bigger scale-up: $1 million per year, ideally, for every type of crop being prioritized in every country, or between $500 million and $1 billion per year across the continent.

“If there are shortages of maize, there will be demonstrations. But nobody’s going to demonstrate if there’s not enough millet, sorghum, or sweet potato.”

Florence Wambugu, CEO, Africa Harvest

Despite the African Union’s support, it remains to be seen if VACS will galvanize African governments to chip in more for crop development themselves. In Kenya, the state-run Agricultural & Livestock Research Organization, or KALRO, has R&D programs for crops such as pigeon peas, green gram, sorghum, and teff. Nonetheless, Wambugu and others say the overall government commitment to traditional crops is tepid—in part because they don’t have a big impact on politics. “If there are shortages of maize, there will be demonstrations,” she says. “But nobody’s going to demonstrate if there’s not enough millet, sorghum, or sweet potato.”

Others express concern that some participants in the VACS movement, including global institutions and private companies, could co-opt long-standing efforts by locals to support traditional crops. Sabrina Masinjila, research and advocacy officer at the African Center for Biodiversity, a Johannesburg-based organization that promotes ecological farming practices and is critical of corporate involvement in Africa’s food systems, sees red flags in VACS’s partnerships with several Western companies. Most concerning, she says, is the support of Bayer, the German biotech conglomerate, for the IITA’s work developing climate-­resilient varieties of banana. In 2018 Bayer purchased Monsanto, which had become a global agrochemical giant through the sale of glyphosate, a weed killer the World Health Organization calls “probably carcinogenic,” along with seeds genetically modified to resist it. Monsanto had also long attracted scrutiny for aggressively pursuing claims of seed patent violations against farmers. Masinjila, a Tanzanian, fears that VACS could open the door to multinational companies’ use of African crops’ genetic sequences for their own private interests or to develop varieties that demand application of expensive, environmentally damaging pesticides and fertilizers.

According to Nelson, no VACS-related US funding will go to crop development that results in any private-sector patents. Seeds developed through CGIAR, VACS’s primary crop R&D partner, are considered to be public goods and are generally made available to governments, researchers, and farmers free of charge. Nonetheless, Nelson does not rule out the possibility that some improved varieties might require costlier, non-organic farming methods. “At its core, VACS is about making more options available to farmers,” she says.

While most indigenous-crop advocates I’ve spoken to are excited about VACS’s potential, several cite other likely bottlenecks, including challenges in getting improved varieties to farmers. A 2023 study by Benson Nyongesa, a professor of plant genetics at the University of Eldoret in Kenya, found that 33% of registered varieties of sorghum and 47% of registered varieties of finger millet had not made it into the fields of farmers; instead, he says, they remained “sitting on the shelves of the institutions that developed them.” The problem represents a market failure: Most traditional crops are self- or open-­pollinated, which means farmers can save a portion of their harvest to plant as seeds the following year instead of buying new ones. Seed companies, he and others say, are out to make a profit and are generally not interested in commercializing them.

Farmers can access seeds in other ways, sometimes with the help of grassroots organizations. Wambugu’s Africa Harvest, which receives funding from the Mastercard Foundation, provides a “starter pack” of seeds for drought-­tolerant crops like sorghum, groundnuts, pigeon peas, and green gram. It also helps its beneficiaries navigate another common challenge: finding markets for their produce. Most smallholders consume a portion of the crops they grow, but they also need cash, and commercial demand isn’t always forthcoming. Part of the reason, says Pamela Muyeshi, owner of Amaica, a Nairobi restaurant specializing in traditional Kenyan fare, is that Kenyans often consider indigenous foods to be “primitive.” This is especially true for those in urban areas who face food insecurity and could benefit from the nutrients these foods offer but often feel pressure to appear modern. Lacking economies of scale, many of these foods remain expensive. To the extent they’re catching on, she says, it’s mainly among the affluent.

The global research partnership CGIAR is spearheading R&D on several drought-tolerant crops, including green gram.
ADAM DETOUR

Similar “social acceptability” barriers will need to be overcome in South Africa, says Peter Johnston, a climate scientist who specializes in agricultural adaptation at the University of Cape Town. Johnston believes traditional crops have an important role to play in Africa’s climate resilience efforts, but he notes that no single crop is fully immune to the extreme droughts, floods, and heat waves that have become more frequent and more unpredictable. Crop diversification strategies, he says, will work best if paired with “anticipatory action”—pre-agreed and pre-financed responses, like the distribution of food aid or cash, when certain weather-related thresholds are breached.

Mutua, for his part, is a testament that better crop varieties, coupled with a little foresight, can go a long way in the face of crisis. When the drought hit in 2021, his maize didn’t stand a chance. Yields of pigeon peas and cowpeas were well below average. Birds, notorious for feasting on sorghum, were especially ravenous. The savior turned out to be green gram, better known in Kenya by its Swahili name, ndengu. Although native to India, the crop is well suited to eastern Kenya’s sandy soils and semi-arid climate, and varieties bred by KALRO to be larger and faster maturing have helped its yields improve over time. In good years, Mutua sells much of his harvest, but after the first season with barely any rain, he hung onto it; soon, out of necessity, ndengu became the fixture of his family’s diet. On my visit to his farm, he pointed it out with particular reverence: a low-lying plant with slender green pods that radiate like spokes of a bicycle wheel. The crop, Mutua told me, has become so vital to this area that some people consider it their “gold.”

If the movement to revive “forgotten” crops lives up to its promise, other climate-­stressed corners of Africa might soon discover their gold equivalent as well.

Jonathan W. Rosen is a journalist who writes about Africa. Evans Kathimbu assisted his reporting from Kenya.