How much will climate change affect YOU? Scientists predict your lifetime exposure to heatwaves, floods, droughts, and wildfires - and it's bad news for Gen Alpha
Climate change is already having a catastrophic effect around the world, evident from European heatwaves to violent typhoons in the Pacific.
But the younger you are, the more likely these climate disasters will become the norm.
Researchers at Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) in Belgium warn that climate change will have a 'disproportionate burden' on the youth.
Today's children – so under 18s born in 2007 or later known as 'Gen Alpha' – will endure more climate extremes then any previous generation.
Depending on whether we curb our greenhouse gas emissions, up 1.5 billion children alive today face 'unprecedented lifetime exposure' to heatwaves, for example.
And 431 million of today's children face a lifetime of food shortages due to crop failures, the researchers predict.
Study author Wim Thiery, professor of climate science at VUB, said 'vulnerable children experience the worst escalation of climate extremes'.
'World leaders must step up to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen the climate burden on today's youth,' he said.
This graph shows the cumulative number of heatwaves faced since birth by children born in Brussels, Belgium, in 2020 under three climate change scenarios - 1.5°C (blue), 2.5°C (orange), and 3.5°C (red). The unprecedented exposure threshold (dashed grey line) is largely surpassed, implying that children in this location will face unprecedented lifetime heatwave exposure regardless of the scenario
For the new study, the team combined demographic data and climate model projections of the climate extremes around the world.
The team looked at six different climate extremes – heatwaves, crop failures, wildfires, droughts, floods and tropical cyclones.
They then calculated the number of children globally aged 5-18 in 2025 who will face 'unprecedented lifetime exposure' to the six climate extremes.
They define 'unprecedented lifetime exposure' as a stringent threshold that varies by location and type of climate extreme.
'It identifies populations facing climate extremes far beyond what could be expected without man-made climate change,' said lead author Dr Luke Grant at VUB.
They imagined three different scenarios – where humans manage to limit global warming by 1.5°C (2.7°F), 2.5°C (4.5°F) and 3.5°C (6.3°F) by the year 2100.
At present, the world is only 0.2°C away from the 1.5°C threshold, which the legally-binding Paris Agreement is forcing global powers to try and avoid.
Overall, the team found there's an 'urgent need' to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to protect the wellbeing of current and future young generations.
In all, 855 million children worldwide will face unprecedented exposure to heatwaves even if we manage to limit global warming to 1.5°C (2.7°F), they reveal.
But if global warming reaches a more serious 3.5°C by 2100, a whopping 1.5 billion children worldwide will be similarly exposed.
Although heatwaves will be the most prominent threat, the five other extremes will affect many millions of today's children, regardless of warming scenario.
For example, under a 1.5 °C warming scenario, 119 million children aged 5-18 in 2025 will face unprecedented lifetime exposure to wildfires – but this increases to 147 million under a 3.5°C scenario.
Similarly, under a 1.5 °C warming scenario, 132 million children aged 5-18 in 2025 will face unprecedented lifetime exposure to river floods – but this increases to 191 million under a 3.5 °C scenario.
Overall, the highest fraction of children facing unprecedented lifetime exposure is for heatwaves (92 per cent of 2020 birth cohort with 3.5°C of warming), followed by crop failures (around 30 per cent) and river floods (around 15 per cent).
Even if we successfully limit global warming to 1.5°C by 2100, 52 per cent of children born in 2020 will face unprecedented heatwave exposure, compared to only 16 per cent of those born in 1960.
'The numbers vary per climate extreme, but the general pattern is the same,' Professor Thiery told MailOnline.
'The younger the generation, and the higher the warming pathway, the higher the percentage of the birth cohort facing unprecedented lifetime exposure to the considered climate extreme.'
Also, the team highlight that the most 'socioeconomically vulnerable' children, such as those living in impoverished communities around the world will 'experience the worst escalation of climate extremes'.
Under current climate policies, the most socioeconomically vulnerable children born in 2020 will almost all (95 per cent) endure unprecedented exposure to heatwaves in their lifetime, compared to 78 per cent for the least vulnerable group.
The study, published today in the journal Nature, highlights the 'social injustice' of climate change and its impacts.
Those born in the last five or 10 years, who are not responsible for the current rate of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, will 'bear the brunt'.
Inger Ashing, CEO of Save the Children International, said: 'Across the world, children are forced to bear the brunt of a crisis they are not responsible for.
'Dangerous heat that puts their health and learning at risk; cyclones that batter their homes and schools; creeping droughts that shrivel up crops and shrink what's on their plates.
'Amid this daily drumbeat of disasters, children plead with us not to switch off.
'This new research shows there is still hope, but only if we act urgently and ambitiously to rapidly limit warming temperatures to 1.5 °C, and truly put children front and centre of our response to climate change.'
Carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect: A primer
The greenhouse effect is the reason our planet is getting too hot to live on.
CO2 released by human activity is accumulating as an 'insulating blanket' around the Earth, trapping more of the sun's heat in our atmosphere.
CO2 - and other greenhouse gases - are emitted by actions such as burning fossil fuels like coal for energy, burning forests to make way for livestock and
Fertilisers containing nitrogen produce nitrous oxide emissions - another greenhouse gas.
Meanwhile, fluorinated gases are emitted from equipment and products that use these gases.
Such emissions have a very strong warming effect, up to 23,000 times greater than CO2.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Women who have weekly sex are happier in relationships, study finds
A new study has revealed that women who have sex at least once a week are the 'happiest' in their relationship. Scientists found 85 per cent of women who had sex once a week described themselves as 'sexually satisfied'. In contrast, only 66 per cent of women who had sex once a month reported the same level of relationship bliss, and the figure fell to 17 per cent among those who had intercourse less than this. Alexandra Janssen, author of the study and researcher at the University of Manchester, told 'While the study shows an association between frequency of sex and sexual relationship satisfaction, this is only a correlation.' Janssen added: We don't know whether women are happier because they are having more sex, if they are having more sex because they are happier, or if they are happier and having more sex because of other factors-perhaps they don't have kids. Also, the fact that women who have less sex are also less satisfied in their relationship isn't particularly surprising.' The data showed that satisfaction was also higher for women who reported more regular orgasms and rated sex as an important part of their life. Janssen went on: 'What I found interesting in the study was that, while women who orgasmed more frequently were generally happier in their sex lives, women who orgasmed 100 per cent of the time weren't the most satisfied. 'This contradicts the belief that women are most satisfied when they have an orgasm at every sexual encounter. It shows that women don't have to orgasm every time they have sex to be satisfied in their relationship. I hope that this takes the pressure off women who might struggle to achieve orgasm 100 per cent of the time.' Janssen's study also found that women who rated sex as 'very important' had happier love lives than those who did not. Other findings from the study, published in the International Journal Of Sexual Health, found that of the women surveyed those aged 18 to 24 were most likely to report being sexually satisfied. In contrast, women over the age of 45 were the least likely to report being happy with their intimate relationship. The study was based on a survey of 483 women from New Zealand who had been in a committed relationship within the past year. The authors noted their study did have some limitations. One was that being a survey, there was no way to verify if what the women reported was true. Another was that the group of predominantly heterosexual women surveyed was not very diverse, which could limit the scope of findings to other groups.
Telegraph
4 hours ago
- Telegraph
Big Bang theory is wrong, claim scientists
The Big Bang theory is wrong and the universe is sitting inside a black hole, scientists have suggested. Researchers previously believed everything that exists exploded from a single point of infinite density, known as singularity, since the 1930s, when Georges Lemaitre, a Belgian theoretical physicist, proposed that the universe emerged from a 'primeval atom' – the theory known as the Big Bang. An international team of physicists, led by the University of Portsmouth's Institute of Cosmology and Gravitation, has now suggested instead that the universe formed following a huge gravitational collapse that generated a massive black hole. Matter within the black hole was crunched down before huge amounts of stored energy caused it to bounce back like a compressed spring, creating our universe. The new theory has been named Black Hole Universe and suggests that, rather than the birth of the universe being from nothing, it is the continuation of a cosmic cycle. It also claims that the edge of our universe is the event horizon, which is a point around a black hole from which light cannot escape, making it impossible for us to see beyond into our parent universe. It implies other black holes may also contain unseen universes. Prof Enrique Gaztañaga said: 'We've shown that gravitational collapse does not have to end in a singularity and found that a collapsing cloud of matter can reach a high-density state and then bounce, rebounding outward into a new expanding phase. 'What emerges on the other side of the bounce is a universe remarkably like our own. Even more surprisingly, the rebound naturally produces a phase of accelerated expansion driven not by a hypothetical field but by the physics of the bounce itself. 'We now have a fully worked-out solution that shows the bounce is not only possible – it's inevitable under the right conditions.' Defying quantum mechanics The Big Bang theory was based on classic physics, but scientists have struggled to make it fit with the known effects of quantum mechanics, which sets a limit on how much matter can be compressed. Physicists such as Roger Penrose and Prof Stephen Hawking had suggested that gravitational collapse inside a black hole must lead to a singularity, but under the new model that does not need to happen. Matter does not need to crunch down infinitely, just enough so it can bounce back. Unlike the Big Bang theory, the new theory model aligns with both the general theory of relativity and quantum physics. Prof Gaztañaga added: 'In contrast to the famous singularity theorems by Penrose and Hawking, which assume that matter can be compressed indefinitely, we rely on the fact that quantum physics places fundamental limits on how much matter can be compressed. 'The Black Hole Universe also offers a new perspective on our place in the cosmos. In this framework, our entire observable universe lies inside the interior of a black hole formed in some larger 'parent' universe. 'We are not special. We are not witnessing the birth of everything from nothing, but rather the continuation of a cosmic cycle – one shaped by gravity, quantum mechanics, and the deep interconnections between them.' The theory that the universe might exist inside a black hole was first proposed in 1972 by Raj Kumar Pathria, an Indian theoretical physicist, but gained little traction. However, recent observations by the James Webb Space Telescope have reignited interest in the concept. Anomaly of galaxies' rotation In March, images of early galaxies showed that two thirds were spinning clockwise, with the remaining third rotating anti-clockwise. In a random universe, the distribution should be even – so something was causing an anomaly. One explanation is that the universe was born rotating, which would occur if it had been created in the interior of a black hole. Lior Shamir, an associate professor of computer science at Kansas State University said: 'That explanation agrees with theories such as black hole cosmology, which postulates that the entire universe is the interior of a black hole.' Black holes form when the core of a massive star collapses under its own galaxy, leading to a supernova explosion. They cannot be seen because of the strong gravity that is pulling light into the black hole's centre. However, scientists can see the effects of its strong gravity on the stars and gases around it, and it sometimes forms an accretion disc of spiralling gas which emits x-rays. Under the theory of black hole cosmology, each black hole could produce a new 'baby universe' connected to the outside universe through a an Einstein-Rosen bridge, or a 'wormhole'. Scientists are hoping that the new model may be able to explain other mysteries in the universe, such as the origin of supermassive black holes, the nature of dark matter, or the formation and evolution of galaxies.
Daily Mail
5 hours ago
- Daily Mail
Scientist reveals exactly how long it would take for humans to go EXTINCT if we stopped having babies
It is a terrifying prospect right out of a dystopian science fiction movie. But a scientist has now revealed exactly how long it would take for humanity to go extinct if we stopped having babies. Since very few people live beyond a century, you might think that humanity would take around 100 years to vanish. However, according to Professor Michael Little, an anthropologist at Birmingham University, we would probably disappear even faster. That's because there would eventually not be enough young people of working age to keep civilisation functioning. Writing in The Conversation, Professor Little explained: 'As an anthropology professor who has spent his career studying human behavior, biology and cultures, I readily admit that this would not be a pretty picture. 'It's likely that there would not be many people left within 70 or 80 years, rather than 100, due to shortages of food, clean water, prescription drugs and everything else that you can easily buy today and need to survive. 'Eventually, civilization would crumble.' If all of humanity suddenly lost the ability to have children, the world would not end overnight. Instead, the world's population would gradually shrink as the older generations die and fail to be replaced by the next. If there were enough food and supplies to go around, the world's population would simply get older until everyone currently on Earth died of old age. The countries that would show the most rapid declines would be those with already ageing populations such as Japan and South Korea. Meanwhile, countries with younger populations such as Niger, where the median age is just 14.5, would remain well-populated for longer. However, much like in the science fiction classic Children of Men, Earth's extinction would not follow such a smooth trajectory into oblivion. Professor Little says: 'Eventually there would not be enough young people coming of age to do essential work, causing societies throughout the world to quickly fall apart. 'Some of these breakdowns would be in humanity's ability to produce food, provide health care and do everything else we all rely on. 'Food would become scarce even though there would be fewer people to feed.' This societal collapse would likely lead to Earth's depopulation well before most people live out their natural lifespans. Luckily, Professor Little says that an abrupt halt in births is 'highly unlikely unless there is a global catastrophe'. One possible scenario that could lead to such a disaster is the spread of a highly contagious disease which causes widespread infertility. Studies suggest there are only a small number of viruses which have an impact on male fertility, including deadly strains such as Zika virus and HIV. But none of these cause infertility in 100 per cent of cases and many only have mild impacts on fertility-related issues such as reduced sperm count. This means that a virus which wipes out the world's ability to reproduce thankfully remains a matter for science fiction. However, the possibility of facing a rapidly ageing population due to a declining birth rate is a far more pressing concern. The world's population has boomed in the last 100 years, expanding from just 2.1 billion in 1930 to 8.09 billion today. Current estimates suggest that humanity will continue to expand until the mid-2080s, reaching a peak of 10 billion. But as humanity reaches its peak size, the number of babies being born each year is already beginning to fall. In some cases, fertility rates have now fallen below the 'replacement rate' of 2.1 children per woman needed to maintain a stable population. Combined with growing life expectancy, this means the average age of many countries has begun to increase. Billionaire Elon Musk - who has 14 children with four women - has for years warned about population collapse caused by a 'baby bust' in America and the West. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics found that the fertility rate fell to just 1.44 children per woman in 2024 down from the 'Baby Boom' of 2.47 children per woman in 1946. This is leading to a rapid increase in the average age, reaching 40.7 years in 2022 from 39.6 years in 2011. England and Wales only recorded 591,072 live births in 2023, the lowest number since 1977. This has brought the UK's fertility rate below the 'replacement rate' - the number of babies per woman needed to maintain a stable population Other countries are facing an even greater birth rate crisis, sparking serious concerns for economic growth. China, which artificially dropped its birth rate through the 'one child policy', has a fertility rate of just 1.18 children per women. This has led many to worry about how a dwindling working-age population will be able to care for a growing number of elderly people. While falling birth rates alone aren't likely to destroy humanity, Professor Little cautions that humans should be wary. Professor Little says: 'Our species, Homo Sapiens, has been around for at least 200,000 years. That's a long time, but like all animals on Earth we are at risk of becoming extinct.' He points to the example of the Neanderthals, a close relative of Homo sapiens, which lasted over 350,000 years before gradually declining and becoming extinct. Professor Little added: 'Some scientists have found evidence that modern humans were more successful at reproducing our numbers than the Neanderthal people. 'This occurred when Homo sapiens became more successful at providing food for their families and also having more babies than the Neanderthals.' So what is behind the West's baby bust? Women worldwide, on average, are having fewer children now than previous generations. The trend, down to increased access to education and contraception, more women taking up jobs and changing attitudes towards having children, is expected to see dozens of countries' population shrink by 2100. Dr Jennifer Sciubba, author of 8 Billion and Counting: How Sex, Death, and Migration Shape Our World, told MailOnline that people are choosing to have smaller families and the change 'is permanent'. 'So it's wise to focus on working within this new reality rather than trying to change it,' she said. Sex education and contraception A rise in education and access to contraception is one reason behind the drop off in the global fertility rate. Education around pregnancy and contraception has increased, with sex education classes beginning in the US in the 1970s and becoming compulsory in the UK in the 1990s. 'There is an old adage that 'education is the best contraception' and I think that is relevant' for explaining the decline in birth rates, said Professor Allan Pacey, an andrologist at the University of Sheffield and former chair of the British Fertility Society. Elina Pradhan, a senior health specialist at the World Bank, suggests that more educated women choose to have fewer children due to concerns about earning less when taking time off before and after giving birth. In the UK, three in 10 mothers and one in 20 fathers report having to cut back on their working hours due to childcare, according to ONS data. They may also have more exposure to different ideas on family sizes through school and connections they make during their education, encouraging them to think more critically about the number of children they want, she said. And more educated women may know more about prenatal care and child health and may have more access to healthcare, Ms Pradhan added. Professor Jonathan Portes, an economist at King's College London, said that women's greater control over their own fertility means 'households, and women in particular, both want fewer children and are able to do so'. More women entering the workplace More women are in the workplace now than they were 50 years ago — 72 vs 52 per cent — which has contributed to the global fertility rate halving over the same time period. Professor Portes also noted that the drop-off in the birth rate may also be down to the structure of labour and housing markets, expensive childcare and gender roles making it difficult for many women to combine career aspirations with having a family. The UK Government has 'implemented the most anti-family policies of any Government in living memory' by cutting services that support families, along with benefit cuts that 'deliberately punish low-income families with children', he added. As more women have entered the workplace, the age they are starting a family has been pushed back. Data from the ONS shows that the most common age for a women who were born in 1949 to give birth was 22. But women born in 1975, were most likely to have children when they were 31-years-old. In another sign that late motherhood is on the rise, half of women born in 1990, the most recent cohort to reach 30-years-old, remained childless at 30 — the highest rate recorded. Women repeatedly point to work-related reasons for putting off having children, with surveys finding that most women want to make their way further up the career ladder before conceiving. However, the move could be leading to women having fewer children than they planned. In the 1990s, just 6,700 cycles of IVF — a technique to help people with fertility problems to have a baby — took place in the UK annually. But this skyrocketed to more than 69,000 by 2019, suggesting more women are struggling to conceive naturally. Declining sperm counts Reproductive experts have also raised the alarm that biological factors, such as falling sperm counts and changes to sexual development, could 'threaten human survival'. Dr Shanna Swan, an epidemiologist at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, authored a ground-breaking 2017 study that revealed that global sperm counts have dropped by more than half over the past four decades. She warned that 'everywhere chemicals', such as phthalates found in toiletries, food packaging and children's toys, are to blame. The chemicals cause hormonal imbalance which can trigger 'reproductive havoc', she said. Factors including smoking tobacco and marijuana and rising obesity rates may also play a role, Dr Swan said. Studies have also pointed to air pollution for dropping fertility rates, suggesting it triggers inflammation which can damage egg and sperm production. However, Professor Pacey, a sperm quality and fertility expert, said: 'I really don't think that any changes in sperm quality are responsible for the decline in birth rates. 'In fact, I do not believe the current evidence that sperm quality has declined.' He said: 'I think a much bigger issue for falling birth rates is the fact that: (a) people are choosing to have fewer children; and (b) they are waiting until they are older to have them.' Fears about bringing children into the world Choosing not to have children is cited by some scientists as the best thing a person can do for the planet, compared to cutting energy use, travel and making food choices based on their carbon footprint. Scientists at Oregon State University calculated that the each child adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the 'carbon legacy' of a woman. Each metric ton is equivalent to driving around the world's circumference. Experts say the data is discouraging the climate conscious from having babies, while others are opting-out of children due to fears around the world they will grow up in. Dr Britt Wray, a human and planetary health fellow at Stanford University, said the drop-off in fertility rates was due to a 'fear of a degraded future due to climate change'. She was one of the authors behind a Lancet study of 10,000 volunteers, which revealed four in ten young people fear bringing children into the world because of climate concerns.
