̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Ramit Debnath

News article or big oil ad?

sc604 — Thu, 06 Mar 2025 16:43:33 +0000

In the battle against climate disinformation, native advertising is a fierce foe. A study published in the journal npj Climate Action by researchers from Boston ̽��ֱ�� (BU) and the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, evaluates two promising tools to fight misleading native advertising campaigns put forth by big oil companies.

Many major news organisations now offer corporations the opportunity to pay for articles that mimic in tone and format the publication’s regular reported content. These ‘native advertisements’ are designed to camouflage seamlessly into their surroundings, containing only subtle disclosure messages often overlooked or misunderstood by readers. Fossil fuel companies are spending tens of millions of dollars to shape public perceptions of the climate crisis.

“Because these ads appear on reputable, trusted news platforms, and are formatted like reported pieces, they often come across to readers as genuine journalism,” said lead author Michelle Amazeen from BU’s College of Communication. “Research has shown native ads are really effective at swaying readers’ opinions.”

̽��ֱ��study is the first to investigate how two mitigation strategies — disclosures and inoculations — may reduce climate misperceptions caused by exposure to native advertising from the fossil fuel industry. ̽��ֱ��authors found that when participants were shown a real native ad from ExxonMobil, disclosure messages helped them recognise advertising, while inoculations helped reduce their susceptibility to misleading claims.

“As fossil fuel companies invest in disguising their advertisements, this study furthers our understanding of how to help readers recognise when commercial content is masquerading as news and spreading climate misperceptions,” said co-author Benjamin Sovacool, also from BU.

“Our study showed that communication-led climate action is possible and scalable by countering covert greenwashing campaigns, such as native advertising, at the source,” said co-author Dr Ramit Debnath from Cambridge’s Department of Architecture. “ ̽��ֱ��insights we’ve gained from this work will help us design better interventions for climate misinformation.”

̽��ֱ��research builds on a growing body of work assessing how people recognise and respond to covert misinformation campaigns. By better understanding these processes, the researchers hope that they can prevent misinformation from taking root and changing people’s beliefs and actions on important issues like climate change.

‘ ̽��ֱ��Future of Energy’ ad

Starting in 2018, readers of ̽��ֱ��New York Times website encountered what appeared to be an article, titled “ ̽��ֱ��Future of Energy,” describing efforts by oil and gas giant ExxonMobil to invest in algae-based biofuels. Because it appeared beneath the Times’ masthead, in the outlet’s typical formatting and font, many readers likely missed the small banner at the top of the page mentioning that it was an ad sponsored by ExxonMobil.

̽��ֱ��ad, part of a $5-million-dollar campaign, neglected to mention the company’s staggering carbon footprint. It also omitted key context, ̽��ֱ��Intercept reported, like that the stated goal for algae-based biofuel production would represent only 0.2% of the company’s overall refinery capacity. In a lawsuit against ExxonMobil, Massachusetts cited the ad as evidence of the company’s “false and misleading” communications, with several states pursuing similar cases.

Putting two interventions to the test

̽��ֱ��researchers examined how more than a thousand participants responded to “ ̽��ֱ��Future of Energy” ad in a simulated social media feed.

Before viewing the ad, participants saw one, both, or neither of the following intervention messages:

An inoculation message designed to psychologically ‘inoculate’ readers from future influence by broadly warning them of potential exposures to misleading paid content. In this study, the inoculation message was a fictitious social media post from United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres reminding people to be wary of online misinformation.

A disclosure message with a simple line of text appearing on a post. In this study, the text “Paid Post by ExxonMobil” accompanied the piece. Studies have shown that more often than not, when native ads are shared on social media, this disclosure disappears.

Bolstering psychological resilience to native ads

̽��ֱ��team found that the ad improved opinions of ExxonMobil’s sustainability across the study’s many participants, regardless of which messages they saw, but that the interventions helped to reduce this effect. Some of the key findings include:

̽��ֱ��presence of a disclosure more than doubled the likelihood that a participant recognised the content as an ad. However, the participants who had seen a disclosure and those who had not were equally likely to agree with the statement “companies like ExxonMobil are investing heavily in becoming more environmentally friendly.”

Inoculation messages were much more effective than disclosures at protecting people’s existing beliefs on climate change, decreasing the likelihood that participants would agree with misleading claims presented in the ad.

“Disclosures helped people recognise advertising. However, they didn’t help them recognise that the material was biased and misleading,” said Amazeen. “Inoculation messaging provides general education that can be used to fill in that gap and help people resist its persuasive effects. Increasing general awareness about misinformation strategies used by self-interested actors, combined with clearer labels on sponsored content, will help people distinguish native ads from reported content.”

Reference

Michelle A Amazeen et al. ‘ ̽��ֱ��“Future of Energy”? Building resilience to ExxonMobil’s disinformation through disclosures and inoculation.’ npj climate action (2025). DOI: 10.1038/s44168-025-00209-6

Adapted from a Boston ̽��ֱ�� story.

A sneaky form of advertising favoured by oil giants influences public opinion with climate action misperceptions, but researchers are studying potential solutions.

rob dobi vai Getty Images

Fueling the Fire of Misinformation - stock photo

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Gender inequality ingrained in global climate negotiations, say researchers

cjb250 — Mon, 11 Nov 2024 08:52:16 +0000

In an article published today in Lancet Planetary Health, a team of researchers – including several from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge – argue that much more needs to be done to mitigate the impacts of climate change on women, girls and gender-diverse individuals.

Focusing specifically on the intersection between climate change, gender, and human health, the researchers call on countries to work harder to ensure there is gender equity within their delegations to climate conferences and to ensure climate strategies identify gender-specific risks and vulnerabilities and address their root causes.

As the world prepares for COP29, concerns about gender representation and equality have reignited following the initial appointment of 28 men and no women to the COP29 organising committee in January 2024.

̽��ֱ��effects of climate change – from heavy rains, rising temperatures, storms and floods through to sea level rises and droughts – exacerbate systemic inequalities and disproportionately affect marginalised populations, particularly those living in low-income areas.

While the specific situation may be different depending on where people live or their social background (like their class, race, ability, sexuality, age, or location), women, girls, and gender minorities are often at greater risk from the impacts of climate change. For example, in many countries, women are less likely to own land and resources to protect them in post-disaster situations, and have less control over income and less access to information, resulting in increased vulnerability to acute and long-term climate change impacts.

They are also particularly at risk from climate-related threats to their health, say the researchers. For example, studies have linked high temperatures to adverse birth outcomes such as spontaneous preterm births, pre-eclampsia and birth defects. Extreme events, which are expected to become more likely and intense due to climate change, also take a severe toll on women's social, physical, and mental well-being. Numerous studies highlight that gender-based violence is reported to increase during or after extreme events, often due to factors related to economic instability, food insecurity, disrupted infrastructure and mental stress.

Dr Kim Robin van Daalen, a former Gates Cambridge Scholar at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, and researcher at the Barcelona Supercomputing Center (BSC), said: “Given how disproportionately climate change affects women, girls and gender minorities – a situation that is only likely to get worse – we need to ensure that their voices are heard and meaningfully included in discussions of how we respond to this urgent climate crisis. This is not currently happening at anywhere near the level it needs to.”

̽��ֱ��team summarised the inclusion of gender, health and their intersection in key decisions and initiatives under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and analysed gender representation among representatives of Party and Observer State delegations at COPs between 1995-2023. Progress has been slow, they say.

They highlight how previous scholars have consistently noted that emphasis remains mainly on achieving a gender ‘number-based balance’ in climate governance, over exploring gender-specific risks and vulnerabilities and addressing their root causes. They also discuss how there remains limited recognition of the role climate change has in worsening gendered impacts on health, including gender-based violence and the lack of safeguarding reproductive health in the face of climate change.

Although the situation is slowly improving, at COP28, almost three-quarters (73%) of Party delegations were still majority men, and only just over one in six (16%) showed gender parity (that is, 45-55% women). In fact, gender parity has only been achieved in the ‘Western European and Other’ UN grouping (which also includes North America, Australia and New Zealand). Based on current trends, several countries - particularly those in the Asia-Pacific and Africa regions - are expected to take at least a decade from COP28 before reaching gender parity in their delegations.

Dr Ramit Debnath, former Gates Cambridge Scholar and now an Assistant Professor at Cambridge, said: “ ̽��ֱ��urgency of climate action, as well as the slow understanding of climate, gender, and health connections, is cause for concern. Institutions like the UNFCCC must recognize these disparities, design appropriate methods to improve gender parity in climate governance, and keep these representation gaps from growing into societal and health injustices.”

Beyond ensuring that their voices are heard, more equitable inclusion of women has consistently been suggested to transform policymaking across political and social systems, including the generation of policies that better represent women’s interests. Previous recent analyses of 49 European countries revealed that greater women’s political representation correlates with reduced inequalities in self-reported health, lower geographical inequalities in infant mortality and fewer disability-adjusted life-years lost across genders.

Similar positive findings have been reported related to environmental policies, with women’s representation in national parliaments being associated with increased ratification of environmental treaties and more stringent climate change policies. For example, women legislators in the European parliament and US House of Representatives have been found to be more inclined to support environmental legislation than men.

Dr Ronita Bardhan, Associate Professor at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, said: "Achieving equitable gender representation in climate action is not just about fairness - it's a strategic necessity with significant co-benefits. We can shape climate policies and infrastructure that address a broader spectrum of societal needs, leading to more inclusive solutions enhancing public health, social equity, and environmental resilience."

While the researchers’ analyses focused on achieving gender balance, studies on women’s involvement in climate governance suggest that increased representation does not by itself always lead to meaningful policy changes. Even when formally included, women’s active participation in male-dominated institutions is often constrained by existing social and cultural norms, implicit biases and structural barriers.

Dr van Daalen added: “If we’re to meaningfully incorporate gender into climate policy and practice, we need to understand the risks and vulnerabilities that are gender-specific and look at how we can address them and their root causes at all phases of programme and policy development.

“But we also need to resist reducing women to a single, homogenous group, which risks deepening existing inequalities and overlooks opportunities to address the needs of all individuals. It is crucial to recognise the diversity of women and their embodiment of multiple, intersecting identities that shape their climate experiences as well as their mitigation and adaptation needs.”

̽��ֱ��team also highlights that gender-diverse people face unique health and climate-related risks due to their increased vulnerability, stigma, and discrimination. For example, during and after extreme events, transgender people in the United States report being threatened or prohibited access to shelters. Similarly, in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Samoa, gender-diverse individuals often face discrimination, mockery, and exclusion from evacuation centres or access to food. Yet, say the researchers, there are major gaps in knowledge about the health implications of climate change for such groups.

Find out how Cambridge's pioneering research in climate and nature is regenerating nature, rewiring energy, rethinking transport and redefining economics - forging a future for our planet.

Reference
Van Daalen, KR et al. Bridging the gender, climate, and health gap: the road to COP29. Lancet Planetary Health; 11 Nov 2024; DOI: 10.1016/S2542-5196(24)00270-5

Climate governance is dominated by men, yet the health impacts of the climate crisis often affect women, girls, and gender-diverse people disproportionately, argue researchers ahead of the upcoming 29th United Nations Climate Summit (COP29) in Azerbaijan.

Given how disproportionately climate change affects women, girls and gender minorities, we need to ensure that their voices are heard and meaningfully included in discussions of how we respond to this urgent climate crisis

Kim van Daalen

Hansel ohioma

Surviving the flood at Ahoada in Rivers state Nigeria

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike

Personal carbon footprint of the rich is vastly underestimated by rich and poor alike, study finds

sc604 — Thu, 12 Sep 2024 09:00:23 +0000

An international group of researchers, led by the Copenhagen Business School, the ̽��ֱ�� of Basel and the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, surveyed 4,000 people from Denmark, India, Nigeria and the United States about inequality in personal carbon footprints – the total amount of greenhouse gases produced by a person’s activities – within their own country.

Although it is well-known that there is a large gap between the carbon footprint of the richest and poorest in society, it’s been unclear whether individuals were aware of this inequality. ̽��ֱ��four countries chosen for the survey are all different in terms of wealth, lifestyle and culture. Survey participants also differed in their personal income, with half of participants belonging to the top 10% of income in their country.

̽��ֱ��vast majority of participants across the four countries overestimated the average personal carbon footprint of the poorest 50% and underestimated those of the richest 10% and 1%.

However, participants from the top 10% were more likely to support certain climate policies, such as increasing the price of electricity during peak periods, taxing red meat consumption or subsidising carbon dioxide removal technologies such as carbon capture and storage.

̽��ֱ��researchers say that this may reflect generally higher education levels among high earners, a greater ability to absorb price-based policies or a stronger preference for technological solutions to the climate crisis. ̽��ֱ��results are reported in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Although the concept of a personal carbon or environmental footprint has been used for over 40 years, it became widely popularised in the mid-2000s, when the fossil fuel company BP ran a large advertising campaign encouraging people to determine and reduce their personal carbon footprint.

“There are definitely groups out there who would like to push the responsibility of reducing carbon emissions away from corporations and onto individuals, which is problematic,” said co-author Dr Ramit Debnath, Assistant Professor and Cambridge Zero Fellow at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge. “However, personal carbon footprints can illustrate the profound inequality within and between countries and help people identify how to live in a more climate-friendly way.”

Previous research has shown widespread misperceptions about how certain consumer behaviours affect an individual's carbon footprint. For example, recycling, shutting off the lights when leaving a room and avoiding plastic packaging are lower-impact behaviours that are overestimated in terms of how much they can reduce one’s carbon footprint. On the other end, the impact of behaviours such as red meat consumption, heating and cooling homes, and air travel all tend to be underestimated.

However, there is limited research on whether these misperceptions extend to people’s perceptions of the composition and scale of personal carbon footprints and their ability to make comparisons between different groups.

̽��ֱ��four countries selected for the survey (Denmark, India, Nigeria and the US) were chosen due to their different per-capita carbon emissions and their levels of economic inequality. Within each country, approximately 1,000 participants were surveyed, with half of each participant group from the top 10% of their country and the other half from the bottom 90%.

Participants were asked to estimate the average personal carbon footprints specific to three income groups (the bottom 50%, the top 10%, and the top 1% of income) within their country. Most participants overestimated the average personal carbon footprint for the bottom 50% of income and underestimated the average footprints for the top 10% and top 1% of income.

“These countries are very different, but we found the rich are pretty similar no matter where you go, and their concerns are different to the rest of society,” said Debnath. “There’s a huge contrast between billionaires travelling by private jet while the rest of us drink with soggy paper straws: one of those activities has a big impact on an individual carbon footprint, and one doesn’t.”

̽��ֱ��researchers also looked at whether people’s ideas of carbon footprint inequality were related to their support for different climate policies. They found that Danish and Nigerian participants who underestimated carbon footprint inequality were generally less supportive of climate policies. They also found that Indian participants from the top 10% were generally more supportive of climate policies, potentially reflecting their higher education and greater resources.

“Poorer people have more immediate concerns, such as how they’re going to pay their rent, or support their families,” said first author Dr Kristian Steensen Nielsen from Copenhagen Business School. “But across all income groups, people want real solutions to the climate crisis, whether those are regulatory or technological. However, the people with the highest carbon footprints bear the greatest responsibility for changing their lifestyles and reducing their footprints.”

After learning about the actual carbon footprint inequality, most participants found it slightly unfair, with those in Denmark and the United States finding it the most unfair. However, people from the top 10% generally found the inequality fairer than the general population, except in India. “This could be because they’re trying to justify their larger carbon footprints,” said Debnath.

̽��ֱ��researchers say that more work is needed to determine the best ways to promote fairness and justice in climate action across countries, cultures and communities.

“Due to their greater financial and political influence, most climate policies reflect the interests of the richest in society and rarely involve fundamental changes to their lifestyles or social status,” said Debnath.

“Greater awareness and discussion of existing inequality in personal carbon footprints can help build political pressure to address these inequalities and develop climate solutions that work for all,” said Nielsen.

̽��ֱ��study also involved researchers from Justus-Liebig- ̽��ֱ�� Giessen, Murdoch ̽��ֱ�� and Oxford ̽��ֱ��. ̽��ֱ��research was supported in part by the Carlsberg Foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Quadrature Climate Foundation and the Swiss National Science Foundation.

Reference:
Kristian S Nielsen et al. ‘Underestimation of personal carbon footprint inequality in four diverse countries.’ Nature Climate Change (2024). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-024-02130-y

̽��ֱ��personal carbon footprint of the richest people in society is grossly underestimated, both by the rich themselves and by those on middle and lower incomes, no matter which country they come from. At the same time, both the rich and the poor drastically overestimate the carbon footprint of the poorest people.

SolStock via Getty Images

A father and two sons running on a beach

Yes

Emissions and evasions

plc32 — Wed, 20 Dec 2023 15:58:09 +0000

How Big Oil influences climate conversations on social media.

Mother Nature knows best when it comes to climate solutions, social media users say

plc32 — Fri, 03 Nov 2023 16:01:48 +0000

A survey of more than a million social media posts suggests that people feel more positive about Nature's ability to solve climate change than human technology, according to new research published in the journal Global Environmental Change.

Where's the trust? US climate deniers have no faith in universities

plc32 — Wed, 06 Sep 2023 18:04:06 +0000

Based on a survey of thousands of US voters, co-authors Cambridge Zero Fellow and Assistant Professor Ramit Debnath, Professor R Michael Alvarez and Mr Danny Ebanks from Caltech, found that Americans who expressed negative and distrustful opinions about universities and academics were also the most likely to believe climate change is not caused by humans and is not a problem for the United States.

Despite increasing catastrophic weather events such as wildfires, flooding and news reports that hurricanes like Idalia this year have become wetter, windier and more intense because of rising global temperatures, the study revealed that almost half of US voters (45%) believe climate change isn’t a problem at all, and 41% of voters believe that climate change is a natural phenomenon not caused by humans.

Professor Debnath said: “This lack of trust in higher education and evidence-based research makes the public more vulnerable to opinion-based arguments from powerful actors who disproportionately profit from climate denialism.“

Among all the variables studied, such as age, gender, race, education and region, the most statistically significant factor in driving climate denialism was trust in institutions, the authors said. Young registered voters were most likely to trust institutions.

̽��ֱ��co-authors said that this distrust in climate science is one of the challenges to the successful implementation of climate action policies, such as climate change taxes (carbon taxes), congestion charges and efforts to end sales of the most-polluting vehicles.

Professor Debnath said: “If voters don’t believe in the proven outcomes of fundamental research, then how can politicians make the changes we need in the next decade to stop climate change?”

Additionally, the paper referenced a 2016 US poll, in which 57% of conservative Republicans were found to believe that climate research findings were influenced by scientists keen to advance their careers, while up to 22% of Americans declared they had no trust or not much trust in climate scientists.

In the paper, the authors included quotes from climate scientists whose growing frustrations with US climate denialism and lack of trust in academic research led them to refer to a “broken society-science contract” in desperate need of repair.

They conclude the paper by urging universities and scientists to re-establish public trust with improved science communication, providing public education that helps people to discern facts from opinion, improving the curriculum on understanding the scientific process at primary and secondary schools and persuading trusted religious leaders and influencers to pass on the proven facts of climate science.

Professor Debnath said: “If science wants to move the dial on the climate crisis, then we need to get out of our ivory towers and make regaining the public’s trust a key mission for every university.”

Reference

Alvarez, R M, Debnath, R, and Ebanks, D (2023). Why don’t Americans trust university researchers and why it matters for climate change. PLOS Climate; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pclm.0000147

US voters who don’t trust universities are also more likely to believe that human activity doesn’t cause climate change, a new collaborative study from researchers at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) revealed in PLOS Climate.

We need to get out of our ivory towers and make regaining the public’s trust a key mission for every university

Professor Ramit Debnath

Mika Baumeister on Unsplash

A man holds a sign that says 'Act now or swim later'

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Licence type:

Public Domain

Is Data Justice key to Climate Justice?

plc32 — Thu, 17 Aug 2023 11:00:00 +0000

Bias in the collection of data on which Artificial Intelligence (AI) computer programmes depend can limit the usefulness of this rapidly growing tool for climate scientists predicting future scenarios and guiding global action, according to a new paper by researchers at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge published in Nature’s npj |Climate Action series.

AI computer programmes used for climate science are trained to trawl through complex datasets looking for patterns and insightful information. However, missing information from certain locations on the planet, time periods or societal dynamics create “holes” in the data that can lead to unreliable climate predictions and misleading conclusions.

Primary author and Cambridge Zero Fellow Dr Ramit Debnath said that individuals with access to technology, such as scientists, teachers, professionals and businesses in the Global North are more likely to see their climate priorities and perceptions reflected in the digital information widely available for AI use.

By contrast, those without the same access to technology, such as indigenous communities in the Global South, are more likely to find their experiences, perceptions and priorities missing from those same digital sources.

“When the information on climate change is over-represented by the work of well-educated individuals at high-ranking institutions within the Global North, AI will only see climate change and climate solutions through their eyes,” Debnath said.

“Biased” AI has the potential to misrepresent climate information.

For example, it could generate ineffective weather predictions or underestimate carbon emissions from certain industries, which could then misguide governments trying to create policy and regulations aimed at mitigating or adapting to climate change.

AI-supported climate solutions which spring from biased data are in danger of harming under-represented communities, particularly those in the Global South with scant resources. These are often the same communities who also find themselves most vulnerable to the extreme weather events caused by climate change such as floods, fires, heatwaves and drought.

That is a combination which could lead to “societal tipping events”, the paper warns.

However, these “data holes” can be filled by human knowledge. ̽��ֱ��authors advocate for a human-in-the loop design to offer AI climate change programmes with a sense check on which data is used and the context in which it is used, in an effort to improve the accuracy of predictions and the usefulness of any conclusions.

̽��ֱ��authors mention popular AI chatbot model ChatGPT, which has recently taken the world by storm for its ability to communicate conversationally with human users. On ChatGPT, the AI can ask its human users follow-up questions, admit mistakes, challenge incorrect premises and reject inappropriate requests.

This ‘human-in-the-loop’ style AI allows bias to be noticed and corrected, the authors said. Users can input critical social information, such as existing infrastructure and market systems, to allow the AI to better anticipate any unintended socio-political and economic consequences of climate action.

“No data is clean or without prejudice, and this is particularly problematic for AI which relies entirely on digital information,” co-author, Cambridge Zero Director and climate scientist Professor Emily Shuckburgh said.

In highlighting the importance of globally inclusive datasets, the paper also promotes broadband internet access as a public necessity, rather than a private commodity, to engage as many users as possible in the design of AI for contemporary conversations about climate action.

̽��ֱ��paper concludes that human-guided technology remains instrumental in the development of socially responsible AI.

Less-biased AI will be critical to our understanding of how the climate is changing, and consequently in guiding realistic solutions to mitigate and adapt to the on-going climate crisis, the authors said.

Professor Shuckburgh, who also leads the UK national research funding body’s (UKRI) Centre for Doctoral Training on the Application of AI to the study of Environmental Risks (AI4ER), said that recognising the issue of data justice is the first step to better outcomes.

“Only with an active awareness of this data injustice can we begin to tackle it, and consequently, to build better and more trustworthy AI-led climate solutions,” she said.

Biased artificial intelligence needs human help to avoid harmful climate action, Cambridge researchers say.

No data is clean or without prejudice, and this is particularly problematic for AI which relies entirely on digital information

Professor Emily Shuckburgh

Photo by NOAA on Unsplash

Vehicles with weather observation equipment track a storm

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

Killer heatwaves endanger India's development

plc32 — Wed, 19 Apr 2023 15:32:01 +0000

Heatwaves could slow or reverse India’s progress towards Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) without heat impact assessments.