• Nature Climate Change (May 4, 2026) — Original paper: Atmospheric warming contributions from airborne microplastics and nanoplastics
• Scientific American — Airborne microplastics could be making climate change worse
• Gizmodo — Scientists identify another contributor to global warming
• Penn State — Microplastics impact cloud formation, likely affecting weather and climate
• C&EN — Airborne microplastics could be making the world warmer
• Business Standard — Microplastics found to trap heat, play role in global climate change
• Karmactive — Airborne microplastics carry 16.2% of black carbon's warming power

We are hurtling toward climate chaos. The planet's vital signs are flashing red. The consequences of human-driven alterations of the
climate are no longer future threats but are here now. This unfolding emergency stems from failed foresight, political inaction,
unsustainable economic systems, and misinformation. Almost every corner of the biosphere is reeling from intensifying heat, storms,
floods, droughts, or fires. The window to prevent the worst outcomes is rapidly closing.

Key Highlights
• The year 2024 set a new mean global surface temperature record, signaling an escalation of climate upheaval.

• Currently, 22 of 34 planetary vital signs are at record levels.

• Warming may be accelerating, likely driven by reduced aerosol cooling, strong cloud feedbacks, and a darkening planet.

• The human enterprise is driving ecological overshoot. Population, livestock, meat consumption, and gross domestic
product are all at record highs, with an additional approximately 1.3 million humans and 0.5 million ruminants added weekly.

• In 2024, fossil fuel energy consumption hit a record high, with coal, oil, and gas all at peak levels. Combined solar and
wind consumption also set a new record but was 31 times lower than fossil fuel energy consumption.

• So far, in 2025, atmospheric carbon dioxide is at a record level, likely worsened by a sudden drop in land carbon uptake
partly due to El Niño and intense forest fires.

• Global fire-related tree cover loss reached an all-time high, with fires in tropical primary forest up 370% over 2023,
fueling rising emissions and biodiversity loss.

• Ocean heat content reached a record high, contributing to the largest coral bleaching event ever recorded,
affecting 84% of reef area.

• So far, in 2025, Greenland and Antarctic ice mass are at record lows. The Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets
may be passing tipping points, potentially committing the planet to meters of sea-level rise.

• Deadly and costly disasters surged, with Texas flooding killing at least 135 people, the California wildfires alone
exceeding US$250 billion in damages, and climate-linked disasters since 2000 globally reaching more than US$18 trillion.

• Climate change is endangering thousands of wild animal species; more than 3500 species are now at risk and
there is new evidence of climate-related animal population collapses.

• The Atlantic meridional overturning circulation is weakening, threatening major climate disruptions.

• Climate change is already affecting water quality and availability, undermining agricultural productivity, sustainable
water management, and increasing the risk of water-related conflict.

• A dangerous hothouse Earth trajectory may now be more likely due to accelerated warming, self-reinforcing
feedbacks, and tipping points.

• Climate change mitigation strategies are available, cost effective, and urgently needed. From forest protection
and renewables to plant-rich diets, we can still limit warming if we act boldly and quickly.

• Social tipping points can drive rapid change. Even small, sustained nonviolent movements can shift public
norms and policy, highlighting a vital path forward amid political gridlock and ecological crisis.

• There is a need for systems change that links individual technical approaches with broader societal
transformation, governance, policies, and social movements.

Figure 1.Time series of climate-related human activities. In panel (f), tree cover loss does not account for forest gain
and includes loss due to any cause. For panel (h), statistics are based on total energy supply (Energy Institute 2025);
hydroelectricity and nuclear energy are shown in supplemental figure S2. Sources and additional details about each
variable are provided in supplemental file S1.

Figure 2.Time series of climate-related responses. For surface temperature anomaly (d), estimates based on a
segmented linear regression model are shown in gray (prior to 2010) and black (beginning in 2010). For area burned
(o), the black horizontal lines show changepoint model estimates, which indicate abrupt shifts (supplemental figure S3).
For other variables with relatively high variability, local regression trendlines are shown in black. The variables were
measured at various frequencies (e.g., annual, monthly, weekly). The labels on the x-axis correspond to midpoints of years.
Sources and additional details about each variable are provided in supplemental file S1.

In the last decade many publications have appeared on degrowth as a strategy to confront environmental and social problems. We undertake a systematic review of their content, data and methods. This involves the use of computational linguistics to identify main topics investigated. Based on a sample of 561 studies we conclude that: (1) content covers 11 main topics with the four dominant ones being Environmental justice, Sustainable wellbeing, Local/urban practices and Democracy and civil society; (2) the large majority (almost 90%) of studies are opinions rather than analysis; (3) few studies use quantitative or qualitative data, and even fewer ones use formal modelling; (4) the first and second type tend to include small samples or focus on non-representative cases; (5) most studies offer ad hoc and subjective policy advice, lacking policy evaluation and integration with insights from the literature on environmental/climate policies; (6) of the few studies on public support, a majority concludes that degrowth strategies and policies are socially-politically infeasible; (7) various studies represent a “reverse causality” confusion, i.e. use the term degrowth not for a deliberate strategy but to denote economic decline (in GDP terms) resulting from exogenous factors or public policies; (8) few studies adopt a system-wide perspective – instead most focus on small, local cases without a clear implication for the economy as a whole. We illustrate each of these findings for concrete studies.

The weakness of degrowth studies in terms of data analysis – whether quantitative or qualitative - is understandable to some extent. The idea of degrowth is so far from reality that good empirical studies are hardly possible. Undertaking experiments with degrowth is also impossible as one cannot isolate one part of society from the rest and subject it to a completely different economic regime.