Science

The impact of climate change on the SDGs 🌎 The latest State of the Global Climate 2024 report from WMO provides a clear assessment of how accelerating climate change is affecting global stability. With 2024 recorded as the hottest year on record—1.55°C above pre-industrial levels—the implications extend far beyond temperature increases. The findings highlight the direct and systemic risks climate change poses to achieving the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Rising temperatures, ocean acidification, sea-level rise, and glacial melt are driving widespread environmental and socio-economic disruptions. These changes are not occurring in isolation; they are interconnected, amplifying existing challenges related to food security (SDG 2), water availability (SDG 6), economic resilience (SDG 8), and biodiversity loss (SDGs 14 & 15). Ocean changes are among the most critical risks. Increasing ocean temperatures and acidification are disrupting marine ecosystems, reducing fish stocks, and weakening the ocean’s ability to act as a carbon sink. This has significant consequences for coastal communities, food security, and global supply chains. Glacial loss and sea-level rise are reshaping landscapes, affecting infrastructure, water resources, and human settlements. Coastal erosion, land degradation, and increased flooding threaten urban development (SDG 11), economic productivity (SDG 9), and disaster resilience (SDG 13). These impacts also contribute to population displacement, further straining social and economic systems. The increase in extreme weather events, from heatwaves to hurricanes, is exacerbating global inequality. Agricultural losses, infrastructure damage, and rising adaptation costs are disproportionately affecting developing regions, slowing progress toward economic stability, sustainable production, and resource security (SDGs 8 & 12). The WMO report emphasizes that while exceeding 1.5°C in a single year does not mean the Paris Agreement target has been breached, the trend underscores the urgency of reducing emissions and strengthening adaptation strategies. Without immediate action, climate risks will continue to escalate, undermining progress toward the SDGs and increasing long-term economic and environmental costs. Addressing these challenges requires systemic policy shifts, investment in climate resilience, and cross-sector collaboration. As climate change intensifies, integrating sustainability into decision-making at all levels will be essential to mitigating risks and safeguarding global development objectives. Source: State of the Global Climate 2024 #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #sdgs

🌍 We Can’t Afford to Get Climate Policy Wrong—A Look at the Data Behind What Really Works 🌍 In the race against time to combat climate change, bold promises are everywhere. But here’s the critical question: Are the policies being implemented actually reducing emissions at the scale we need? A groundbreaking study published in Science, cuts through the noise and delivers the insights we desperately need. Evaluating 1,500 climate policies from around the world, the research identifies the 63 most effective ones—policies that have delivered tangible, significant reductions in emissions. What’s striking is that the most successful strategies often involve combinations of policies, rather than single initiatives. Think of it as the ultimate teamwork: when policies like carbon pricing, renewable energy mandates, and efficiency standards are combined thoughtfully, the impact is far greater than any one policy could achieve on its own. It’s a powerful reminder that for climate solutions the whole is indeed greater than the sum of its parts. Moreover, the study’s use of counterfactual emissions pathways is a game changer. By showing what would have happened without these policies, it provides a clear, quantifiable measure of their effectiveness. This is exactly the kind of rigorous evaluation we need to ensure that every policy counts, especially when we’re working against the clock. If we’re serious about meeting the Paris Agreement’s targets, we need to focus on what works—and this research offers a clear roadmap. Let’s champion policies that have proven to make a difference, because we don’t have time to waste on anything less. 🔗 Full study in the comments #ClimateAction #Sustainability #PolicyEffectiveness #ParisAgreement #NetZero #ClimateScience

A couple of news items have me thinking. And frankly, getting a bit agitated. The first was the news that the Kiwisaver gender gap has got worse in the past year. New research from Te Ara Ahunga Ora The Retirement Commission shows a 36 percent gap between the amount men and women are putting into KiwiSaver each year, far outpacing the actual gender pay gap. Men and women are contributing the same percentage of their salaries, but women are disadvantaged by working part-time and taking greater (unpaid) care responsibilities. The other bit of not-unrelated news, is the NZ Herald’s list of top-earning CEOs. Of the top 10 - just one woman. In the 54 CEOs surveyed: seven women. In the immortal words of Carrie Bradshaw: I couldn’t help but wonder… WTF is going on here? How have we not come further? Of those top 10 CEO’s companies, how many are reporting on their gender pay gaps? (The answer, according to the Mind the Gap registry: 4) Is there a relationship between perimenopause/menopause support (or lack of it) and the lack of women in CEO roles in our top organisations? AND between perimenopause/menopause and the Kiwisaver gender gap? I think there might be. We know, for example, from the work of Sarah Hogan who found in her NZIER research that 14% of women said they had to reduce their working hours to manage their menopause symptoms, and 6% had changed roles. Twenty percent of women who experienced symptoms said it would have been helpful to be able to make adjustments, but they never requested any, mostly because of menopause and gendered ageism stigma. All of us who are working in menopause education have heard stories from women who - at a critical stage in their careers in midlife - have made the call to step back rather than step up into senior roles, because of the challenges of menopause and the lack of support for them in their organisations. We have to talk more about this. In fifty years we’ve made so little progress… we REALLY don’t want our granddaughters to be still facing these kinds of shocking statistics in fifty years’ time. 

I can always tell if an analyst is illogical by this one sign: Their presentations. When it comes to sharing insights, *how* you structure your message matters just as much as *what* you’re saying. Two simple concepts can make your presentations more effective: 1) Vertical logic 2) Horizontal logic ——— 1) Vertical logic is about focus Every slide should have one clear takeaway, which is stated right in the title (not descriptive like “Overview” or “Results” but something like “Sales dropped due to supply delays”). Everything else on the slide - charts, text, visuals - should support that message. ——— 2) Horizontal logic is about flow Each slide should build naturally from the one before it. Click through your deck and read only the slide titles. Does it read like a story from start to finish? ——— When you have both vertical and horizontal logic, your message is clearer, your deck flows, and your audience remains engaged. Here’s my quick checklist before presenting: ✅ Can I follow the storyline by reading just the slide titles?  ✅ Does each slide build on the one before it? ✅ Is the takeaway of each slide instantly clear? If not - back to editing! P.S. New here? I’m Morgan. I share my favorite data viz and data storytelling tips to help other analysts (and academics) better communicate their work.

For decades, we’ve been told “we need to save the planet”. But the truth is, the planet will be fine. Over billions of years it’s weathered asteroid impacts, ice ages, and mass extinctions at a scale we can hardly imagine. What’s at stake now is something far more fragile: us. That’s the message at the heart of a new Lancet article which argues that as the climate warms and ecosystems falter, we are no longer facing a purely environmental crisis, but a full-scale public health emergency. Environmental breakdown is no longer altering only forests, coastlines, and deserts. It is disrupting the very foundations of human health and wellbeing: our bodies. The true costs of planetary breakdown are not found in charts. They are found in neonatal units and cancer registries, in stolen potential, and in the quiet grief of families facing wholly preventable illnesses and deaths. Recognising that human and planetary health are inseparable should not just sharpen our sense of urgency, it must fundamentally reshape how we govern, invest, and lead. For the last 150 years, we have been dismantling the very foundations of prosperity and doing so in the name of prosperity itself. There was a time where we could feign ignorance, but that time has long passed. The science is clear. The risks are measurable. The costs are already being paid in hospital admissions, in economic disruption, and in the slow erosion of public trust. What remains in doubt is not the data, but whether those in power are prepared to govern in accordance with the world as it is, not as it once was.

Why so few female professors? 🔹97% of female professors say "barriers within academia" such as "implicit bias in evaluations, male networks and an unwelcoming academic culture" play an important role. 🔹Only 22% of male professors mention such barriers. Instead, male professors are more likely to point to "family factors" and "women's own interests and preferences". 🔹A majority of male professors shows "hesitation, uneasiness or reluctance when asked how the low proportion of female professors can be explained". Only 3% of female professors do so. These are among the key results of a study by sociologists Margaretha Järvinen and Nanna Mik-Meyer, based on 77 qualitative interviews with full professors in economics, political science, and sociology in Denmark. Moreover, the study identifies "a ‘silent standpoint’ among the participating male professors: the idea that women are generally less qualified than men as candidates for full professorships." Read the full study here: Margaretha Järvinen and Nanna Mik-Meyer (2026), The Silent Standpoint: How Professors Explain Gender Disparities in Academia, British Journal of Sociology, forthcoming: https://lnkd.in/eG6UkJ6x (open access) The quotes from the interviews in the "Supporting information" file are also quite illuminating. HT Marie Rosenkrantz Lindegaard

Today, I’m thrilled to share what I believe is the biggest breakthrough in microbiome science for a decade. Nature Magazine, the world's most influential scientific journal, has just published a scientific paper by ZOE's scientists, establishing the first reliable, repeatable, global way to measure the health of an individual’s gut microbiome. It represents the culmination of eight years of work at ZOE. Scientists have been trying to solve this puzzle for more than 20 years, right back to when they first discovered how important our gut microbes are for our health. It’s been achieved only because more than 34,000 ZOE members took part in this research. We’ve known for a long time that the microbiome is linked to cholesterol, inflammation, blood sugar control and even how we store fat. But we’ve never had a clear, evidence-based way to measure how healthy a microbiome actually is. This analysis finally delivers it, revealing a global ranking of microbes that works across populations, diets and environments. The insights are remarkable. Among the top 50 “good microbes” linked with better health, 22 were completely unknown to science until today, and most of the others have never been successfully grown in a lab. We also discovered clear links between these good microbes and health outcomes: healthy individuals carry around 3.6 more of these beneficial species, and people at a healthy weight carry about 5.2 more than those living with obesity. We also found a strong connection to diet. People eating healthier diets consistently have microbiomes that score better on this ranking. What we eat shapes our gut health, and now we can measure this relationship with unprecedented clarity. ZOE was created to enable microbiome research at a scale that traditional science has been unable to fund, and use this research to create actionable advice that can transform our gut health. This is a major milestone in that journey. I’m delighted to say that as a result, this breakthrough science is immediately available for the public to investigate their own microbiome through ZOE’s new Gut Health Test in the UK, and this is coming soon in the US. You can now receive not only a reliable measurement of how healthy your microbiome is as you change their diet, but also discover the health of clusters of gut microbes in your gut affecting metabolism, inflammation and more. To all our amazing ZOE members who have participated in our science: you made this possible. You are transforming our understanding of the microbiome. Thank you so much. I hope you feel as proud and excited as I do. I should note that your research is now published in Nature, which is the ultimate scientific accolade, and you can definitely brag about that with your friends! If you think this science could help others understand their health, I’d love for you to share it. You’ll find links to more details from our findings and access to the paper in the comments.

I've spent 10 years helping scientists communicate their research. I've never once thought that doing so could put their funding at risk. Until now. The US Office of Management and Budget has proposed a rule (Docket OMB-2026-0034) that, if it passes in October 2026, would fundamentally change how science gets funded in America. And I mean fundamentally. Here are the key points: 🔴 Political appointees, not scientists, decide which grants get funded. Peer review becomes advisory only. A political appointee can override the scientific community's judgment with zero explanation. 🔴 Active grants can be cancelled at any time, for any reason. Mid-project. No misconduct required. Just "doesn't align with our priorities anymore." 🔴 International collaboration is severely restricted. Travel, partnerships, joint research with scientists in dozens of countries: presumptively banned or requiring political sign-off. 🔴 Publication fees are unallowable. That means federally funded scientists may not be able to publish their findings Open Access. And then there's the one that hit me hardest as a science communicator: 🔴 Science communication could effectively be banned for federally funded researchers. The proposed rule prohibits using federal grant funds for any public communications that could be labelled "issue advocacy." Given that the rule's own preamble classifies climate science, public health research, and DEI research as "divisive ideology," a researcher speaking publicly about their own federally funded findings on any sensitive topic puts their entire grant at risk. NOTE: this is not yet law. The public comment period is open until approximately 13 July 2026. But this is what's being proposed, right now, for one of the most influential research ecosystems on the planet. At Animate Your Science, our mission is to help researchers communicate their work in ways that reach beyond journal paywalls and conference rooms. That mission only matters if scientists are allowed to communicate. What's being proposed here is a direct threat to that. I'll keep making noise about it. Please read and share the original breakdown by Elizabeth Ginexi. It is detailed and calm. And sadly it is worse than this post makes it look. 👉 https://lnkd.in/gNT2stY6

What’s holding back natural climate solutions? Natural climate solutions (NCS)—from reforestation and agroforestry to wetland restoration—have long been championed as low-cost, high-benefit pathways for reducing greenhouse gases. In theory, they could provide over a third of the climate mitigation needed by 2030 to stay under 2°C of warming. But in practice, progress is stalling. A sweeping new PNAS Nexus study reveals why. Drawing on 352 peer-reviewed papers across 135 countries, researchers led by Hilary Brumberg cataloged 2,480 documented barriers to implementing NCS. The obstacles are not ecological. Rather, they are human: insufficient funding, patchy information, ineffective policies, and public skepticism. The result is a vast “implementation gap” between what is technically possible and what is politically, economically, or socially feasible. The analysis found that “lack of funding” was the most commonly cited constraint globally—identified in nearly half of all countries surveyed. Yet it rarely stood alone. Most regions face a tangle of interconnected hurdles. Constraints from different categories often co-occur, compounding difficulties: poor governance erodes trust; disinterest stems from unclear benefits; technical know-how is stymied by bureaucratic confusion. These patterns vary by region and type of intervention. Reforestation projects, for instance, face particularly high scrutiny over equity concerns—especially in the Global South, where land tenure insecurity and historical injustices run deep. Agroforestry and wetland restoration often struggle with the complexity of design and monitoring. Meanwhile, grassland and peatland pathways remain understudied, despite their importance. The study’s most striking insight may be spatial. Countries within the same UN subregion tend to share a similar profile of constraints—more so than across broader development regions. This geographic clustering suggests an opportunity: Supranational collaboration, if properly resourced and attuned to local context, could address shared challenges more efficiently than isolated national efforts. Crucially, the authors argue that piecemeal fixes will not suffice. Because most countries face an average of seven distinct constraints, many from different domains, effective solutions must be integrated and cross-sectoral. Adaptive management—a flexible, feedback-based approach—could help. By identifying which barriers arise at each stage of an NCS project’s lifecycle, it may be possible to design interventions that are not just technically sound, but socially and politically viable. Natural climate solutions still hold vast potential. But unlocking it will require less focus on where trees grow best—and more on where people can make them thrive. 🔬 Brumberg et al 2025. Global analysis of constraints to natural climate solution implementation. PNAS Nexus. https://lnkd.in/gDmYJEph

🪄 3D printing just broke free from gravity — and it happened at Disneyland Paris. Coperni, in collaboration with Disney Research, showcased a revolutionary technique called Rapid Liquid Printing (RLP) — a gel-based 3D printing process that allows objects to form freely in liquid space. The innovation: Instead of building layer by layer, RLP prints directly inside a gel bath. The gel supports the structure as it forms, meaning objects can be “drawn” in mid-air with smooth, continuous motion. What’s new: • No gravity constraints — objects print in all directions. • No supports or post-processing needed — a simple rinse finishes the product. • Compatible with soft materials like silicone and rubber, enabling flexibility and realism. Why it matters: This breakthrough eliminates one of 3D printing’s biggest limitations — the need for support structures. It drastically speeds up production, reduces waste, and enables designs that were previously impossible. → Fashion and luxury design — complex, fluid shapes in textiles and accessories → Architecture and furniture — organic, continuous forms without assembly → Healthcare and robotics — flexible components mimicking natural motion To me, this represents the next era of creation — where 3D printing stops stacking layers and starts shaping ideas in real time. Could this be the moment 3D printing becomes as intuitive as sketching in air? #3DPrinting #Design #Manufacturing #Creativity #FutureOfWork #Engineering #ArtAndTech