Climate

Torrential downpours cause deadly mudslides in southern Peru, while more than 300 districts across the country declare states of emergency.

Peruvian authorities say they have recovered the bodies of a father and son who died in a mudslide triggered by heavy rains, which have battered the country’s southern regions of Ica and Arequipa, affecting an estimated 5,500 homes and forcing many people to evacuate.

Authorities in Arequipa have called on the country’s interim president to declare a state of emergency in the region as the governor announced that multiple shelters were being opened to house those fleeing the floods.

Peru’s Council of Ministers said on Monday that more than 700 districts nationwide have been declared in emergency status.

In Cayma, Arequipa, a vehicle was seen semi-buried under mud, and homes teetered on the verge of collapse after flash floods swept away the earth and destroyed roadways, the Reuters news agency reported.

According to the Associated Press news agency, the bodies of a father and son were recovered after being swept away by a landslide.

The recovery came a day after 15 people were killed when a military helicopter crashed while providing rescue services during the flooding.

Rescue teams found the wreckage of the helicopter in the Chala district, officials said. Seven children were among the 11 passengers and four crew members who died, according to the AFP news agency.

Torrential downpours have caused widespread damage across southern Peru, affecting about 5,500 homes and forcing many residents to evacuate.

Images shared by Peruvian media showed streets torn up in the affected areas and vehicles buried deep in the mud slides as rescue workers attempted to clear streets using mechanical earth movers.

The El Niño Costero (coastal) climate phenomenon has been the cause of the recent weeks of heavy rain in Peru, weather forecasters report, and is expected to strengthen slightly next month, threatening more heavy rain.

While El Niño is a natural cycle that has existed for millennia, scientists increasingly link its severity to climate change. Rising global temperatures provide a warmer “baseline” for the ocean, making it easier for these extreme heating events to reach record-breaking thresholds and increasing the atmosphere’s capacity to hold the moisture that fuels torrential rain and catastrophic flooding.

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide on shielding energy producers from dozens of lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for costs of global climate change.

In the past decade, dozens of cities, counties and states, including California, have joined state-based lawsuits that seek billions of dollars in damages, and they have won preliminary victories in state courts.

But the Trump administration and the energy producers urged the Supreme Court to throw out all of these suits on the grounds they conflict with federal law.

“Boulder Colorado cannot make energy policy for the entire country,” lawyers for Suncor Energy and Exxon Mobil said in their appeal. They urged the court to rule that “state law cannot impose the costs of global climate change on a subset of the world’s energy producers chosen by a single municipality.”

The justices will hear the case of Suncor Energy vs. Boulder County, but arguments will not be held until October.

The Biden administration had said the justices should stand aside while the lawsuits move forward in state courts, but the Trump administration filed a brief in September urging the court to intervene now.

They said the case has “vast nationwide significance,” and it should not be left to be decided state by state.

Lawyers for Boulder had urged the court against taking up the issue at an early stage of the litigation. “This is not the right time or the right case for deciding” whether municipalities can sue over the damage they have suffered.

But after weighing the issue for weeks, the court announced it will be hear the claims of the oil and gas industries.

HAMYANG, South Korea, Feb. 23 (UPI) — As harvest season approached last November, farmer Ma Yong-un walked through his apple orchard in southern South Korea with a growing sense of dread.

The Fuji apples hanging from the trees were pale, lacking the deep red color that signals sweetness and commands a good price. To make matters worse, many were splitting open as they ripened.

An unusually rainy fall had blocked the sunlight needed for proper coloring, following one of the hottest summers on record.

“I had never seen this kind of cracking before,” Ma, 55, told UPI on his farm in Hamyang, a rural county in South Gyeongsang Province. “I was so stressed. I was worried about my family’s survival.”

A late dry spell before the harvest helped salvage some color, but another year of punishing weather had taken its toll. Ma estimated that half his apples were not of good quality.

Across South Korea, similar stories have become increasingly common. Farmers are facing mounting losses from heat waves, heavy rainfall, droughts and shifting growing seasons — impacts scientists widely link to climate change.

Now, their experiences are moving from fields and paddies into a courtroom.

Ma is one of five plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit filed against state-owned utility Korea Electric Power Corporation, or KEPCO, and five of its power-generation subsidiaries. The suit seeks financial compensation for climate-related agricultural damages and asks whether a major corporate emitter can be held legally responsible for the downstream effects of climate change.

The case is the first of its kind in South Korea, according to Yeny Kim, an attorney with the Seoul-based nonprofit Solutions for Our Climate, which is representing the plaintiffs.

“Agriculture is an industry that is absolutely dependent on climate conditions,” Kim told UPI. “As the climate changes, we’re reaching a point where certain crops can no longer be grown. That leads to damages to farmland, reduced yields and increased costs just to grow the same amount of crops.”

Filed in August, the lawsuit argues that KEPCO’s greenhouse gas emissions materially contributed to climate change and, in turn, to the plaintiffs’ economic losses.

Quantifying climate damage

The case is based on an analysis estimating $72.9 billion in climate-related economic damages linked to KEPCO’s emissions between 2011 and 2023. During that period, KEPCO and its subsidiaries accounted for roughly 27% of South Korea’s total greenhouse gas emissions, making the utility the single largest corporate emitter in the country.

Globally, the companies’ emissions represented about 0.39% of cumulative worldwide emissions over the same timeframe — a figure the plaintiffs argue is sufficient to establish measurable responsibility for climate-driven harm.

“In a court of law, quantifiable harm means legal liability,” Kim said.

The lawsuit draws on the “polluter pays” principle, which holds that those responsible for pollution should bear the costs of the damage it causes. While widely used in environmental law, applying it to climate change remains largely untested in Korean courts.

Each plaintiff is seeking an initial 5 million won — about $3,400 — in damages, an amount that could be adjusted as the case proceeds. They are also requesting an additional 2,035 won, roughly $1.40, as symbolic compensation for the emotional and psychological toll they say climate change has imposed on their lives.

Hwang Seong-yeol, a rice farmer and fellow plaintiff, said anxiety and a sense of helplessness now shadow every growing season.

“We just look at the sky and wonder what the weather is going to be like,” Hwang said at a press briefing in Seoul in November. “Being stressed from physical labor is something we can endure. But the stress caused by climate change is completely unbearable.”

The suit’s first hearing took place at Gwangju District Court last month. Court records show the defendants have submitted multiple written responses contesting the claims. The next hearing is scheduled for April 23.

KEPCO did not respond to a request for comment. The company has pledged to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050, in line with South Korean government policy.

An economy at risk

South Korea has lagged other developed countries in transitioning away from fossil fuels. Government data show just 10.7% of the country’s electricity came from renewable sources in 2024, well below the global average of roughly 32%.

The country is also particularly exposed to climate disruptions abroad. South Korea imports the vast majority of its food — its calorie self-sufficiency rate stood at just 32.5% in 2023, roughly half the level recorded in 1990, according to the Korea Rural Economic Institute. The broader grain self-sufficiency rate, including animal feed, has fallen to 22.2%, among the lowest of any OECD country.

Nam Jae-Chol, a professor at Seoul National University and former administrator of the Korea Meteorological Administration, told UPI that dependence leaves the country vulnerable when climate shocks hit major exporters.

“When exporting countries begin to limit shipments because of climate impacts, that’s when the problem becomes visible,” Nam said. “If agricultural imports suddenly decline because of climate change, prices will skyrocket. In extreme cases, exports could even stop.”

“In 10 or 20 years, we’re going to face a serious crisis due to climate change,” Nam added. “It’s inevitable.”

In South Korea, warming temperatures have already pushed traditional crop-growing zones northward, forcing farmers to adapt — changing what they grow, how they manage water and how they run their operations, Nam said.

Ma said he first felt the full weight of climate change in 2018, when severe cold and frost tore through his orchard, a moment that convinced him the changes were accelerating.

Since then, he has cut his use of chemical fertilizers and tried more eco-friendly practices to improve soil health. He has also begun to consider whether he may eventually need to change crops or even move his orchard entirely — decisions that carry steep costs and uncertainty.

“The compensation is 5 million won, but the damages I suffered this fall alone were ten times more than that,” Ma said. “So the amount itself doesn’t really mean much.”

What he hopes, he said, is that the lawsuit makes those struggles harder to ignore.

“Climate change is already having a huge impact on our agriculture, and people need to see that,” Ma said. “KEPCO cannot continue operating this way, and Korea needs to change its energy policy toward something more sustainable.”

Environment group says FBI is visiting climate activists’ homes as Trump administration rolls back pollution protections.

Environmental group Extinction Rebellion has said that climate change activists associated with the group are being investigated by the Trump administration, which is also openly working to roll back environmental protections in the United States.

The group’s New York chapter said that at least seven of its activists have been visited by FBI agents since Trump’s second term began last year, including one person who had two special agents from the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force come to their home on February 6.

The Department of Justice also opened an investigation into the environmental group Climate Defiance earlier this month in response to what Extinction Rebellion said was a “viral peaceful protest”.

“Trump is weaponising the DOJ to attack peaceful protesters in order to appease a multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industry that got him elected,” Extinction Rebellion’s New York chapter said in a statement shared on Instagram.

“We can only assume that they are feeling threatened by our movement,” the statement added.

Known as XR, the activist group garnered media attention worldwide through disruption, hitting roads, airports and other public transport networks with direct action protests against climate change in major cities.

The environmental group’s global website says it is a “decentralised, international and politically non-partisan movement using non-violent direct action and civil disobedience to persuade governments to act justly” on the climate emergency.

Activist Greta Thunberg has previously attended actions organised by the group.

‘The single largest deregulatory action in American history’

According to the natural resource monitoring group Global Witness, fossil fuel companies, including Chevron and Exxon, donated $19m to President Donald Trump’s inaugural fund last year, representing 7.8 percent of the total amount raised. A number of fossil fuel companies also donated to Trump’s re-election campaign.

Trump, who has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job”, has taken several steps to fulfil his campaign promise to “drill, baby, drill” as president, including expanding oil extraction in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The Trump administration also recently revoked a 2009 government declaration known as the “endangerment finding”, which has been used as the legal basis for regulating pollution under the Clean Air Act, which was originally adopted in 1963.

Trump, who described the endangerment finding as “one of the greatest scams in history”, has claimed that repealing it was “the single largest deregulatory action in American history, by far”.

The move has prompted alarm from environmental and health groups, more than a dozen of which filed a lawsuit on Wednesday over the Environmental Protection Agency’s decision to withdraw the endangerment finding, saying removing it will lead to “more pollution, higher costs, and thousands of avoidable deaths”.

Cable seen by Al Jazeera says the US ‘strongly objects’ to the island nation seeking support for ICJ’s landmark climate ruling.

The United States is urging governments to pressure Vanuatu to withdraw a United Nations draft resolution supporting a landmark International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruling that countries have a legal obligation to act on climate change.

A US State Department cable seen by Al Jazeera on Saturday says that the Trump administration “strongly objects” to the proposed resolution being circulated by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu in support of last year’s ruling by the ICJ – the UN’s top court.

The Associated Press news agency, which also reported on the cable, said that it was circulated to all US embassies and consulates this week, shortly after Vanuatu announced it was putting forward the draft UN resolution for consideration.

“We are strongly urging Vanuatu to immediately withdraw its draft resolution and cease attempting to wield the Court’s Advisory Opinion as a basis for creating an avenue to pursue any misguided claims of international legal obligations,” a copy of the cable seen by Al Jazeera states.

The ICJ’s 15 judges considered tens of thousands of pages of written submissions and two weeks of oral arguments during the court’s biggest-ever case, before delivering their verdict last year that states have a legal obligation to act on the “existential threat” of climate change.

The ICJ case took place after Vanuatu won the support of 132 countries in the UN General Assembly, which can request opinions from The Hague-based court.

It also came as the Trump administration has sought to undo US action on climate change, both at home and at the UN.

The US cable claims that Vanuatu’s proposed UN resolution in support of the ICJ opinion was based on “speculative climate models to fabricate purported legal obligations that seek to assign blame and encourage baseless claims”.

Louis Charbonneau, Human Rights Watch’s director at the UN, urged support for Vanuatu’s draft resolution on Friday, saying “governments should live up to their obligation” to protect human rights around the world by protecting the environment.

“Responsible governments shouldn’t allow themselves to be bullied by those that reject the global scientific consensus and continue to support reliance on harmful fossil fuels,” he said.

Vanuatu’s UN Ambassador Odo Tevi, who said his country wants a vote on the resolution by the end of March, has stressed that it would ensure that the clarity in the ICJ ruling “strengthens global climate action and multilateral cooperation”.

An article in Vanuatu’s Daily Post newspaper said that the draft resolution has been endorsed by countries including Barbados, Burkina Faso, Colombia, Jamaica, Kenya, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, the Netherlands, Palau, the Philippines, Singapore and Sierra Leone.

Many of these countries are already experiencing the worsening effects of climate change, including increasingly severe storms.

Trump, who has promised to “drill, baby drill” for oil in his second term, has withdrawn the US from UN climate bodies, including the UN’s top climate change treaty body, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Trump has also threatened to impose sanctions on diplomats who voted for a levy on polluting shipping fuels at the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

Heads of state are arriving in Addis Ababa for the 2026 African Union Summit, with a water-focused theme centred on climate change. Conflicts in Sudan, South Sudan, DR Congo and the Sahel loom, while Israel’s recognition of Somaliland adds pressure over borders.

Gezani is forecast to return to cyclone status when it strikes southern Mozambique on Friday evening.

Nearly 40 people have been killed and more than 12,000 others displaced after Cyclone Gezani slammed into Madagascar’s second-largest city earlier this week, as Mozambique braced for the storm’s arrival.

Updating its tolls as assessments progressed, Madagascar’s National Office for Risk and Disaster Management (BNGRC) said on Thursday it had recorded 38 deaths, while six people remained missing and at least 374 were injured.

Gezani made landfall on Tuesday at the Indian Ocean island nation Madagascar’s eastern coastal city, Toamasina, bringing winds that reached 250km/h (155mph).

Madagascar’s new leader, Colonel Michael Randrianirina, has declared a national disaster and called for “international solidarity”, saying the cyclone had “ravaged up to 75 percent of Toamasina and surrounds”.

Images from the AFP news agency showed the battered city of 500,000 people littered with trees felled by strong winds and roofs blown off buildings.

Residents dug through piles of debris, planks and corrugated metal to repair their makeshift homes.

More than 18,000 homes were destroyed in the cyclone, according to the BNGRC, with at least 50,000 damaged or flooded. Authorities say many of the deaths were caused by building collapses, as many give inadequate shelter from strong storms.

The main road linking the city to the capital, Antananarivo, was cut off in several places, “blocking humanitarian convoys”, it said, while telecommunications were unstable.

The storm also caused major destruction in the Atsinanana region surrounding Toamasina, the disaster authority said, adding that assessments were still under way.

France announced the dispatch of food aid and rescue teams from its Reunion Island, about 1,000km (600 miles) away.

Thousands of people had been forced to leave their homes, said the United Nations’s International Organization for Migration (IOM), describing “widespread destruction and disruption”.

The cyclone’s landfall was likely one of the strongest recorded in the region during the satellite era, rivalling Geralda in February 1994, it said. That storm killed at least 200 people and affected half a million more.

Gezani weakened after landfall but continued to sweep across the island as a tropical storm until late on Wednesday.

It was forecast to return to cyclone status as it reaches the Mozambique Channel, according to the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre La Reunion (CMRS), and could from Friday evening strike southern Mozambique.

Mozambican authorities issued warnings on Thursday about the approaching storm, saying it could cause violent winds and rough seas of 10-metre waves and urging people to leave the area of expected impact.

Both Madagascar and Mozambique are vulnerable to destructive storms that blow in off the Indian Ocean. Just last month, the northwestern part of Madagascar was hit by Cyclone Fytia, killing at least 14 people.

Mozambique has already faced devastating flooding from seasonal rainfall, with nearly 140 lives lost since October 1, according to the country’s National Disasters Management Institute.

The United States has revoked a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for its actions to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

The decision on Thursday is the most aggressive move by President Donald Trump to roll back environmental regulations since the start of his second term.

Under his leadership, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finalised a rule rescinding a 2009 government declaration known as the “endangerment finding”.

It is the legal underpinning for nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.

Established under the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama, the finding establishes that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare.

But President Trump, a Republican, has called climate change a “hoax” and a “con job”. The endangerment finding, he argued, is “one of the greatest scams in history”, adding that it “had no basis in fact” or law.

“On the contrary, over the generations, fossil fuels have saved millions of lives and lifted billions of people out of poverty all over the world,” Trump said at a White House ceremony on Thursday.

He hailed the repeal of the endangerment finding as “the single largest deregulatory action in American history, by far”.

EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, who also attended the ceremony, described the endangerment finding as “the Holy Grail of federal regulatory overreach”.

Rescinding the endangerment finding repeals all greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks. It could also unleash a broader unravelling of climate regulations on stationary sources such as power plants and oil and gas facilities, experts say.

But Thursday’s new rule is likely to face pushback in the US court system.

Overturning the finding will “raise more havoc” than other actions Trump has taken to roll back environmental rules, environmental law professor Ann Carlson told The Associated Press news agency.

Environmental groups described the move as the single biggest attack in US history against federal authority to address climate change. Evidence backing up the endangerment finding has only grown stronger in the 17 years since it was approved, they said.

As part of Thursday’s decision, the EPA also announced it will end tax credits for automakers who install automatic start-stop ignition systems in their vehicles. The device is intended to reduce emissions, but Zeldin said “everyone hates” it.

Zeldin, a former Republican congressman who was tapped by Trump to lead EPA last year, has criticised his Democratic predecessors, saying that, in the name of tackling climate change, they were “willing to bankrupt the country”.

The endangerment finding “led to trillions of dollars in regulations that strangled entire sectors of the United States economy, including the American auto industry”, Zeldin said, criticising the leadership of Obama and former President Joe Biden in particular.

“The Obama and Biden administrations used it to steamroll into existence a left-wing wish list of costly climate policies, electric vehicle mandates and other requirements that assaulted consumer choice and affordability.”

The endangerment finding had allowed for a series of regulations intended to protect against climate change and related threats.

They include deadly floods, extreme heat waves, catastrophic wildfires and other natural disasters in the US and around the world.

Gina McCarthy, a former EPA administrator who served as the White House’s climate adviser in the Biden administration, called the Trump administration’s actions reckless.

“This EPA would rather spend its time in court working for the fossil fuel industry than protecting us from pollution and the escalating impacts of climate change,” she said.

EPA has a clear scientific and legal obligation to regulate greenhouse gases, McCarthy explained, adding that the health and environmental hazards of climate change have “become impossible to ignore”.

Thursday’s EPA action follows an executive order from Trump that directed the agency to submit a report on “the legality and continuing applicability” of the endangerment finding.

Conservatives have long sought to undo what they consider overly restrictive and economically damaging rules to limit the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.

Democratic Senator Ed Markey said that keeping the endangerment finding should have been a “no-brainer”.

“Trump and Zeldin are putting our lives and our future at risk,” he said in a video statement.

“They have rolled back protection after protection in a race to the bottom. Instead of ‘Let them eat cake,’ Zeldin is saying, ‘Let them breathe soot.’”

Feb. 10 (UPI) — Officials for the Environmental Protection Agency said they are working to end a 2009 declaration that says climate change is a danger to public health.

During the weekend, EPA officials submitted to the Office of Management and Budget a proposed rule revoking the 2009 endangerment finding that guided U.S. climate and greenhouse gas regulations.

The EPA did not say when the endangerment finding officially would be revoked, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested it would happen this week.

“This week at the White House, President [Donald] Trump will be taking the most significant deregulatory actions in history to further unleash American energy dominance and drive down costs,” Leavitt said in a prepared statement.

Revoking the endangerment finding removes the EPA’s statutory authority to regulate motor vehicle emissions that was provided via Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act of 1970, an EPA spokesperson told The Hill.

The endangerment finding is “one of the most damaging decisions in modern history,” the Leavitt said.

The Clean Air Act forces the EPA to regulate vehicle emissions that produce any pollutant that are reasonably thought to pose a danger to public health or welfare.

A 2007 Supreme Court ruling determined that greenhouse gas emissions that are thought to contribute to global warming meet the standard for air pollutants that require regulation due to their potential for harming public health.

The Obama administration in 2009 issued the endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions, which the prior Supreme Court ruling said requires the EPA to regulate them.

The EPA that year decided that greenhouse gas emissions likely would cause widespread “serious adverse health effects in large-population areas” due to increased ambient ozone over many areas of the United States.

“The impact on mortality and morbidity associated with increases in average temperatures, which increase the likelihood of heat waves, also provides support for a public health endangerment finding,” the EPA said in its endangerment finding.

“The evidence concerning how human-induced climate change may alter extreme weather events also clearly supports a finding of endangerment,” the EPA said, while acknowledging that the conclusion was based on “consensus.”

The finding said carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases are fueling storms, drought, heat waves, wildfires and rising seas, which pose a threat to public health.

Because the finding determined emissions from the burning of coal, gas and oil were said to contribute to climate change, the EPA undertook regulations of power plants, vehicles and other sources of greenhouse gas emissions, including gas stoves, ovens, water heaters and heating systems.

Revoking the endangerment finding ends those regulations, which could be reversed if a future administration reinstates the finding.

Leonardo is the latest in a series of half a dozen storms to batter the Iberian Peninsula this year.

A man has lost his life in Portugal after floodwaters engulfed his car, and in Spain, a girl has been reported missing after being swept away by a river as Storm Leonardo has battered the Iberian Peninsula with torrential rain and gale-force winds.

Leonardo is the latest in a wave of half a dozen storms to sweep across Portugal and Spain this year, causing several fatalities, destroying infrastructure and leaving thousands of homes without power.

Portuguese authorities confirmed on Wednesday that a 70-year-old man died in the southern region of Alentejo after floodwaters swept his vehicle off a road near a dam.

In southern Spain’s Malaga province, a girl remains missing after she was dragged away by the Turvilla River in Sayalonga while trying to rescue her dog. The animal reportedly managed to reach safety, and emergency teams resumed the search for the girl at first light on Thursday, according to local and national news reports.

“We spent the whole afternoon and night yesterday searching in the river from the place where the girl fell in until the very end of the river. We found the dog, but not her,” Malaga fire chief Manuel Marmolejo said on Spanish television on Thursday.

Spain’s State Meteorological Agency has warned that Storm Marta, the next front in the ongoing “storm train”, is expected to reach the region this weekend.

Portuguese Economy Minister Manuel Castro Almeida stated that reconstruction efforts after Storm Kristin alone may exceed 4 billion euros ($4.7bn).

In Alcacer do Sal in southern Portugal, residents were forced to wade through waist-deep water after the Sado River breached its banks following a series of storms. Restaurant terraces were submerged, and shopkeepers and homeowners used stacked sandbags in an attempt to protect their properties from the rising floodwaters.

“I’ve never seen anything like this. It’s surreal,” resident Maria Cadacha told the Reuters news agency. “There are a lot of people here, very good people, many shopkeepers, homes with damage. I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes.”

Andalusia’s emergency services reported attending to more than a million incidents by midnight on Wednesday.

Antonio Sanz, head of the regional government’s interior department, confirmed that 14 rivers and 10 dams were at “extreme” risk of overflowing due to the severe conditions.

In Portugal, the National Civil Protection authority registered at least 70 incidents by early Thursday as the region continued to monitor the impact of the storm.

Christophe Dubi, the IOC executive director for the Olympic Games, added: “We make a point to receive those petitions, and we have to recognise climate is a challenge for all of us.

“What we have to do as an organisation is to be at the forefront of sustainability, and our principles are very clear.”

One area the IOC is aiming to make the Olympics more sustainable is having Games take place over a wider area with more pre-existing facilities, and Coventry said Milan-Cortina is an acid test for whether this is a viable future.

Milan-Cortina takes place in three hubs spread across northern Italy – in Milan, Cortina and Livigno – with only two newly built sporting facilities: the Santagiulia ice hockey arena and Cortina Sliding Centre.

The next two Winter Olympics – French Alps 2030 and Utah 2034 – will also have sports spread more widely, while the 2032 Summer Olympics in Brisbane is will have venues across Queensland.

This has caused issues however, with Brisbane organisers saying, external they will go beyond the originally stated budget of $4.9bn (£3.6bn).

“We are really experiencing a spread out Games here for the first time – we are going to learn a lot,” Coventry said.

“We have taken this decision for sustainability reasons, climate and not having to have new venues. We are seeing there is an impact on National Olympic Committees because of the spreadness [sic], also for broadcast and media, making it harder to get around.

“What is really cool is that you get to see iconic venues in beautiful places – but now we have to weigh this up, the balance between a spread games for sustainability reasons but not shifting complexity and sustainability to different areas.”

While the action got underway on Wednesday with the start of the curling events, the 2026 Winter Olympics will officially start with the opening ceremony on Friday.

Coventry said she hoped all nations would be treated with respect by spectators, including the USA team amid criticism from Italian authorities about the presence of ICE agents in Milan.

“I hope the opening ceremony is seen by everyone as a chance to be respectful,” she said.

“For me, when we went to the Olympic village that is the best reminder of how the Games should be. I hope the opening ceremony will do that.”

The schism between Democratic environmental ideals and California voters’ anxiety about affordability, notably gas prices, were on full display during an environmental policy forum among some of the state’s top Democratic candidates for governor on Wednesday.

The Democrats questioned the economic impact Californians could face because of Gov. Gavin Newsom’s goal to have the state transition to zero-emission vehicles, a policy that would ban the sale of new gas-powered cars and trucks by 2035. The Trump administration has attempted to negate the policy by canceling federal tax credits for the purchase of such vehicles along with invalidating California’s strict emission standards.

“It’s absolutely true that it’s not affordable today for many people to choose” an electric vehicle, said former Rep. Katie Porter of Irvine. “It’s the fact that, particularly with expiring federal subsidies and the cuts that [President] Trump has made, an electric vehicle often costs $8,000 or $10,000 more. If we want people to choose EVs, we have to close that gap.”

Both Porter and rival Democratic candidate Xavier Becerra, who served as Health and Human Services secretary under former President Biden, said that as governor they would focus on making low-emission vehicles more affordable and practical. Porter said the cost of buying a zero-emission car needs to be comparable with those that run on gas, and Becerra said California needs to have enough charging stations so drivers “don’t have to worry can they get to their destination.”

“We know our future is in clean energy and in making our environment as clean as possible,” Becerra said. “We’ve got to make it affordable for families.”

Porter and Becerra joined two other Democrats in the 2026 California governor’s race — former hedge fund founder turned environmental advocate Tom Steyer and Rep. Eric Swalwell of Dublin — at the Pasadena event hosted by California Environmental Voters, UC Berkeley’s Center for Law, Energy & the Environment, the Climate Center Action Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. The Democrats largely agreed about issues such as combating climate change, accelerating the transition to clean energy and protecting California’s water resources.

The coalition invited the six candidates with greatest support in recent public opinion polls. Republicans Chad Bianco, the Riverside County sheriff, and Steve Hilton, a former Fox News commentator, did not respond to an invitation to participate in the forum, which was moderated by Sammy Roth, the writer of Climate-Colored Goggles on Substack, and Louise Bedsworth, executive director of the UC Berkeley center.

Newsom, who has acknowledged that he is considering a run for president in 2028, is serving the final year of his second term as governor and is barred from running again.

The state’s high cost of living, including high gas prices, continues to be a political vulnerability for Democrats who support California’s progressive environmental agenda.

In another controversial issue facing the state, most of the Democratic candidates on Wednesday distanced themselves from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta tunnel, a massive and controversial proposal to move water to Southern California and the Central Valley. Though it has seen various iterations, the concept dates back to Gov. Jerry Brown’s first foray as California governor more than four decades ago.

Despite Newsom’s efforts to fast-track the project, it has been stalled by environmental reviews and lawsuits. It hit another legal hurdle this month when a state appeals court rejected the state’s plan to finance the 45-mile tunnel.

Swalwell, Porter and Steyer argued that there are faster and less expensive ways to collect and deliver water to thirsty parts of California.

“We have to move much faster than the Delta tunnel could ever move in terms of solving our water problems,” Steyer said, adding that data and technology could be deployed to more efficiently deliver water to farms.

Swalwell said he does not support the project “as it’s designed now” and proposed covering “400 miles of aqueducts” with solar panels.

During Wednesday’s forum, Becerra also committed a gaffe as he discussed rooftop solar programs for Californians with a word that some consider a slur about Jewish people.

“We need to go after the shysters,” Becerra said. “We know that there are people who go out there to swindle families as they talk about rooftop solar, so we have to make sure that that doesn’t happen so they get the benefit of solar.”

The term is not viewed as derogatory as other antisemitic slurs and was routinely used in past decades, a spokesperson for the Becerra campaign noted after the event.

“Secretary Becerra never knew this word to be offensive and certainly he meant no disrespect to anyone,” said a campaign spokesperson. “He was talking about protecting the hardest-working and lowest-paid Californians who are often taken advantage of by unscrupulous actors.”