Glyphosate is a common weed killer used by farmers around the world to control weeds, protect crops, and reduce the need for labor-intensive hand weeding, such as pulling weeds by hand or using mechanical tools to clear fields. It has also become one of the world’s most debated farm chemicals because of concerns about how its use affects soil, water, and people. At the center of the debate is a difficult food-system question: can the world reduce its reliance on chemicals like glyphosate while still growing enough food for a rising population?

Research on glyphosate has reached mixed conclusions. Supporters argue that glyphosate helps farmers control weeds more efficiently, protect crop yields, and reduce the time and cost of field labor. Critics argue that heavy reliance on glyphosate can harm ecosystems, contribute to herbicide-resistant weeds, and raise concerns about long-term effects on soil, water, and human health. This makes the debate difficult because both concerns are real: governments want safer food and healthier environments, but farmers also need reliable ways to protect harvests. In regions where hunger and food insecurity remain serious, those trade-offs become even harder to ignore. In 2024, hunger affected about 323 million people in Asia and 307 million people in Africa. These numbers do not explain every glyphosate regulation, many of which developed over years, but they show why the question still matters today. 

Any debate over glyphosate has to hold two truths at once: farmers need tools to protect harvests, and communities need food systems that are safer, healthier, and less dependent on chemical inputs. Across Asia and Africa, the debate is no longer just about weeds. It is about what ends up on our plates, how farmers grow our food, and whether today’s food systems can protect both people and the planet. 

Asia: A Patchwork of Bans, Restrictions, and Food-Safety Rules

In Asia, governments and communities want safer food and healthier environments, but they also know farmers rely on herbicides to control weeds, reduce labor and protect yields. So glyphosate policy is not moving in one direction. Some governments are trying bans or restrictions, while others are using food-safety standards, residue limits, and registration systems.

Vietnam

Vietnam shows how a country can restrict glyphosate domestically while still keeping the chemical inside its food-safety system. In 2019, Vietnam moved to ban glyphosate imports and suspended registrations for glyphosate products, citing health and environmental concerns. But Vietnam continued to maintain maximum residue limits for glyphosate in food, showing that glyphosate didn’t disappear from the regulatory system. Instead, this case shows the tension between reducing domestic use and still managing food trade, imported products, and residue rules.

India

India took a different path. In 2022, the government restricted glyphosate use so that it could only be applied through pest control operators. The order cited health hazards and risks to humans and animals. The government later clarified that this was not a full ban on the sale, distribution, or use of glyphosate-based pesticides. For farmers, however, this approach raises a practical challenge: if glyphosate can only be applied by trained operators, farmers need reliable access to those operators at the right time in the growing season. India’s case shows how a restriction can look clear in law but become more complicated in real fields.

Sri Lanka and Thailand

Sri Lanka shows why pesticide reform cannot rely on bans alone. The country banned glyphosate in 2015, partly because of health concerns, but later reversed course after pressure from tea, rubber, and other agricultural sectors. Thailand followed a softer version of the same pattern: it considered stronger restrictions but kept glyphosate legal under limits after farmer, trade, and agricultural pressure.

China, Japan, South Korea

Other Asian countries are taking a more regulatory approach. China, Japan, and South Korea are not mainly trying to ban glyphosate; they are managing pesticide risk through food-safety standards, maximum residue limits, testing, and import controls. China’s 2026 food-safety standard includes 10,749 maximum residue limits and 350 testing methods for 585 pesticides, showing how food safety is increasingly being handled through monitoring rather than prohibition. Japan applies its Positive List System to pesticide residues in food, and its import inspection plan has specifically flagged some foods, such as chickpeas, for the possibility of glyphosate residues over the MRL. South Korea uses its own Positive List System as well: since 2019, agricultural products without an established Korean MRL are generally subject to a default limit of 0.01 ppm, making residue control a strict compliance issue for both domestic and imported foods. 

Together, these cases show that regulation does not always mean a ban; in China, Japan, and South Korea, the main approach is to keep glyphosate inside a controlled food-safety system rather than remove it entirely.

The key lesson from Asia is that safer food systems need more than a simple choice between banning glyphosate and leaving it unregulated. Across Vietnam, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, China, Japan, and South Korea, governments are trying to reduce risk while still protecting food production, trade, and farmers’ ability to manage weeds. Without practical support for farmers, a ban or restriction may protect consumers in theory while creating new challenges in the field.

Africa: Fewer Bans, But Growing Pressure

In Africa, the glyphosate debate is even more closely tied to food security. More than 20% of Africa’s population faced hunger in 2024, and farmers are also dealing with drought, flooding, high input costs, and limited support. In that context, herbicides can become part of a survival strategy, even when communities worry about exposure and food safety.

South Africa

In early 2026,testing commissioned by the African Centre for Biodiversity in South Africa reported glyphosate and AMPA residues in everyday foods such as maize meal, wheat flour, bread, and infant cereal. Advocacy groups called for stronger action, while producers and industry voices emphasized compliance with existing safety limits. The disagreement is really about trust, people want to know not just whether food is legal, but whether it is truly safe for daily consumption.

Kenya

Kenya points to another growing trend: pesticide debates are moving into courts. In 2025, Kenya’s High Court allowed a pesticide-related petition to proceed as a class action, opening the door for affected communities to join. The case is broader than glyphosate, but it reflects a larger shift that pesticide exposure is increasingly being treated as a public-health, environmental justice, and food-safety issue.

Zimbabwe

Zimbabwe shows a third response: using testing and food standards to address public concern. After a public allegation that maize meal imported and processed by Grain Millers Association of Zimbabwe members contained harmful glyphosate residues, the Standards Association of Zimbabwe tested six mealie meal samples and reported that the detected levels were below the test method’s 0.5 ppm limit. Zimbabwe’s maize meal standard also requires maize meal to comply with Codex maximum pesticide residue limits. The result is not a ban or a lawsuit, but a regulatory response built around testing, standards, and public reassurance.

The challenge for Africa is turning concern into practical change. Stronger testing and enforcement matter, but farmers also need affordable alternatives, extension services, and support for soil health. Otherwise, pesticide reform can become another burden on the people already carrying the hardest part of the food system.

Can We Grow Enough Food Without Depending on Chemicals?

The need to grow enough food to feed its people drives how countries make regulations and laws governing the use of chemicals like glyphosate. As shown by actions in countries across Asia and Africa, there is no one specific answer. In some places, pressure from the population causes the government to act, while in other places, certain industries have more influence. At heart, the goal is the same – to provide a healthier food future while also protecting people from harm. 

One potential path to farming without chemicals is regenerative farming. Want to know more about regenerative agriculture and EARTHDAY.ORG’s research on food? Check out our Foodprints for the Future articles.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at woods@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post The Global Debate over Glyphosate appeared first on Earth Day.

Giant pandas are one of the most recognizable animals in the world, but many of the most interesting things about them are far less well known. Behind the black-and-white fur is an animal with unusual genetics, strange reproductive biology, an ancient evolutionary history, and a body far stronger than its gentle image suggests. Here are 9 surprising facts about giant pandas.  

1. There are two kinds of giant pandas: the Sichuan giant panda and the Qinling giant panda of Shaanxi.

Scientists generally recognize two subspecies of giant panda: the more common Sichuan giant panda and the Qinling giant panda, which lives in the Qinling Mountains of Shaanxi. Qinling pandas are known for their somewhat browner chest and belly fur, as well as differences in skull and tooth shape.  The two panda groups have distinct genetic traits, and because the Qinling panda preserves an older genetic lineage, they are not casually crossbred.

2. Giant pandas are all nearsighted.

Their poor vision may be linked to the fact that they have long lived in dim, obstacle-filled bamboo forests, where sharp eyesight is less necessary and visual function may have gradually weakened. Exact estimates of panda nearsightedness differ, but pandas appear to see best at close range and can distinguish details especially well within about half a meter.

At the same time, pandas have highly developed senses of smell and hearing, which help compensate for their weak eyesight when finding food, detecting danger, and communicating with other pandas.

3. Panda babies are like tiny premature-looking human newborns.

A newborn giant panda cub is astonishingly small. At birth, it usually weighs only about 90 to 130 grams (roughly 3 to 5 ounces), and measures around 15 to 18 centimeters long, about the size of a stick of butter. Cubs are born pink, nearly hairless, blind, and extremely fragile. They are also very loud. Their constant crying is not just noise, it helps the mother keep track of them and avoid accidentally crushing them.

4. Giant pandas can seem to “pause” pregnancy, and females have only a very short breeding window.

This idea comes from a real biological phenomenon called delayed implantation. After fertilization, the embryo may not immediately implant in the uterus, which makes panda pregnancy hard to detect and easy to misunderstand. Female giant pandas also have only one brief fertile period each year, and that window usually lasts just 24 to 72 hours. So while people joke that pandas have babies depending on their mood, the truth is that panda reproduction is biologically complicated and tightly timed.  

5. Pandas are far stronger and more dangerous than they look.

Giant pandas may look cuddly, but they are still large bears with powerful jaws, teeth, claws, and forelimbs. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service notes that pandas have very powerful jaws and teeth for crushing bamboo, and anatomical research also suggests that giant pandas are well adapted for tree climbing.  One widely cited study of 151 carnivores ranked the giant panda fifth overall in bite force, behind only (polar bears > tigers > brown bears >lions). Studies commonly place a giant panda’s bite at around 1,300 newtons at the canines and about 1,800 newtons at the carnassial teeth. That is roughly equal to having the weight of a 130- to 180-kilogram object concentrated at one biting point

6. The panda lineage is ancient.

Giant pandas are not a recent species in evolutionary terms. Fossil and genetic evidence shows that the panda lineage goes back millions of years, making it one of the oldest surviving branches of the bear family. In China, the earliest likely references to giant pandas date back to ancient works such as the Shijing and Shangshu, placing them in the written record for over 2,500 years. They are not just modern conservation icons, they are survivors of an ancient lineage.  

7. Pandas descended from meat-eating ancestors but gradually became bamboo specialists.

Giant pandas belong to the order Carnivora, and their ancestors were meat-eating animals. Over time, however, pandas shifted toward a diet that is now about 99 percent bamboo. Research has also found that pandas lost normal function in a taste receptor associated with savory, meat-related flavors, which may help explain why meat became less appealing. Even so, their digestive system is still more like that of a carnivore than that of a true herbivore, which is one reason they must spend so much of the day eating.  

8. Giant pandas are solitary animals and need a lot of territory.

Adult pandas usually live alone and have strong territorial tendencies. Instead of constant social interaction, they communicate mainly through scent marking. According to San Diego Zoo, a panda’s home range can span several square kilometers, depending on food availability and habitat quality, depending on food availability and habitat quality. That means a single adult may need an area as large as hundreds or even thousands of soccer fields. This is one reason habitat fragmentation is such a major threat to pandas because pandas do not just need bamboo, they need enough connected forest to live and move safely.  

9. Most giant pandas really are “Cancers” or “Leos.”

Most panda cubs are born in July and August. That is because the breeding season usually takes place in spring, when females enter their short annual fertile period. As a result, panda birthdays cluster in late summer, with only a small number born outside that pattern. 

In recent years, giant pandas have moved from Endangered to Vulnerable. In China, years of habitat protection, forest restoration, and conservation work have helped panda populations recover, while also supporting the many other species that share their home.

To help restore and protect habitats around the world, support EARTHDAY.ORG’s Canopy Tree Project. Because in the end, animals cannot ask for help, but we can choose to act for them.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at woods@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post 9 Surprising Facts About Giant Pandas appeared first on Earth Day.

At a recent Earth Day cleanup event, Block by Block Philly brought residents, volunteers, local partners, and community organizations together to address litter, illegal dumping, and neighborhood waste. The event reflected the spirit of EARTHDAY.ORG’s 2026 theme, “Our Power, Our Planet,” by showing how environmental action can begin at the local level, one block at a time.

Block by Block Philly began with someone seeing street litter and illegal dumping up close. These problems do more than make a neighborhood look rundown. They affect public health, weaken residents’ sense of safety, and create the feeling that a community has been forgotten. By organizing cleanup events across Philadelphia, Block by Block Philly works to change that reality through direct, visible action.

During the event, a Block by Block Philly representative emphasized that community building is at the center of their work. When asked what he wanted to be remembered for, he said he wanted to be remembered as a “community builder.”

That spirit of partnership was clear throughout the event. He talked about working with an aligned nonprofit, a kids’ sports nonprofit, and a local coffee shop to make the cleanup happen. This kind of teamwork turns environmental work into something bigger: a space where neighbors meet, local groups support one another, and residents feel more connected to the place they live.

The event was also rooted in the idea that Earth Day should not be limited to one day of action.

That sense of purpose is especially important in a city like Philadelphia, where environmental challenges are often tied to broader issues of public health, safety, and inequality. Litter, illegal dumping, and poor waste management are not just environmental concerns. They shape how residents feel about their streets, their neighborhoods, and their ability to shape the place they call home.

For Block by Block Philly, cleanup work is a way to push back against that feeling of neglect. It gives residents a chance to reclaim public spaces and show that their neighborhoods deserve care. The organization also connects cleanup efforts with education, art, and local culture, helping environmental action feel visible, local, and lasting.

One of the most powerful parts of the event was the way it brought people from different parts of the city together. The interviewee, who lives in the neighborhood, said the turnout made them feel “welcomed and loved.” He mentioned seeing someone come from South Philly all the way to North Philly to help with the cleanup.

That quote captures the deeper meaning of Block by Block Philly’s work that they are not only cleaning streets, but also creating moments where people can see themselves as part of a larger citywide community. When someone crosses neighborhood lines to help clean another part of Philadelphia, the act becomes more than volunteer service, but a statement of shared responsibility.

This is what “Our Power, Our Planet” can look like at the neighborhood level. It is not always a distant or abstract idea. Sometimes it looks like residents gathering on a street, local partners showing up with support, volunteers removing trash, and people choosing to care for a block that belongs to all of them. “Block by block, neighbor by neighbor.”  Block by Block Philly is helping turn environmental action into community power. In the face of litter, illegal dumping, and public health concerns, the organization’s work shows that change can begin with one cleanup, one partnership, and one group of people deciding that their community is worth protecting.

The post Cleaning up Philadelphia, Block by Block appeared first on Earth Day.

As a member of the female community, I sometimes look at a closet full of clothes and still feel like I have nothing to wear. When I see a cute outfit online or in a store, I immediately picture myself wearing it. I imagine it for a party, a dinner, or a trip, and tell myself it will make me feel brand new, more confident, or simply more put-together. On hard days, I even justify it as a reward: “Life is not easy. I deserve one new thing.”

Most of the time, we are not buying clothes to solve a simple “missing item” problem. We buy to regulate emotion, signal identity and status, and feel ready for social situations. Fast fashion does not create those needs in the first place, but it makes satisfying them quick and easy by removing friction. With constant promotions, algorithmic recommendations, one click checkout, and easy returns, it becomes much harder to resist impulse buying.

From Identity to Anxiety

In consumer research, fashion is often described as symbolic consumption: people use clothing to signal identity, belonging, and social status. Even when casually browsing online, a consumer will make quick judgments about how a look might shape the way they are seen, such as more put-together, more professional, or more on-brand.

That is why aesthetics like “professional,” “clean girl,” and “old money” spread so fast. They work less like outfits and more like identity shortcuts. Brand visibility can also function as a status signal. Fast fashion intensifies both dynamics by making identity updates cheap, fast, and endlessly replaceable. When a look goes viral, brands copy it quickly and sell it at low prices, encouraging trend-chasing over long-wear quality. What looks like “more choice” often becomes pressure to keep updating, fueling identity anxiety and higher-frequency buying.

From Stress to Checkout

Many people buy clothes not only out of need, but to regulate emotion. In consumer psychology this is often discussed as emotion-regulation or compensatory consumption: when people feel stressed or powerless, a purchase can briefly restore a sense of control. Fast fashion exploits that quick relief and turns it into a repeatable habit.

Shopping is also driven by anticipation. When something looks like it will make a person feel better, the brain’s reward system can respond with a release of dopamine, strengthening the urge to act. Fast fashion keeps that loop running by removing friction. Low prices, limited-time deals, personalized recommendations, and one-click checkout shrink the pause for second thoughts. Mini-rewards like confirmation screens, shipping updates, and unboxing make the cycle easier to repeat. The reward is short-lived, so the urge returns quickly. 

Social media speeds up the same cycle by turning buying into entertainment through hauls and unboxing. It also normalized constant “refreshes,” allowing fast fashion to deliver newness faster than most people can wear what they already own.

From Being Seen to Buying More

In photo and short-video-driven social media, clothing functions as public self-presentation: outfits can be posted, compared, and judged by others at any time. This visibility can turn “repeating an outfit” into a subtle social pressure to keep buying, especially for Gen Z, increasing the motivation to buy more frequently. 

Platforms amplify impulsive buying through scarcity cues such as countdowns, limited quantities, and “low stock” warnings that trigger FOMO (fear of missing out) and compress deliberation. At the same time, microtrends spread rapidly on TikTok and Instagram, shortening trend cycles and making “newness” feel like a requirement. Fast fashion benefits from this accelerated pace by delivering novelty quickly, transforming visibility, fear of repeating, and fear of missing out into higher-frequency consumption.

From Cheap to Costly Later

Fast fashion doesn’t win because it’s truly “better value.” It wins because prices are designed to feel like a deal. And make walking away harder than clicking “buy.”

First comes price anchoring: an original “was” price or a higher-priced comparison that makes the current price look like a bargain. Then promotions push shoppers to buy more than they planned  like “second item cheaper,” “spend more, save more,” and free-shipping thresholds that turn one item into a larger cart. Online timers and low-stock alerts add urgency and shrink the time to think.

Buy Now, Pay Later (BNPL) installments can intensify this by splitting payments, reducing the pain of paying upfront. “Cheap” is the surface; the system makes costs feel smaller now and pushes them into later.

From Scrolling to a Closed-Loop Cart

Platforms make shopping feel automatic. When consumers pause on certain looks, recommendation systems keep feeding similar items, shaping what they see next and reinforcing a simple identity story that this style fits them. The result is less searching, more exposure, and a stronger urge to buy.

At checkout, saved payment, autofill, and one click purchasing shorten the moment where people might reconsider. Research from Cornell reported that when shoppers were given one click checkout, their long term average spending increased by about 28.5%. Fast delivery and easy returns then lower the perceived risk, especially for apparel sizing. Many shoppers respond by ordering multiple sizes to try, keeping one and returning the rest. This makes buying feel reversible, but it shifts real costs to extra shipping, packaging, processing, and unsold inventory.

We can interrupt this cycle! Before your next order, pause for 10 seconds and ask: are you buying a piece of clothing, or are you buying an emotion, an identity, or a sense of social security? Fast fashion is designed to turn that moment into one-click checkout, but the costs come back through resource depletion and waste.

Starting today, take back your power of choice and buy less, buy better. Sign The Fashion Industry Must Change Petition, and use the 30 wears test before you buy: will you wear it at least 30 times, or could you create a similar look with what you already own? If this resonated, share it with a friend and help make repeating outfits normal again.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at woods@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post What Makes People Buy: The Fast Fashion Trap appeared first on Earth Day.

Let’s clarify one thing first; not all U.S. insurers have stopped paying out for extreme weather damage. Many standard homeowners policies still cover named perils like fires, storms, and hail. But as of early 2026, higher premiums aren’t the only thing making people nervous. Claims are harder to get approved, payouts are more limited, and denial cases are becoming more common.

Losses from extreme weather are starting to look less like one-off disasters and more like a regular, ongoing cost. Global insured losses from natural catastrophes have stayed high for years. In 2024, global insured losses from natural disasters were about $137 billion. In 2025, they were around $108 billion, with the United States among the hardest hit regions.

When payouts keep getting larger and as rebuilding continues to get more expensive, the insurance system responds by rewriting the rules like tightening what’s covered and requiring homeowners to pay and prove more up front. Homeowners may see higher deductibles (or the amount of money they spend before insurance kicks in), more exclusions (or things insurance won’t cover), and stricter documentation requirements especially in high-risk regions. The result is thinner coverage and a tougher path to getting your life back on track after a disaster. 

More Claims Are Being Denied

In Oklahoma, Attorney General Gentner Drummond said publicly in December 2025 that his office would intervene in a lawsuit against State Farm, alleging that the company used a so-called “hail focus” program to systematically cut down roof-related claim payments that should have been covered.

Cases like this aren’t just “bad luck” for a few people. These situations are making more and more people realize that even when the damage is similar, claims can face stricter review like more proof of damages, more disputes over what’s covered, and a higher chance of delays, reductions or denial of any coverage at all. One peer-reviewed analysis of Texas Department of Insurance claims data after the 2021 Winter Storm Uri found that 39.2% of claims were denied 13 months after the event. This means well over a third of filers were left to pick up the pieces of their life without any support. 

California offers another strong example. One analysis found that some major homeowners insurers in California had a relatively high  share of “closed claims with no payment/denial” in 2023. In 2023, several major homeowners insurers in California closed roughly46%–50% of claims with no payment.

The insurance market is shifting in a way that changes what coverage actually means. In many high-risk areas, homeowners are paying more for insurance that can be harder to get. And harder to rely on when a disaster hits. That means the real risk isn’t just higher premiums, it’s the possibility of delayed payouts, denied claims, or being unable to find coverage at all and leaving families to front thousands of dollars in repairs and recovery.

When You Can’t Get Coverage

Difficult claims are emotionally exhausting, but not being able to get insurance at all is what truly makes people anxious.

In 2023, State Farm announced that it would stop accepting new homeowners insurance applications in California, citing reasons such as rising catastrophe exposure, higher rebuilding costs, and a tougher reinsurance market. When major insurers pull back, many homeowners are left with only one option: the state’s insurer of last resort system, the FAIR Plan. By early 2026, available figures show the FAIR Plan has grown to roughly550,000–650,000 policies, and the pace of that growth has been extremely fast.

According to official information from the California Department of Insurance, the maximum coverage limit for a residential policy is $3 million. For high-cost housing markets, this creates a very real protection gap: a home may be worth more than $3 million, but the basic coverage cap is fixed at that amount. And for many households, even if their home value isn’t near that $3 million cap, being pushed onto the FAIR Plan can still be a major shock. Because as the last resort, it often comes with a chain reaction of problems. Higher premiums and less comprehensive coverage, with more exclusions and stricter limits. In practice, that can leave people paying more out of pocket after a disaster and spending more time on paperwork and the claims process.

Not All Extreme Weather Coverage Is In The Same Policy

FEMA states clearly that most homeowners insurance policies do not cover flood damage, as flood insurance is a separate policy. So the same heavy rainstorm might be called extreme weather in the news, but in an insurance policy, it may be classified as flooding, standing water, or water intrusion. This inconsistent terminology can leave homeowners to assume a loss is covered, only to find out it’s excluded from a standard policy.

In many states, wind and hail deductibles are calculated as a percentage of your home’s insured value, not a flat dollar amount. That means even a “small” percentage can translate into thousands of dollars you must pay upfront before coverage kicks in. For example, a 2% wind or hail deductible on a $300,000 insured home is $6,000 out of pocket. In many policies, windstorm and hurricane deductibles commonly range from 1% to 5% of insured value, which is roughly $3,000 to $15,000 for that same $300,000 home. The Texas Department of Insurance explains how percentage deductibles work, and across the industry, it’s common to see 1%–5% windstorm/hurricane deductible structures.

This creates a painful reality. It’s not that insurance refuses to pay–it’s that homeowners have to pay a very large amount out of pocket first, and only then does the coverage start to kick in.

Renters Feel It, Too

You don’t have to own a home to get hit by a homeowners insurance squeeze. Renters take the hit directly because renters insurance often has major gaps in coverage. For example, flood damage is typically not covered unless you buy separate flood coverage through the National Flood Insurance Program. 

Many renters are underinsured or uninsured. One estimate suggests that about 45% of renters don’t carry renters insurance at all, which means a single storm can wipe out essentials like clothes, furniture, electronics and even temporary hotel costs. A Federal Reserve analysis finds that higher landlord costs are added to existing rent prices. When landlords face higher property insurance and maintenance costs, those increases often show up in renewal rent, higher building fees, bigger deposits, or stricter lease terms.

This risk exposure isn’t limited to property owners. The Harvard Joint Center for Housing Studies notes that a large share of U.S. rental units are located in FEMA-defined high-risk counties, which are more likely to experience disaster exposure. When risk is repriced, it reaches renters fast.

This Is Bigger Than Homeowners Insurance

When it comes to weather-driven risk, it isn’t just homeowners insurance that gets more expensive or harder to secure. Commercial property, business interruption, and transport insurance tighten too, and those costs don’t stay with insurers. They get passed through into rent, everyday prices like groceries and shipping costs, and tighter business budgets, which is why this insurance squeeze hits all of us. That’s why solutions have to address the root cause of rising disaster risk, while also helping people manage today’s costs.

Promoting clean energy and reducing emissions can lower the probability of extreme weather occurring in the future and the likelihood of it causing massive property losses. In the meantime, you can also take practical steps like reviewing your coverage, understanding deductibles and exclusions, and comparing quotes before renewing. And if you want to support long-term solutions, sign the renewable energy petition to support clean energy and climate resilience. We need you to make sure risks aren’t shifted onto us again and again.

This article is available for republishing on your website, newsletter, magazine, newspaper, or blog. The accompanying imagery is cleared for use with attribution. Please ensure that the author’s name and their affiliation with EARTHDAY.ORG are credited. Kindly inform us if you republish so we can acknowledge, tag, or repost your content. You may notify us via email at fielder@earthday.org. Want more articles? Follow us on substack.

The post The Home Insurance Squeeze: Less Coverage, More Risk appeared first on Earth Day.