Forwarded this email? Subscribe here.

🆕 OUR RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Line chart of the Living Planet Index showing average change in abundance of 35,803 monitored wildlife populations across 5,790 native species from 1970 to 2022, where the index falls from the 1970 baseline (1.0) to about 0.25 to 0.35 by 2022, indicating a large decline in monitored populations. The chart includes central, upper, and lower estimate lines. Data source: World Wildlife Fund and Zoological Society of London (2026). License: CC BY.

A 73% average decline in wildlife populations: an overview of the 2026 Living Planet Index report

The 2026 Living Planet Index report is published today. As with previous additions, it can make for a depressing read. The headline is a 73% average decline in wildlife populations since 1970.

Declines in global biodiversity are extremely concerning, but many of the news headlines you’ll see today will probably report this latest result incorrectly. At least they have in previous years. Some may report that the world has lost “73% of animal populations since 1970” or “73% of species are in decline”.

Neither of these is correct, and the report’s authors go to great lengths to stress this.

Instead, the Living Planet Index captures the average decline in population numbers across almost 36,000 populations. These changes are then averaged using a geometric mean and given different weightings in the final index. It’s a bit more complicated than a “we’ve lost 73% of wildlife” headline might suggest.

When we dig beneath the headline number, we find that around half of the studied populations have declined, but just as many have either increased or remained stable.

In this article, we look at what the Living Planet Index does and doesn’t capture, and what’s changed since the last report.

Read Hannah’s article
Choropleth map of projected change in malaria prevalence by 2100 under the RCP4.5 climate scenario where many subnational areas in western and northern Africa show decreases in prevalence while parts of eastern and southern Africa show increases, with localized hotspots of larger rises. Scale is change in prevalence in percentage points from minus 3 to 3. Data source: Carlson et al. (2026). License: CC BY.

What impact will climate change have on malaria?

Malaria is a very temperature- and rainfall-sensitive disease. This means it’s one whose distribution and severity could change a lot in a warming climate.

This is particularly worrying because the global burden of malaria is so high: it kills more than 600,000 people a year. Almost half a million of those are children.

What effect has climate change already had on malaria, and what impact could it have in the future?

In this article, we draw on a recent paper by Colin Carlson and colleagues, published in Nature, which attempts to answer this question. They find that, over the last century, climate change has likely increased the prevalence of malaria in children across Africa by a rate of 1 case per 1,000 children. To put this into context, there were around 240 cases in every 1,000 children in this region at the time. So, the impact has been relatively small and is uncertain.

The bigger impact has been the change in distribution. Malaria rates have likely decreased in West Africa due to climate change. This is because warming has pushed temperatures in this subregion beyond malaria’s optimum temperature of around 25°C. In other parts of Africa, higher temperatures have pushed it towards the optimum, increasing the prevalence.

Overall, the impacts of interventions to reduce malaria — bed nets, antimalarials, and improved healthcare — have far outweighed the impacts of climate change.

These dynamics are expected to stay the same in the future. With more warming, the prevalence in West Africa will decrease. In other subregions, whether it increases or decreases will depend on the extent of warming. But overall, the authors expect a decline in malaria prevalence in Africa due to climate change, with an increase in certain areas that have not experienced the disease for a long time.

What’s most uncertain about these projections is the impact of extreme weather events. When these are modeled, some project an increase in malaria cases and deaths, due to the shocks on healthcare and malaria control systems.

Read Hannah’s article

📈 DATA INSIGHTS 

Bite-sized insights on the world and how it's changing
Since our last OWID Brief, we’ve published insights across various topics:
Subscribe to our Data Insights newsletter
Our dedicated Data Insights newsletter delivers new insights right to your inbox every few days.
Subscribe here

🌟 EXPLORE OUR FEATURED WORK

Line chart of oil production in terawatt-hours per year where the United States' production falls modestly through the 1990s and 2000s then rises sharply after about 2010 to surpass Saudi Arabia and Russia and reach roughly 10,000 TWh by 2025. Other major producers (Saudi Arabia, Russia, Canada, Iraq, UAE, Kuwait, Norway) show smaller fluctuations and remain below the U.S. level. Data source: Energy Institute — Statistical Review of World Energy (2026). License: CC BY.

When people think about global oil, their minds often go toward countries in the Middle East.

But it’s the United States that is the world’s largest oil producer.

The chart shows oil production by country since 1990. As you can see, the US has been the largest producer for the last nine years, since it overtook Saudi Arabia.

Production in the US gradually declined during the 1990s and early 2000s, then increased sharply after 2010 and is now at an all-time high.

This data comes from the Energy Institute’s Statistical Review of World Energy.

Explore our page on fossil fuels

FEATURED ARTICLES

To protect the world’s wildlife, we must improve crop yields — especially across Africa
Habitat loss is the biggest threat to the world's animals. Without improvements in crop yields, thousands of species could see much of their habitat lost to farmland.
Antiretroviral therapy has saved millions of lives from AIDS and could save more
Since the late 1980s, antiretroviral therapy has already saved millions of lives from HIV/AIDS. But millions of people with HIV still aren’t getting this life-saving treatment.

📖 WHAT WE'VE BEEN READING

I always admire the write-ups the Nobel Prize puts out for a general audience, and I really liked this year’s one on the prize in medicine. It went to Karl Deisseroth, Peter Hegemann, and Georg Nagel for optogenetics, which I had never heard about before. Researchers use it to turn single nerve cells in a living brain on and off with light.

The write-up starts from a simple question Hegemann asked in the early 1990s, about how a green alga could react to light so fast. Step by step, it explains how that led to a protein that turns light into an electrical signal, and how Deisseroth’s lab used it in 2005 to make rat nerve cells fire with blue light.

I found it worth reading for the good writing and because it’s just very interesting too. Near the end, it mentions an ongoing trial in which a blind person wearing special light-emitting glasses could again make out objects on a table and reach for them.

– Max

The Forecasting Research Institute regularly asks a panel of experts to predict how AI will play out. In its latest survey, 157 experts took part, along with 49 “superforecasters” with a good track record of predictions, 132 people who work on AI risk, and 540 members of the US public.

Each respondent first gave their estimate of the odds that AI would cause a catastrophe that would kill more than 10% of humanity by 2050 (the median expert said 2%). Then they did it again, assuming each of seven policies was in place, and said which ones they supported and how likely each was to happen.

As the authors put it, “the policies most expected to reduce risk were also the ones that respondents thought were least likely to be implemented”. Experts estimated that pairing an international body that vets the most advanced AI models before release, with a US–China slowdown, and strict liability for AI labs, would cut the risk by about 72%, though they only gave it a 1% chance of happening by 2030.

– Bastian

The mission of Our World in Data is to increase understanding of the world’s largest problems and drive informed action to solve them.

We are a nonprofit, building Our World in Data as a public good that’s freely available to everyone. Help us do more by supporting us with a donation.

Donate now
Subscribe to this newsletter.
We love feedback — just reply to this email!
View this email in your browser.
Instagram
X (formerly Twitter)
Threads
Facebook
LinkedIn
Homepage
This email was sent to you@example.com
why did I get this? | unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences
Our World in Data ¡ Urbanoid Workspace Oxford ¡ 1&3 Kings Meadow ¡ Oxford, OX2 0DP ¡ United Kingdom