In California’s recent primary elections, a notable absence was felt—climate change, once a defining political issue in the state, was largely overlooked.

The electorate’s attention shifted to concerns over affordability and housing. Approximately 44% of voters highlighted the cost of living, employment, and inflation as the primary challenges facing the state, while a mere 1% mentioned climate change.

Even Tom Steyer, a billionaire recognized for his financial backing of climate initiatives, focused his campaign on reducing household expenses.

In a place often seen as the heart of environmental advocacy, climate issues have been relegated to the background.

This trend isn’t an isolated incident. Just before the election, California’s Air Resources Board decided to distribute up to $4 billion in free allowances to oil refiners and other industrial polluters, aiming to facilitate compliance with the state’s carbon market.

New York, meanwhile, is rewriting its landmark climate law, pushing back deadlines and softening its binding 2030 emissions target.

When the bluest of blue states quietly retreat, it tells you that politicians have concluded voters care more about their wallets than distant climate targets.

Who, in fact, are still panicking about the climate “catastrophe”? Fewer and fewer.

Gallup’s latest survey of the world’s most important problems found that the median share of people naming the environment or climate as their country’s top concern was just 3%.

Economic and governance worries dwarfed it.

Even the money has moved on: A new Times of London survey of 200 institutional-fund managers found climate change had tumbled from their No. 1 environmental, social and governance concern to fifth place, behind human health, AI ethics, corruption and corporate conduct.

How did so many people who were terrified by climate change a few years ago come to care so much less about it? Four reasons.

First, we remembered the world has many problems.

After the Cold War, it became fashionable to call climate the last great challenge. It never was.

COVID, wars, budget deficits, immigration pressures, faltering schools, the uncertainties of artificial intelligence and aging populations straining health and pension systems are all legitimate, competing priorities.

Climate is one item on a long list, not the only line.

Second, you can cry wolf only so many times. For 50 years we have been fed apocalyptic deadlines.

One peer-reviewed study catalogued at least 79 specific doomsday predictions.

In 2019, King Charles warned that we had 18 months to save the planet.

Al Gore told us in 2008 that we had 10 years left.

Those deadlines came and went. Nearly every dramatic prophecy that has reached its expiration date has simply turned out to be wrong, and voters have noticed.

Third, climate policy is staggeringly expensive and accomplishes remarkably little.

The world has already spent more than $16 trillion on climate measures, with promises of hundreds of trillions more.

Yet a landmark study in Science examined 1,500 climate policies across 41 countries over two decades and found that only 4% meaningfully cut emissions.

Together, the entire apparatus reduced global emissions by less than a quarter of 1%.

In any other field, governments delivering so little for so much would have been thrown out long ago.

Fourth, the scariest claims are often deeply misleading.

We are warned that rising seas could displace 187 million people, a figure that assumes humanity does nothing for an entire century.

Once you account for the seawalls and adaptation that people obviously undertake, that estimate of displacement turns out to be overstated 600-fold or more.  

We are told heat waves will kill more and more, but rarely told that cold kills far more than heat, so that moderate warming currently saves lives on balance.

As America warmed across the 20th century, heat deaths fell, precisely because people could afford air conditioning. Cheap, reliable power saves lives.

None of this means climate change isn’t real. It is.

But the best climate economists consistently estimate that unchecked warming will cost 2% to 3% of global GDP by the end of the century.

That is a real problem, but not Armageddon.

The United Nations expects the average person to be about 450% richer in 2100. Climate change might trim that to 435%.

That is a worse outcome than we could have, but still a dramatically richer, healthier world than today’s.

So we should still try to fix climate change, but intelligently and cheaply.

That means investing heavily in green-energy research and development to make clean power so affordable that everyone, not just wealthy elites, chooses it freely.

Panic is a terrible adviser, so the end of the climate panic is welcome news.

It is better for smart climate policy. It is better for our mental health, especially for the young people told for a decade they had no future.

And it frees us to confront the many other problems we have neglected.

After years of being needlessly frightened, the fever is finally breaking.

Better late than never.

Bjorn Lomborg is author of “False Alarm” and “Best Things First.”

San Francisco finds itself at the center of a World Cup tourism slump affecting cities across the United States.

Initially, FIFA secured substantial hotel room blocks in the host cities for the tournament. However, months before the event’s kickoff, the organization unexpectedly canceled 75% of these reservations in several markets.

As a result, San Francisco is currently feeling the impact, with numerous hotel rooms left vacant and room rates stagnating. This outcome is a stark contrast to the optimistic predictions made by the city’s travel industry leaders, who had anticipated a significant economic boost akin to the one brought by the 2026 NFL Super Bowl.

During the Super Bowl weekend, San Francisco effectively showcased its ability to accommodate tourists, reaping considerable profits even though the game took place at Levi’s Stadium, 43 miles away in Santa Clara.

According to data from the Sports Management Research Institute, the average room rate during that period soared, reaching $394 per night for two-star hotels, $582 for three-star establishments, and a staggering $1,259 for four-star and above accommodations.

But unlike the Super Bowl, the World Cup’s booking impact has so far appeared more uneven. 

A similar trend is playing out nationwide: An American Hotel & Lodging Association (AHLA) report found that bookings are running well below expectations in almost every US World Cup host city.

The group said the trend does not align with FIFA’s claim that more than five million tickets have been sold, warning that the ‘anticipated economic lift may fall short.’

San Francisco has become a shining example of the World Cup’s tourism bust for hotels across the United States

The Golden Gate City is feeling the repercussions, with hotel rooms undersold and rates flat despite expectations the World Cup would replicate the Super Bowl’s economic boost

San Francisco’s hotels showed they could cash in on major sporting events during February’s Super Bowl weekend, when average nightly rates climbed to $394 for two-star hotels, $582 for three-star properties and $1,259 for four-star and above despite the city sitting 43 miles from Levi’s Stadium

The AHLA – the largest hotel association in the US representing more than 32,000 properties – said FIFA may have contributed to the shortfall by block-booking large numbers of rooms for its own use, effectively creating artificial demand.

The move initially pushed prices higher, but after FIFA later released a significant portion of those rooms it left a ‘vacuum of availability’ that has weighed on the market.

A study commissioned by FIFA and released last year predicted the World Cup could create 185,000 jobs in the US and add $17.2 billion to GDP.

Hotels had been preparing for an influx of international visitors, who typically book longer stays and spend more per trip.

But AHLA warned that fewer overseas fans visiting the US ‘threatens the broader economic impact.’

According to the report, FIFA’s large-scale room blocks across host cities ‘shaped revenue forecasts, staffing plans and preparations,’ and ‘manufactured artificial demand’ that masked weaker-than-expected tourism flows.

The AHLA also said up to 70 percent of rooms reserved by FIFA in cities including Boston, Dallas, Los Angeles, Philadelphia and Seattle have now been cancelled.

In Los Angeles, around 70 percent of the city’s hotels reported bookings below expectations ahead of the World Cup, LAist reported. 

Los Angeles is facing a similar challenge, with up to 70 percent of hotels reporting bookings below expectations ahead of the World Cup

A FIFA-commissioned study projected the World Cup would generate 185,000 US jobs and add $17.2 billion to the economy, but the American Hotel & Lodging Association warned that weaker-than-expected international tourism threatens those gains

Atlanta and Miami are the only host cities bucking the trend, with about half of hotels reporting bookings are in line with or ahead of expectations

Miami led all host cities in hotel demand, with the World Cup building on its already strong leisure tourism

The CEO of the Hotel Association of Los Angeles, Jackie Filla, told the outlet that LA hotels struck an agreement with FIFA to commit to having enough rooms to meet the expected demand through a room block agreement, but that those rooms are now sitting empty.

Filla also noted that bookings are unexpectedly low behind their usual summer numbers, adding that it could be due to the mega-event deterring travel to the city.

Two cities bucking the trend are Atlanta and Miami, where hotels say bookings are ‘in line with or ahead of expectations.’

Miami had the strongest demand, with the World Cup building on leisure demand, the AHLA report found.

After matches were announced in December, hotel operators in San Francisco were cautious about the World Cup’s economic impact, according to Alex Bastian, president and CEO of the Hotel Council of San Francisco, in comments to SFGATE.

He said the Bay Area was not assigned ‘first-place seed teams’ with large traveling fan bases, limiting expected demand.

Bastian added that a matchup featuring a country like Brazil would likely have driven stronger hotel bookings.

Brazil, along with Colombia and Portugal, is instead playing in Miami, which is also hosting a quarter-final and third-place match.

Michael Stathokostopoulos, senior director of hospitality analytics at CoStar Group, told SFGATE that marquee European teams such as Germany, Italy or Spain would also have boosted demand in San Francisco. 

Italy failed to qualify, while Germany is playing in Houston, Toronto and the New York City metro area, and Spain is playing in Atlanta and Mexico.

Levi’s Stadium will host a Round of 32 match on July 1, and Stathokostopoulos said later knockout games could draw stronger last-minute international demand depending on which teams advance.

CHICAGO — Tragedy struck on Chicago’s South Side Thursday evening when a teenage boy was fatally shot, according to police reports.

The victim, a 14-year-old boy, was reportedly a cherished member of the Midwest Hawks Youth Football organization. Program officials described him as deeply loved by his family and former teammates.

ABC7 Chicago is now streaming 24/7. Click here to watch

Authorities responded to reports of a shooting in the Gresham neighborhood, specifically in the 8000 block of South Carpenter Street, shortly after 11:30 p.m.

Upon arrival, officers discovered the young boy suffering from multiple gunshot wounds, as confirmed by police statements.

The Chicago Fire Department provided on-site medical care before the victim was rushed to the University of Chicago Medical Center in critical condition, where he was later pronounced dead.

The teen has not yet been officially identified by the Cook County Medicals Examiner’s Office.

What led up to the shooting was not immediately clear. Officers taped off an alley as the searched for evidence.

Community activist pastor Donovan Price responded the scene Thursday night.

“When a child is shot, there are so many, so many people affected,” Price said. “I immediately start thinking of other kids who are going to be affected by this – teachers, coaches, family.”

Neighbors told ABC7 they heard as many as eight gunshots.

“It breaks my heart because I have a 22-year-old son. And for a kid to be 14-years-old-he’s just barely beginning to live his life,” nearby resident Marilyn Jones said. “It’s hard. It’s heartbreaking. You know, it’s it is heartbreaking. And then to hear so many good things about him.”

The Midwest Hawks Youth Football program posted a tribute to the former player, reading in part, “Though his life was taken far too soon, his memory will forever remain a part of the Midwest Hawks family. His smile, his presence, and the impact he made on those around him will never be forgotten.”

The Midwest Hawks Youth Football program says it will host a vigil for the 14-year-old in the next few days.

“We need to keep hope going. We need to keep hope moving. And when it comes to our children, we need to keep hope growing,” Price said.

Chicago police said Area Two detectives are investigating and no arrests have been made.

Authorities have not provided further information about the shooting.

INTERACTIVE SAFETY TRACKER Track crime and safety in your neighborhood