Key Drivers of Change

• Technological Innovation
• Government Policies
• Consumer Demand

Climate Change Influence

• Increased Renewable Investment
• GHG Emission Regulations
• International Collaborations

Business Contributions to Renewables

• Invest in Solar/Wind
• Energy Efficiency Programs
• Employee Engagement
• Clean Energy Partnerships

Individual Sustainability Actions

• Reduce Energy Consumption
• Switch to Green Providers
• Community Participation
• Advocate for Clean Policies

Electric Vehicle (EV) Benefits

• Lower Operating Costs
• Government Incentives
• Decreased Maintenance
• Cleaner Environment

Last year, the United Nations predicted that Earth’s average temperature could rise more than 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) by 2100 if we don’t reduce global emissions. That level of warming would cause catastrophic, irreversible damage to ecosystems, underscoring the urgent need to slow the pace of climate change.

Still, the amount of greenhouse gases humans pump into the atmosphere continues to rise. Without sufficient progress on the emissions front, some scientists have suggested another route: artificially counteracting global warming through geoengineering. Many of these controversial solutions aim to mitigate climate breakdown in the polar regions, but a review published Tuesday in Frontiers in Science concludes that even the most widely recognized proposals are likely to cause more harm than good.

“I find that there’s been confusion between urgency and haste,” co-author Ben Orlove, a professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University, told Gizmodo. “Though we recognize the urgency of action, that should never serve as an excuse for incompletely reviewed proposals moving forward.”

Polar regions under pressure

Earth’s polar regions are warming faster than the average global temperature. Experts predict this will lead to severe and irreversible consequences both regionally and globally, such as local ecosystem collapse and sea level rise. Proponents of geoengineering often cite this as a driving force behind efforts to implement such strategies in the Arctic and Antarctic, but none of them are backed by robust, real-world testing at scale.

For this review, an international team of researchers evaluated five geoengineering concepts designed to slow the pace of ice melt in the polar regions. The ideas include spraying reflective particles into the atmosphere, using giant underwater curtains to shield ice shelves from warm water, artificially thickening or boosting the reflectivity of sea ice, pumping water out from underneath glaciers, and adding nutrients to polar oceans to stimulate blooms of carbon-sequestering phytoplankton.

More problems than solutions

The researchers evaluated each proposed solution’s scope of implementation, effectiveness, feasibility, negative consequences, cost, and governance with respect to their deployment at scale. According to their assessment, all five ideas would lead to environmental damages such as the disruption of habitats, migration routes, the ocean’s natural chemical cycle, global climate patterns, and more.

Additionally, the authors estimate that each proposal would cost at least $10 billion to implement and maintain. This is likely an underestimate, they say, pointing to hidden costs that would undoubtedly arise as environmental and logistical consequences come into play. What’s more, polar regions lack sufficient governance to regulate these projects, necessitating extensive political negotiation and new frameworks before large-scale deployment.

Even if these tactics offered some benefit, none could scale fast enough to meaningfully address the climate crisis within the limited time available to do so, the researchers concluded.

“It is clear to us that the assessed approaches are not feasible, and that further research into these techniques would not be an effective use of limited time and resources,” the authors write, emphasizing the importance of focusing on reducing greenhouse gas emissions and conducting fundamental research in the polar regions.

Not every fix is worth the risk

Orlove hopes these findings encourage the scientific community and decision-makers to exercise scrutiny before investing time and money in polar geoengineering projects. “One of the things that troubles me is the claim that climate change is so severe that we need to try all possible methods, and blocking any possible solution is an error,” he said.

“There is a long history in medical research of not undertaking certain experiments on living humans and not attempting extreme cures that just seem unethical,” Orlove said. “But when it comes to experimenting on the planet—and its immediate effect on people—that kind of awareness doesn’t come forward.”

This week marks the 20th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, one of the deadliest and costliest storms in U.S. history. As officials and survivors reflect on the devastation, questions about disaster preparedness and federal funding remain central.

Katrina, which struck New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in August 2005, claimed more than 1,800 lives and caused widespread infrastructure collapse. The federal response, particularly the performance of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was widely criticized, prompting reforms aimed at improving emergency management and intergovernmental coordination.

Today, experts note that many of those lessons are still being tested. The Trump administration’s proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year has included reductions to FEMA’s disaster relief and mitigation programs, prompting concern among emergency management officials and local governments. Critics argue that lower funding could hinder preparedness for hurricanes, wildfires and other climate-related disasters.

“Twenty years later, the question isn’t just what we’ve learned from Katrina, but whether we have the resources to act on those lessons,” said an emergency management analyst familiar with federal grant programs. “Funding cuts at the federal level make it harder for states and municipalities to maintain readiness.”

Recent extreme weather events, including record flooding and wildfire seasons, underscore the continuing relevance of those concerns. Federal and state agencies emphasize the need for pre-positioned resources, trained personnel and coordinated response plans — areas where lessons from Katrina have shaped modern protocols.

Local officials in New Orleans have held commemorations this week, honoring those who lost their lives and acknowledging the city’s recovery. Public safety experts say the anniversary is an opportunity to reassess both infrastructure resilience and the policy frameworks that support disaster response nationwide.

While Katrina is now two decades past, its legacy continues to influence emergency planning. The storm remains a reminder of the intersection between climate risk, resource allocation and the ongoing need for robust federal support to protect communities.

This is The Parlour, a place for intimate conversation, a real-time archive, a shared diary passed between a rotating cast of queer characters every week in an attempt to capture a kaleidoscopic view of what it’s like to be a queer person right here, right now.

The following iteration of The Parlour is how I initially envisioned this series: nascent essays oriented around themes but without much of a “point” or lesson to be learned. So let’s see how this goes!

---

We’ve been under a heat advisory for a number of days, I couldn’t tell you exactly how many. They’ve melted together like the That’s It fruit bar I accidentally left in the backseat of the car, gone gummy and flacid. I’m writing this from Orlando, but I bet I could be writing it from other places, too, perhaps the place you are reading this from now, a place made hotter than usual by this midsummer heatwave sweeping the nation. That’s what it is: hotter than usual. Because Orlando summers are always hot. But this heat, it’s different. Ten degrees up from daily averages.

This heat advisory has collided with my preseason tennis training weeks. I’ve got league matches and tournaments coming up in September, and I made a promise to myself to train hard this summer, no matter the weather. There’s nothing I can do about rain, but heat I can push through, have to really. I watched a video recently where a tennis coach to the stars says the only way to prepare for playing in the heat is to play in the heat. He’s talking about touring professionals and in particular the way the record-breaking temperatures in London threw many players off at this year’s Wimbledon, where spectators kept passing out in the stands because it was so hot, halting play on the court. No one was used to the heat. The players, he reasoned, should have booked their practice court time for noon, not morning. They needed to get their bodies ready to play in extreme heat. I’m not a touring professional. It’d be a triumphant feat for me to get to Wimbledon just as a spectator. But I took his instruction to heart. I’m always doing this, applying advice for the pros to my amateur rec tennis life.

So I sign up for an advanced tennis clinic at 6 p.m. on a Monday. It’s supposed to be 94 degrees. I spend the day hydrating, eating well. Ever since I got home from a week in Portland, I’ve been doing this: hydrating, eating well. I’m not drinking. I’m in the gym training hard while summer storms churn outside. Drinking fruit-filled and protein-packed smoothies. Carbing up after cardio. Lifting heavy. Waking up fifteen minutes before sunrise because I’m working on a novel and two short stories and a long essay about my name and early morning hours are the only time I can find to actually do the work. But on the Monday before the two-hour tennis clinic under a heat advisory, I’m extra on top of taking care of my body. I want to set myself up for success. I drink electrolytes beforehand, prepare more to bring along. It won’t be enough.

Before I head out, my wife says don’t get heatstroke, and I’m sure we’re both thinking of the times in Vegas, during lockdown, when our only glimpse of the outside world was when we’d step out into desert mornings with frozen-through water bottles that became liquid in a matter of minutes. I craved those morning walks, needed them, but I also suffered under the scorching Nevada sun. I didn’t yet know how to care for my body in these extreme climate conditions.

Recently, I sat around with a bunch of other writers, friends, and we discussed which natural disasters scared us the most. Our answers were predictable, largely hinging on the regions where we’ve lived the longest. The west coasters: earthquakes. Tsunamis as an aftereffect of earthquakes. The east coasters: floods and hurricanes. The Midwesterners: tornadoes. Me: all of it. I’ve lived many places.
Tennis is brutal, right away. We’re only warming up, and I’m hot. The acquaintance who has been trying to get me to come to this class isn’t here. She texted me a few hours before to say she was skipping due to the heat. I recognize some of the others here: the husband of a woman I played a couple times on a flex league, a guy from the Sunday round robin I used to go to, a woman from that round robin, too, who is the kind of player I’m trying to be.

I’ve been playing in Portland all summer, so I’m re-acclimating to Florida! I tell the others when I need to break for water before they do. I’m always doing shit like this, trying to explain away weaknesses only perceived by myself. No one cares that I’m drinking water between drills. One of the coaches leading the session encourages it, tells me to break as many times as I need.

Seeing him here is a shock. A year and a half ago when I was just starting to get back into tennis, he was the only coach who took me and my goals seriously, didn’t condescend when I made it clear I wanted to be a shark of a rec player. He disappeared after a few weeks, ghosted me over text, and another player told me off-handedly he’d been caught blackmailing other pros. For what? I asked, and she could not tell me. I never fact-checked this absurd story. And now here he is, like he was never gone. Maybe he never had been as disappeared as I thought. Maybe he’s a mirage in the heat.

The Portland line is a bit of a lie. I hadn’t been playing in Portland “all summer.” Yes, it was true I was in Portland for almost the entire month of June and then returned for nine days in July for a writing conference, but I’d said it as if this were a regular occurrence for me, as if I “summered” in the pacific northwest, got out of the heat for a bit. God I wish. I only played tennis once, sometimes twice a week in Portland. Plus, the city experienced two separate heatwaves while I was there, so it wasn’t like I was playing in cooler conditions. There was no re-acclimating to do. Florida heat is already a hard thing to slough off.

But I wanted this, a legible excuse for why I needed more water breaks, why I was panting like the feral cat in the backyard we’d tried to offer water and treats to earlier in the day. Knowing I was already one of the weaker players that had shown up, I’d been trying to prove myself before the heat even settled into me like a possession. I should have been focusing more on my own game, on challenging myself. Instead, I was beating myself up for my body’s natural reaction to the heat, something so far out of my control.

Later, I reach out to the reappeared tennis coach to book a private lesson. He’s a blackmailer, and I’m a liar. We make a good fit.

The only way to play well in the heat is to play in the heat. I feel less sure applying this logic to the simple fact of living in the heat. The only way to live well in the heat is to live in the heat? The only way to survive the heat is to live in it? None of these sound right.

Next summer will be hotter. The next, hotter still. No body should become acclimated to this.

After the clinic under heat advisory, I take a cold shower run by my wife. I ice roll my face. I played well, I think, given the heat. All this, given the heat.

Forests cover nearly a third of all land on Earth, providing vital organic infrastructure for some of the planet’s densest, most diverse collections of life. They support countless species, yet humans clear millions of acres from natural forests every year, especially in the tropics, letting deforestation threaten some of Earth’s most valuable ecosystems.

We tend to take forests for granted, underestimating how indispensable they are for everyone on the planet. That would quickly change if all the forests on Earth disappeared, but since humanity might not survive that scenario, the lesson wouldn’t be useful then.

Indifference, in turn, often depends on ignorance. So to help the situation get better for woodlands around the world, we’d all be wise to learn more about the benefits of forests — and to share that knowledge with others. In hopes of shedding more light on why forests are so important, and how little we can afford to lose them, here are 20 things forests do for us.

1. Help Us Breathe

Forests pump out the oxygen we need to live and absorb the carbon dioxide we exhale (emit). A single mature, leafy tree is estimated to produce a day’s supply of oxygen for anywhere from two to 10 people. Phytoplankton in the ocean are more prolific, providing half of Earth’s oxygen, but forests are still a key source of quality air.

2. Home to Nearly Half of All Species

Nearly half of Earth’s known species live in forests, including nearly 80% of biodiversity on land. That variety is especially rich in tropical rainforests, but forests around the planet teem with life; insects and worms work nutrients into soil, bees and birds spread pollen and seeds, and keystone species like wolves and big cats keep hungry herbivores in check. Biodiversity is a big deal for ecosystems and human economies, yet it’s increasingly threatened around the world by deforestation.

3. Benefit Millions of Humans

Some 300 million people live in forests worldwide, including an estimated 60 million indigenous people whose survival depends almost entirely on native woodlands. Many millions more live along or near forest fringes, but even just a scattering of urban trees can provide benefits to humans, such as increased property values and reduced crime.

4. Keep Us Cool

By growing a canopy to hog sunlight, trees also create vital oases of shade on the ground. Urban trees help buildings stay cool, reducing the need for electric fans or air conditioners, while large forests tackle daunting tasks like curbing a city’s “heat island” effect or regulating regional temperatures.

5. Keep Earth Cool

Trees also have another way to beat the heat—absorb CO2 that fuels global warming. Plants always need some CO2 for photosynthesis, but Earth’s air is now so thick with extra emissions that forests fight global warming just by breathing. CO2 is stored in wood, leaves, and soil, often for centuries.

6. Make It Rain

Large forests can influence regional weather patterns and even create their own microclimates. The Amazon rainforest, for example, generates atmospheric conditions that not only promote regular rainfall in that forest and nearby farmland but potentially as far away as the Great Plains of North America.

7. Prevent Flooding

Tree roots are our allies in heavy rainfall, especially when it rains in low-lying areas like river plains. They help the ground absorb more of a flash flood, reducing soil loss and property damage by slowing the flow.

8. Soak Up Runoff, Protecting Other Ecosystems

In addition to controlling flooding, trees’ ability to soak up surface runoff also protects ecosystems downstream. Modern stormwater increasingly carries toxic chemicals, from gasoline and lawn fertilizer to pesticides and pig manure, that accumulate through watersheds and eventually create low-oxygen “dead zones.”

9. Refill Aquifers

Forests are like giant sponges, catching runoff rather than letting it roll across the surface. But they can’t absorb all of it. Water that gets past their roots trickles down into aquifers, replenishing groundwater supplies that are important for drinking, sanitation, and irrigation around the world.

10. Block Wind

Farming near a forest provides many benefits, such as bats and songbirds who come out of their forest home to eat insects that threaten crops. Owls and foxes that live in forests also often venture out to eat rats on farms. But forests can also serve as a windbreak for farmers, providing a buffer for wind-sensitive fruits and vegetables. And beyond protecting those plants from the wind itself, forests’ ability to block wind makes it easier for bees to pollinate the crops.

11. Keep Dirt in Its Place

A forest’s root network stabilizes huge amounts of soil, bracing the entire ecosystem’s foundation against erosion by wind or water. Not only does deforestation disrupt all that, but the ensuing soil erosion can trigger new, life-threatening problems like landslides and dust storms.

12. Clean Up Dirty Soil

In addition to holding soil in place, forests may also use phytoremediation to clean out certain pollutants. Trees can either sequester the toxins away or degrade them to be less dangerous. This is a helpful skill, letting trees absorb sewage overflows, roadside spills or contaminated runoff.

13. Clean Up Dirty Air

Forests can clean up air pollution on a large scale, and not just CO2. Trees absorb a wide range of airborne pollutants, including carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. In the U.S. alone, urban trees are estimated to save 850 lives per year and $6.8 billion in total health care costs just by removing pollutants from the air.

14. Muffle Noise Pollution

Sound fades in forests, making trees a popular natural noise barrier. The muffling effect is largely due to rustling leaves — plus other woodland white noise, like bird songs — and just a few well-placed trees can cut background sound by 5 to 10 decibels, or about 50% as heard by human ears.

15. Feed Us

Not only do trees produce fruits, nuts, seeds and sap, but they also enable a cornucopia near the forest floor, from edible mushrooms, berries and beetles to larger game like deer, turkeys, rabbits and fish.

16. Help Us Make Things

Where would humans be without timber and resin? We’ve long used these renewable resources to make everything from paper and furniture to homes and clothing, but we also have a history of getting carried away, leading to overuse and deforestation. Thanks to the growth of tree farming and sustainable forestry, though, it’s becoming easier to find responsibly sourced tree products.

17. Create Jobs

More than 1.6 billion people rely on forests to some extent for their livelihoods, according to the U.N., and 10 million are directly employed in forest management or conservation. Forests contribute about 1% of the global gross domestic product through timber production and non-timber products, the latter of which alone support up to 80% of the population in many developing countries.

18. Create Majesty

Natural beauty may be the most obvious and yet least tangible benefit a forest offers. The abstract blend of shade, greenery, activity and tranquility can yield concrete advantages for people, however, like convincing us to appreciate and preserve old-growth forests for future generations.

19. Help Us Explore and Relax

Our innate attraction to forests, part of a phenomenon known as biophilia, is still in the relatively early stages of scientific explanation. We know biophilia draws us to woods and other natural scenery, though, encouraging us to rejuvenate ourselves by exploring, wandering or just unwinding in the wilderness. They give us a sense of mystery and wonder, evoking the kinds of wild frontiers that molded our distant ancestors. And thanks to our growing awareness that spending time in forests is good for our health, many people now seek out those benefits with the Japanese practice of shinrin-yoku, commonly translated to English as “forest bathing.”

20. Are Pillars of Their Communities

Like the famous rug in “The Big Lebowski,” forests really tie everything together — and we often don’t appreciate them until they’re gone. Beyond all their specific ecological perks (which can’t even fit in a list this long), they’ve reigned for eons as Earth’s most successful setting for life on land. Our species probably couldn’t live without them, but it’s up to us to make sure we never have to try. The more we enjoy and understand forests, the less likely we are to miss them for the trees.

Last Updated on July 11, 2025

I witnessed some crazy wildfires back when I lived in California. The Atlas and Patrick fires both burned less than 15 miles from my home in 2017. 

As someone who’s lost everything to fire before, it was an incredibly uneasy and tense time. And it only seems to be getting worse – the Canadian wildfires were so bad in 2023 that the smoke reached New York.

Wildfires aren’t always linked to climate change – sometimes they’re started by arsonists, mismanagement, or natural causes. But climate change is definitely making wildfires worse and more frequent – leading to something called fire weather. 

But what exactly is fire weather, and how can we prepare for it? Is there a way to prevent it? Here’s everything you need to know to keep yourself informed, safe, and ready. 

what is the definition of fire weather? 

Fire weather refers to any time the conditions are right for a blaze – typically issued as a warning when an area has been too hot, dry, and windy for substantial amounts of time. Fire weather doesn’t mean there are any actual fires – it simply means there could be. 

According to NOAA, fire weather watch alerts will be issued whenever these three critical elements are met: 

• sustained winds averaging 15 mph or greater 
• relative humidity 25 percent or less 
• temperature 75°F or greater 

When these fire weather conditions are met, the landscape is primed for really disastrous infernos that can be difficult to control and put out.

For instance, The Camp Fire of 2018 moved so quick that it overwhelmed the city of Paradise, killing 86 people, many trying to leave in their cars. 

what are the 5 critical fire weather conditions? 

The five critical fire weather conditions include high air temperatures, low precipitation, low soil moisture, low relative humidity, and gusty winds. When you mix all five of these together, you get ample weather that fuels fires.  

Here’s a deeper dive into each element: 

1. High air temps: Very warm temperatures can strip moisture from easily combustible materials, like grass 
2. Low precipitation: Lack of rain or snow, or in extreme cases, a drought 
3. Low soil moisture: When soil moisture is low, vegetation is likely dry and stressed, making it easy kindling 
4. Low relative humidity: If there’s a lack of water vapor in the air, it makes kindling (grass, brush, etc) easier to burn 
5. Gusty winds: Winds can strengthen flames, should a fire ignite 

how do you prepare for fire weather? 

The best way to prepare for fire weather is to stay on top of weather conditions. Springtime is when most wildfires occur, but secondary fire weather season occurs during fall.

Be mindful that climate change affects wildfires, making them more common and less predictable. Be sure to monitor alerts on your phone and check National Weather Service (NWS)’s fire weather map consistently. 

Another way to prepare for fire weather is to create an action plan, in case there is a fire. You should research and check your location on FEMA’s website to get information about disaster declarations in both the past and present. 

Listen for wildfire evacuation orders and take them seriously: Devise a plan with your family members so you all know where to regroup and meet, should you have to evacuate. 

Having a bug out bag full of supplies is a great idea. A bug out bag can be stashed under the bed, in a closet, or in a car – but it should be somewhere you can easily access.  

Here’s what to pack in a bug out bag: 

RELATED: How to Build An Eco-friendly Emergency Kit 

how can we reduce chance of wildfires? 

Obviously being prepared for the worst is important, but what if we could reduce their occurrence? Good news:There are several ways we can reduce the likelihood of fire weather alerts (and wildfires in general).  

controlled burns 

It may seem counterproductive, but doing controlled burns will help reduce wildfires. Why? Because a planned fire can remove dead grass, fallen tree branches, dead trees, and thick undergrowth – aka, the kindling that fuels wildfires. 

Planned burns are done when weather conditions are not fire weather conditions – and can be properly controlled and monitored. Ash from burnt vegetation also releases nutrients back into the soil, allowing for new vegetation to grow and promoting biodiversity.  

You can learn more about controlled burns via Nat Geo but it’s important to note it’s nothing new – indigenous people have been practicing controlled burns for decades. We can advocate for more controlled burns by writing to our local reps, learning more about them, and simply spreading awareness.

tackling climate change 

By having strong climate policy in place, we can ensure fire weather becomes less common. Voting for people who vow to protect the environment – both on local and national levels – is essential to this.  

Getting involved in your government, emailing and calling your local reps, and volunteering your time at environmental non-profits are all great ways to fight climate change on a collective level.  

On an individual level, taking steps to reduce your own carbon footprint too (like switching to renewable energy and driving less) is also a great idea. And of course, don’t forget to make plastic-free swaps or start composting if you haven’t yet! 

RELATED: 4 Ways to Fight Climate Change as One Person 

creating drought tolerant lawns 

If you live in a state that’s prone to droughts (like California), investing in drought-tolerant landscaping is a great way to reduce risk of fires. Drought-tolerant plants require less water and can be less susceptible to igniting.  

Xeriscaping is worth looking into, as well as planting fire-resistant plants (agave, succulents, red yucca, etc).  

Looking into native plants is also worth checking out, as these plants require less maintenance and tend to be more durable in your specific climate. My friend Shelbi recently turned her lawn into a native pollinator habitat and I’m here for it! 

Do you have any questions on fire weather? Let me know in the comments! 

An Open Letter to the United States of America

When California was on fire, Canada sent water bombers to help. When our country is burning… You sent us a complaint letter. America, we need to talk.

Dear United States Congress,

Thank you so much for your deeply concerned letter about our wildfires “ruining your summer.” Truly touching.

We apologize that our forests, after decades of record heat, drought, and corporate deforestation (some of it by your own timber giants), had the audacity to catch fire and interrupt your BBQs and lake weekends.

But since you’re so concerned, let’s review the scoreboard:

When California was engulfed in flames, Canada sent water bombers. No letter. No whining. Just help. Because that’s what friends do.

We routinely send highly trained Canadian firefighters to California, Oregon, and Washington when your forests are burning down faster than a rant from your president. We don’t send a letter complaining about the smog drifting north, we send help.

When your hospitals were overwhelmed and out of PPE during the pandemic, we shipped masks and gloves south. At the same time, Trump threatened to cut us off. No letter. Just help.

When 9/11 happened, we took in 33,000 stranded passengers and fed them in Gander, Newfoundland. We didn’t send a letter complaining about our tourism season. We opened our doors. You might try it sometime instead of burning the planet for campaign cash.

Meanwhile, you send us… a letter.

You write with concern about your “ability to go outside and safely breathe.” We’re concerned about that too. We’ve been concerned for decades as your corporations have belched more carbon into our shared atmosphere than almost any other country on Earth. You lecture us about “active forest management” while simultaneously gutting your own environmental protections and subsidizing the very fossil fuel industry that’s setting our planet on fire.

All the while, we’re actually investing in green energy to prevent these fires before they start. You might try it sometime instead of burning the planet for campaign cash.

You want to talk about what’s “ruining the summer”? Let’s talk about the raw sewage and industrial waste you’ve been dumping into the Great Lakes for a century. Let’s talk about the invasive species that hitch a ride in your ships and decimate our ecosystems. Let’s talk about the acid rain from your factories that has poisoned our lakes and forests for generations.

Oh, and let’s talk about that “outdoor recreation” you’re so worried about. You know, the same outdoors you’ve been paving over with pipelines, fracking, and oil rigs. The same air you’ve been happily polluting for decades, accelerating the climate crisis that makes these wildfires worse.

Your letter mentions arson, but conveniently ignores the primary accelerant for these fires: climate change. A crisis you have actively lobbied to ignore.

So please, spare us the lecture. Don’t you dare complain about the smoke in your sky when you have helped build the fire.

You accuse us of “a lack of forest management”? Please. Our forests are twice the size of the state of Texas. And guess what? We didn’t spend decades denying climate change while burning coal like it was going out of style.

We Canadians love our summers, too. We also love being able to breathe. But most of all, we value friendship and reciprocity. Things that are clearly in short supply south of the border these days. Real friends show up with buckets, not complaint letters.

If you’re so desperate for fresh air, maybe stop voting for politicians who think the only green policy worth supporting is the color of their campaign donations.

Instead of sending snarky letters, how about sending fire crews? Or maybe instead of funneling your giant defense budget into more tanks, border walls, and that Big Beautiful Bill budget that props up ICE and billionaires, you could help fight actual global threats. Like climate change?

Next time there’s a crisis, maybe look in the mirror before you look north.

With all the polite Canadian sincerity we can muster,

Canada and The Planet D

Want to sign this letter too?

Leave a comment below with:
“Signed, [Your Name]” (and feel free to add where you’re from!)

Let’s show that real friends show up with buckets, not complaint letters.

Wind energy is electricity from the naturally flowing air in the Earth’s atmosphere. As a renewable resource that won’t get depleted through use, its impact on the environment and climate crisis is significantly smaller than burning fossil fuels.

We can create wind energy by erecting something as simple as a set of 8-foot sails positioned to capture prevailing winds that turn a stone and grind grain (a gristmill). Or, a wind energy structure can be as complex as a 150-foot vane turning a generator that produces electricity to be stored in a battery or deployed over a power distribution system. There are even bladeless wind turbines.

As of 2021, more than 67,000 wind turbines operate in the United States, in 44 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. Wind energy mechanisms generated about 8.4% of the electricity in the U.S. in 2020. Worldwide, wind provides about 6% of the world’s electricity needs. Wind energy is growing year-over-year by about 10% and is a key part of most climate change reduction and sustainable growth plans in several countries, including China, India, Germany, and the United States.

Wind Energy Definition

Humans use wind energy in many ways, from the simple (it’s still used to pump water for livestock in more remote locations) to the increasingly complex—think of the thousands of turbines that dominate the hills cutting through Highway 580 in California (pictured above).

The basic components of any wind energy system are fairly similar. There are blades of some size and shape connected to a drive shaft, and a pump or generator that uses or collects the wind energy. If the wind energy is used directly as a mechanical force, like milling grain or pumping water, it’s called a windmill; if it converts wind energy to electricity, it’s known as a wind turbine. A turbine system requires additional components, such as a battery for electricity storage, or is connected to a power distribution system like power lines.

Nobody knows when a human first harnessed the wind, but wind energy moved boats on Egypt’s Nile River around 5,000 B.C. By 200 B.C., people in China used wind to power simple water pumps and inhabitants of the Middle East used windmills with hand-woven blades to grind grain. Over time, wind pumps and mills helped produce many kinds of food there, and the concept spread to Europe, where the Dutch built large wind pumps to drain wetlands—from there the idea traveled to the Americas.

Wind Energy Basics

Wind occurs naturally when the sun heats the atmosphere, through variations in the Earth’s surface, and from the planet’s rotation. Wind can then increase or decrease due to the influence of bodies of water, forests, meadows and other vegetation, and elevation changes. Wind patterns and speeds vary significantly across terrain and seasonally, but some of those patterns are predictable enough to plan around.

Site Selection

The tops of rounded hills, open plains (or open water for offshore wind), and mountain passes (where wind is naturally funneled, producing regular high wind speeds) are the best locations to place a wind turbine. Generally, the higher the elevation the better, since higher elevations usually have more wind.

Wind energy forecasting is an important tool for siting a wind turbine. Several wind speed maps and data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in the U.S. provide these details.

One should conduct a site-specific survey to assess local wind conditions and determine the best direction to place wind turbines for maximum efficiency. Anyone intending to build a wind turbine should track wind speed, turbulence, direction, air temperatures, and humidity in the desired location, for at least a year. After evaluating that information, it’s easier to construct turbines that will deliver predictable results.

Wind isn’t the only factor for siting turbines. Developers for a wind farm must consider how close the farm is to transmission lines (and cities that can utilize the power); possible interference to local airports and plane traffic; underlying rock and faults; flight patterns of birds and bats; and local community impact (noise and other possible effects).

Most larger wind projects are designed to last at least 20 years, if not more, so these factors must be considered over the long term.

Types of Wind Energy

Utility Scale Wind Energy

These are large-scale wind projects designed to be used as a source of energy for a utility company. They are similar in scope to a coal-fired or natural gas power plant, which they sometimes replace or supplement. Turbines exceed 100 kilowatts of power in size and are usually installed in groups to provide significant power—currently, these types of systems provide about 8.4% of all energy in the United States.

Offshore Wind Energy

These are generally utility-scale wind energy projects that are planned in the waters off coastal areas. They can generate tremendous power near larger cities (which tend to cluster closer to shore in much of the United States). Wind blows more consistently and strongly in offshore areas than on land, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Based on the organization’s data and calculations, the potential for offshore wind energy in the U.S. is more than 2,000 gigawatts of power, which is two times the generating capacity of all U.S. electric power plants. Worldwide, wind energy could provide more than 18 times what the world currently uses, according to the International Energy Agency.

Small Scale or Distributed Wind Energy

This type of wind energy is the opposite of the examples above. These are wind turbines that are smaller in physical size and are used to meet the energy demands of a specific site or local area. Sometimes, these turbines are connected to the larger energy distribution grid, and sometimes they are off-grid. You’ll see these smaller installations (5-kilowatt size) in residential settings, where they might provide some or most of a home’s needs, depending on weather, and medium-sized versions (20 kilowatts or so) at industrial or community sites, where they might be part of a renewable energy system that also includes solar power, geothermal, or other energy sources.

How Does Wind Energy Work?

The function of a wind turbine is to use blades of some shape (which can vary) to catch the wind’s kinetic energy. As the wind flows over the blades, it lifts them, just like it lifts a sail to push a boat. That push from the wind makes the blades turn, moving the drive shaft that they’re connected to. That shaft then turns a pump of some kind—whether directly moving a piece of stone over grain (windmill) or pushing that energy into a generator that creates electricity that can be used right away or stored in a battery.

The process for an electricity-generating system (wind turbine) includes the following steps:

Wind Pushes Blades

Ideally, a windmill or wind turbine is located in a place with regular and consistent winds. That air movement pushes specially designed blades that allow the wind to push them as easily as possible. Blades can be designed so they are pushed upwind or downwind of their location.

Kinetic Energy Is Transformed

Kinetic energy is the free energy that comes from the wind. For us to be able to use or store that energy, it needs to be changed into a usable form of power. Kinetic energy is transformed into mechanical energy when the wind meets the windmill blades and pushes them. The movement of the blades then turns a drive shaft.

Electricity Is Generated

In a wind turbine, a spinning drive shaft is connected to a gearbox that increases the speed of the rotation by a factor of 100—which in turn spins a generator. Therefore, the gears end up spinning much faster than the blades being pushed by the wind. Once these gears reach a fast enough speed, they can power a generator that produces electricity.

The gearbox is the most expensive and heavy part of the turbine, and engineers are working on direct drive generators that can operate at lower speeds (so they don’t need a gearbox).

Transformer Converts Electricity

The electricity produced by the generator is 60-cycle AC (alternating current) electricity. A transformer may be needed to convert that to another type of electricity, depending on local needs.

Electricity Is Used or Stored

Electricity produced by a wind turbine might be used on site (more likely to be true in small or medium-sized wind projects), it could be delivered to transmission lines for use right away, or it could be stored in a battery.

More efficient battery storage is key for advancements in wind energy in the future. Increased storage capacity means that on days when the wind blows less, stored electricity from windier days could supplement it. Wind variability would then become less of an obstacle to reliable electricity from wind.

What Is a Wind Farm?

A wind farm is a collection of wind turbines that form a type of power plant, producing electricity from wind. There’s no official number requirement for an installation to be considered a wind farm, so it could include a few or hundreds of wind turbines working in the same area, whether on land or offshore.

Wind Energy Pros and Cons

The terms “global warming” and “climate change” are often used interchangeably. In the scientific literature, climate change and global warming are inextricably linked, even if they are distinct phenomena. The simplest explanation of that linkage is that global warming is the chief cause of changes in our current climate.

Here, we define both of these concepts, describe how they are measured and studied, and explain the connection between them.

What Is Global Warming?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has defined global warming as “an increase in combined surface air and sea surface temperatures averaged over the globe and over a 30-year period.” For over a century, research has been conducted to measure and pinpoint the precise causes of global warming.

Measurements Throughout History

Earth’s average surface temperature has risen and fallen throughout our planet’s history. The most complete global temperature records, in which scientists have a high level of confidence, date back to 1880. Before 1880, observations come from farmers and scientists who, as early as the 17th century, recorded daily temperatures, rainfall measurements, and first and last frosts in their personal diaries. This data has often been found to be accurate when compared to instrumental data.

For long-term data, paleoclimatologists (scientists who study ancient climates) rely on historical variations in pollen counts, the advance and retreat of mountain glaciers, ice cores, chemical weathering of rock, tree rings and species locations, shoreline changes, lake sediments, and other “proxy data.”

Scientists continuously refine the accuracy of the recorded data and how it is interpreted and modeled. Temperature records vary by region, altitude, instruments, and other factors, but the closer we get to the present, the more certain scientists are about the facts of global warming.

Natural events such as asteroid impacts and major volcanic eruptions, for example, can have dramatic effects on global temperatures, leading to mass extinctions. Cyclical changes in Earth’s position relative to the sun, called Milankovitch cycles, can influence global temperatures and have long-term effects on the climate over the course of thousands of years—though they do not account for the shorter-term changes witnessed over the last 150 years.

Indeed, for the present era, a pattern emerges from the data: Earth’s average temperature has risen much more rapidly in the past 50 years than during any past warming event.

The Greenhouse Effect

Starting in the mid-19th century, scientists began identifying changes in carbon dioxide concentrations as a leading cause of global temperature changes. In 1856, American physicist Eunice Foote was the first to demonstrate how carbon dioxide absorbed solar radiation. Her suggestion that “an atmosphere of that gas would give to our earth a high temperature” is now the common understanding among scientists on the causes of global warming, the phenomenon now known as the greenhouse effect. In other words, greater levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere result in a warmer climate. Foote’s contribution was soon overshadowed three years later by Irish physicist John Tyndall, who is usually credited with first describing the greenhouse effect.

By 1988, James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, could testify to the U.S. Congress “with a high degree of confidence” that there was a “cause and effect relationship” between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming. Hansen was speaking about recent global warming, but the “high degree of confidence” applies to paleoclimatology as well. By their very existence, since the emergence of life on Earth, carbon-based lifeforms have altered levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Human-Induced Causes

Humans have caused the most rapid and severe changes in global temperatures. Since James Hansen’s 1988 testimony, the level of confidence in the anthropogenic (human-induced) causes of global warming has grown to be functionally unanimous within the scientific community.

Those anthropogenic causes are not new. As early as 1800, the naturalist Alexander von Humboldt observed how deforestation raised regional atmospheric temperatures. Just as wildfires today release tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, controlled burns have been a source of added carbon for centuries.

Those traditional practices, however, are dwarfed by the number of greenhouse gases emitted since the beginning of the late 18th century with the development of the coal-powered steam engine. Coal burning expanded a hundredfold in the 19th century, grew another 50% by 1950, tripled between 1950 and 2000, then nearly doubled again between 2000 and 2015. Oil consumption followed an even faster growth curve, expanding 300-fold between 1880 and 1988, then growing another 50% to 2015. Natural gas use has risen the quickest, expanding a thousandfold between the late 1880s and 1991, then another 75% to 2015.

Fossil fuel burning, which emits greenhouse gases primarily of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, may have peaked in 2017, but still made up 82% of the world’s primary energy use in 2021.

The parallel growth of fossil fuel consumption and the rise in global surface temperatures is striking. Greenhouse gas emissions have risen to levels that are “unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years” and are “extremely likely to have been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century,” according to the IPCC.

A simple way to understand how fossil fuels contribute to global warming is to think of a blanket. Burning fossil fuel has wrapped the Earth in a blanket of pollution, which traps heat. The more fossil fuels we burn, the thicker the blanket gets, and the more heat can be trapped.

What Is Climate Change?

Climate is weather over a long duration. Changes in the climate created by human-induced global warming are having and will continue to have long-term effects. Those effects, once thought to begin occurring sometime in the near future, are increasingly visible today, with the most apparent being changes in weather patterns. But subtler changes to entire ecosystems also present a very serious threat.

Extreme Weather

Global warming has made the weather wilder and more unstable, as natural disasters have shown “exponential increases in recent decades” in both intensity and frequency. “Once-in-a-century” natural disasters such as wildfires, deadly heat waves, droughts, floods, tropical storms, hurricanes, blizzards, and avalanches have seen a 10-fold increase since 1960.

According to the World Meteorological Organization, over the last 50 years, half of all recorded disasters and 74% of related economic losses have been due to weather, climate, and water hazards like floods.

Attributing Weather to Climate Change

It is often difficult to attribute any particular extreme weather event to global warming. Natural variability in the climate is responsible for short-term, year-to-year changes in weather patterns, especially at the regional level. But the longer-term pattern of weather events reveals the hand of climate change.

What can be attributed to global warming is a changing climate, where warmer oceans and warmer air increase the likelihood and intensity of droughts, heat waves, storms, hurricanes, and other extreme weather events. Attribution of extreme events is more a question of probabilities than certainties, given that the circumstances involved often have no historical precedents.

But by comparing current extreme events to historical ones of different intensities and different atmospheric conditions, scientists can give increasingly rigorous explanations for the role that global warming played in worsening extreme weather.

While there is often disagreement within the scientific community about the level of influence climate change has on a single extreme event, there is a solid agreement that human-induced climate change plays a leading role.

Threats to Ecosystems

More deadly than natural disasters is climate change’s threat to Earth’s entire biosphere, the ecosystems that support life. Species that attempt to adapt to the changing climate often fail.

Coral, for example, dies as oceans absorb atmospheric carbon dioxide and become increasingly acidic. When peatlands and coastal wetlands dry out due to rising temperatures, their dead vegetation decomposes more quickly and releases greenhouse gases, contributing to a “cascading effect” where one calamity contributes to the next. Climate-driven “tipping points,” already underway, lead to major losses in biodiversity and undermine entire ecosystems.

Climate change research still contains unknowns and uncertainties. It is easier to understand the past than to predict the future of an entire planet’s physical and biological systems. Yet the key uncertainty is less about the hard science of climate change and more about the social science of how humans respond to it.