Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

How the Olympics Are Saving Athletes from Heat Stress

News Feed
Wednesday, July 31, 2024

CLIMATEWIRE | With temperatures rising in Paris, Yuri Hosokawa thinks about a race walker who collapsed at the Tokyo Olympics three years ago during a blistering heat wave.What happened next was a kind of breakthrough.The athlete’s body reached nearly 108 degrees Fahrenheit — high enough to cause organ damage or even death. But the racer didn't die, thanks in part to an extreme weather plan drafted with Hosokawa's help before the games.On supporting science journalismIf you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.The athlete was taken to a tent near the racecourse, called a “Heat Deck,” where he was immersed in ice water for 30 minutes, until his body temperature dropped to 102 degrees.“He didn’t even have to get hospitalized,” said Hosokawa, a professor of sport sciences at Japan's Waseda University.The Tokyo games marked the first time the Olympics treated heat illness on-site with heat decks. They are back for the Paris games and will likely become a stable of sports medicine as athletes compete amid ever-rising temperatures.“It’s not a conversation that is going away,” said Rebecca Stearns, chief operating officer at the University of Connecticut’s Korey Stringer Institute, which works to prevent heat stroke in athletes and was named after the offensive tackle for the Minnesota Vikings who died of heat stroke in 2001.Despite their physical conditioning, athletes are at high risk for exertional heat stroke because of the strenuous nature of their activity.Their bodies are warmed by the ambient temperature of wherever they compete, but also by muscle contractions and exercise. Many sports also require special uniforms or protective equipment that trap heat.“A lot of the perception around athletes is that they are these high-level, invincible individuals who are at the physiological peak of human anatomy,” Stearns said. “But we see a large number of elite athletes succumb to things like heat stroke.”So when the International Olympic Committee convened an Adverse Weather Impact Expert Working Group ahead of the Tokyo games, it focused on heat. It identified which sports are at “high risk” from hot temperatures and came up with a plan to respond to illnesses.“The Olympics did not have a heat policy prior to Tokyo, and we didn’t even have much data to work with,” Hosokawa said. “They had people who did injury surveillance at events, but we didn’t know how much exertional heat stroke to expect at what temperatures, or how much ice we would need.”The “heat deck” idea was born out of the task force, which determined that safeguards should be used for nearly every outdoor event with at least a medium duration. Some of that was controversial, according to Hosokawa, whose role was to explain to each athletic federation the need for the heat deck.Some sports were not used to dealing with heat. That included soccer, whose games usually take place in the evenings when temperatures are cooler.But the women’s final match was initially scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. in Japan, meaning athletes would be playing at the hottest time of day."I had to go to FIFA and say, 'Look, we know you normally don’t see extreme heat symptoms on the pitch during your games, but given this schedule, we need the heat deck,'" Hosokawa said, referring to the international soccer association.FIFA agreed, though the final match between Canada and Sweden was pushed back to 9 p.m. local time because a heat wave pushed temperatures in Tokyo over 100 degrees.Convincing Japanese medical officials to use the heat deck system took more time. Experts who specialize in treating exertional heat stroke say that cooling someone down immediately — before transporting them to the hospital — is the best way to save their life. Heat stroke can kill in a matter of minutes.But the idea of treating an ailing person in place, rather than rushing them to the hospital, is counterintuitive to medical personnel who are accustomed to treating other illnesses. As a result, international athletic guidelines are often not followed outside of sporting events.“There was a lot of education and translation about how the duration of hyperthermia determines life or death, and we have to cool people before you get to the point of no return and organ failure,” Hosokawa said.Ultimately, 1 in 100 athletes were found to have suffered some kind of heat-related illness at the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games. Some 24 athletes in the race walk and marathon events became so sick during their events that they could not finish. That no one died is something Hosokawa counts as “a success.”The Paris GamesAfter a cool and rainy start to the Olympics in Paris, temperatures climbed to 95 degrees on Tuesday and are expected to reach 90 degrees on Wednesday. The city has suffered from other recent heat waves.French officials attributed more than 5,000 deaths to heat last summer. One study that looked at heat deaths across Europe found that Paris ranked first.Athletes didn't escape unscathed. During the 2023 French Open, which was played at this Olympic's tennis venue, Roland-Garros, competitors Novak Djokovic and Casper Ruud argued with the game’s umpire over the timing of breaks in the heat.“Where is the rush, why are you rushing?” Djokovic asked.French environmental physiology expert Sebastien Racinais chaired the Olympics' adverse weather group ahead of Tokyo and also helped prepare for the Paris Games.The Olympics published a pamphlet instructing athletes and their medical teams on how to “optimize performance and reduce the risk of heat illness,” advising that they take at least two weeks to acclimate to Paris weather ahead of the games.Racinais also shared video of televisions at Roland-Garros stadium displaying heat stress and hydration tips. "Kudos to @Paris2024," he wrote.But some athletes are asking the Olympics to do better.Many Olympians signed onto a report from the British Association for Sustainable Sport this spring calling on organizers to schedule games during cooler times of day, and support athletes who speak up against climate change. It also called on the Olympics to reassess the sponsorships it receives from fossil fuels organizations.And the report quoted athletes who suffered heat during the Tokyo games.“At the Tokyo Olympics, it was impossible to hydrate well enough to combat the heat and humidity,” said Marcus Daniell, a New Zealand tennis star who won a bronze medal in men's doubles. “We sometimes have to play in conditions where an egg can literally be fried on the court.”Michael Tipton, a lead author of the report, said highlighting an athlete’s experience can help save lives and promote climate action.“Sporting fans tune into the Olympics for the spectacle, they want to see athletes compete at the top of their game, they want to see world records being broken,” he said. “But that’s not as likely to happen if the athletes have to worry about collapsing in the heat.”Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Climate change-driven heat endangers Olympians. Here’s how the Games are helping competitors cool down

CLIMATEWIRE | With temperatures rising in Paris, Yuri Hosokawa thinks about a race walker who collapsed at the Tokyo Olympics three years ago during a blistering heat wave.

What happened next was a kind of breakthrough.

The athlete’s body reached nearly 108 degrees Fahrenheit — high enough to cause organ damage or even death. But the racer didn't die, thanks in part to an extreme weather plan drafted with Hosokawa's help before the games.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The athlete was taken to a tent near the racecourse, called a “Heat Deck,” where he was immersed in ice water for 30 minutes, until his body temperature dropped to 102 degrees.

“He didn’t even have to get hospitalized,” said Hosokawa, a professor of sport sciences at Japan's Waseda University.

The Tokyo games marked the first time the Olympics treated heat illness on-site with heat decks. They are back for the Paris games and will likely become a stable of sports medicine as athletes compete amid ever-rising temperatures.

“It’s not a conversation that is going away,” said Rebecca Stearns, chief operating officer at the University of Connecticut’s Korey Stringer Institute, which works to prevent heat stroke in athletes and was named after the offensive tackle for the Minnesota Vikings who died of heat stroke in 2001.

Despite their physical conditioning, athletes are at high risk for exertional heat stroke because of the strenuous nature of their activity.

Their bodies are warmed by the ambient temperature of wherever they compete, but also by muscle contractions and exercise. Many sports also require special uniforms or protective equipment that trap heat.

“A lot of the perception around athletes is that they are these high-level, invincible individuals who are at the physiological peak of human anatomy,” Stearns said. “But we see a large number of elite athletes succumb to things like heat stroke.”

So when the International Olympic Committee convened an Adverse Weather Impact Expert Working Group ahead of the Tokyo games, it focused on heat. It identified which sports are at “high risk” from hot temperatures and came up with a plan to respond to illnesses.

“The Olympics did not have a heat policy prior to Tokyo, and we didn’t even have much data to work with,” Hosokawa said. “They had people who did injury surveillance at events, but we didn’t know how much exertional heat stroke to expect at what temperatures, or how much ice we would need.”

The “heat deck” idea was born out of the task force, which determined that safeguards should be used for nearly every outdoor event with at least a medium duration. Some of that was controversial, according to Hosokawa, whose role was to explain to each athletic federation the need for the heat deck.

Some sports were not used to dealing with heat. That included soccer, whose games usually take place in the evenings when temperatures are cooler.

But the women’s final match was initially scheduled to begin at 11 a.m. in Japan, meaning athletes would be playing at the hottest time of day.

"I had to go to FIFA and say, 'Look, we know you normally don’t see extreme heat symptoms on the pitch during your games, but given this schedule, we need the heat deck,'" Hosokawa said, referring to the international soccer association.

FIFA agreed, though the final match between Canada and Sweden was pushed back to 9 p.m. local time because a heat wave pushed temperatures in Tokyo over 100 degrees.

Convincing Japanese medical officials to use the heat deck system took more time. Experts who specialize in treating exertional heat stroke say that cooling someone down immediately — before transporting them to the hospital — is the best way to save their life. Heat stroke can kill in a matter of minutes.

But the idea of treating an ailing person in place, rather than rushing them to the hospital, is counterintuitive to medical personnel who are accustomed to treating other illnesses. As a result, international athletic guidelines are often not followed outside of sporting events.

“There was a lot of education and translation about how the duration of hyperthermia determines life or death, and we have to cool people before you get to the point of no return and organ failure,” Hosokawa said.

Ultimately, 1 in 100 athletes were found to have suffered some kind of heat-related illness at the Tokyo Olympic and Paralympic Games. Some 24 athletes in the race walk and marathon events became so sick during their events that they could not finish. That no one died is something Hosokawa counts as “a success.”

The Paris Games

After a cool and rainy start to the Olympics in Paris, temperatures climbed to 95 degrees on Tuesday and are expected to reach 90 degrees on Wednesday. The city has suffered from other recent heat waves.

French officials attributed more than 5,000 deaths to heat last summer. One study that looked at heat deaths across Europe found that Paris ranked first.

Athletes didn't escape unscathed. During the 2023 French Open, which was played at this Olympic's tennis venue, Roland-Garros, competitors Novak Djokovic and Casper Ruud argued with the game’s umpire over the timing of breaks in the heat.

“Where is the rush, why are you rushing?” Djokovic asked.

French environmental physiology expert Sebastien Racinais chaired the Olympics' adverse weather group ahead of Tokyo and also helped prepare for the Paris Games.

The Olympics published a pamphlet instructing athletes and their medical teams on how to “optimize performance and reduce the risk of heat illness,” advising that they take at least two weeks to acclimate to Paris weather ahead of the games.

Racinais also shared video of televisions at Roland-Garros stadium displaying heat stress and hydration tips. "Kudos to @Paris2024," he wrote.

But some athletes are asking the Olympics to do better.

Many Olympians signed onto a report from the British Association for Sustainable Sport this spring calling on organizers to schedule games during cooler times of day, and support athletes who speak up against climate change. It also called on the Olympics to reassess the sponsorships it receives from fossil fuels organizations.

And the report quoted athletes who suffered heat during the Tokyo games.

“At the Tokyo Olympics, it was impossible to hydrate well enough to combat the heat and humidity,” said Marcus Daniell, a New Zealand tennis star who won a bronze medal in men's doubles. “We sometimes have to play in conditions where an egg can literally be fried on the court.”

Michael Tipton, a lead author of the report, said highlighting an athlete’s experience can help save lives and promote climate action.

“Sporting fans tune into the Olympics for the spectacle, they want to see athletes compete at the top of their game, they want to see world records being broken,” he said. “But that’s not as likely to happen if the athletes have to worry about collapsing in the heat.”

Reprinted from E&E News with permission from POLITICO, LLC. Copyright 2024. E&E News provides essential news for energy and environment professionals.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

EPA Eliminates Mention of Fossil Fuels in Website on Warming's Causes. Scientists Call It Misleading

The Environmental Protection Agency has removed references to fossil fuels from its online page about climate change causes

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Environmental Protection Agency has removed any mention of fossil fuels — the main driver of global warming — from its popular online page explaining the causes of climate change. Now it only mentions natural phenomena, even though scientists calculate that nearly all of the warming is due to human activity.Sometime in the past few days or weeks, EPA altered some but not all of its climate change webpages, de-emphasizing and even deleting references to the burning of coal, oil and natural gas, which scientists say is the overwhelming cause of climate change. The website's causes of climate page mentions changes in Earth’s orbit, solar activity, Earth's reflectivity, volcanoes and natural carbon dioxide changes, but not the burning of fossil fuels. Seven scientists and three former EPA officials tell The Associated Press that this is misleading and harmful.“Now it is completely wrong,” said University of California climate scientist Daniel Swain, who also noted that impacts, risks and indicators of climate change on the EPA site are now broken links. “This was a tool that I know for a fact that a lot of educators used and a lot of people. It was actually one of the best designed easy access climate change information websites for the U.S.”“It is outrageous that our government is hiding information and lying,” said former Obama National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief and Oregon State oceanographer Jane Lubchenco. “People have a right to know the truth about the things that affect their health and safety, and the government has a responsibility to tell the truth.”An October version of the same EPA page, saved by the internet Wayback Machine, said: “Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which has changed the earth’s climate. Natural processes, such as changes in the sun’s energy and volcanic eruptions, also affect the Earth’s climate. However, they do not explain the warming that we have observed over the last century.”That now reads: “Natural processes are always influencing the earth’s climate and can explain climate changes prior to the Industrial Revolution in the 1700s. However, recent climate changes cannot be explained by natural causes alone.”“Unlike the previous administration, the Trump EPA is focused on protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback, not left-wing political agendas,” said Brigit Hirsch, EPA spokesperson, in an email. “As such, this agency no longer takes marching orders from the climate cult. Plus, for all the pearl-clutchers out there, the website is archived and available to the public.” Clicking on “explore climate change resources” on the EPA archived website leads to an error message that says: “This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it.”Former Republican Governor Christie Todd Whitman, who was EPA administrator under George W. Bush, said, “You can refuse to talk about it, but it doesn't make it go away. And we're seeing it. Everybody's seeing it.”“We look ridiculous, quite frankly,” Whitman told The Associated Press in an interview. “The rest of the world understands this is happening and they're taking steps... And we're just going backwards. We're knocking ourselves back into the Stone Age.”Democratic EPA chief Gina McCarthy blasted current EPA chief Lee Zeldin, calling him “a wolf in sheep's clothing, actively spiking any attempt to protect our health, well-being and precious natural resources.”Nearly 100% of the warming the world is now experiencing is from human activity, and without that, the Earth would be cooling and dropping in temperatures until the Industrial Revolution, Swain and other scientists said. The EPA listed natural causes “might be causing a very tiny amount of warming or cooling at the moment,” he said.Marcia McNutt, a geophysicist and president of the National Academy of Sciences, said that there is consensus among experts from the National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, or NASEM, on the causes of climate change. “Numerous NASEM reports from the nation’s leading scientists confirm that the climate is changing as a result of human activities,” McNutt said. “Even the EPA acknowledges that natural causes cannot explain the current changes in climate. It is important that the public be presented with all of the facts.”Former EPA climate advisor Jeremy Symons, now a senior advisor for Environmental Protection Network of former EPA officials, said: “Ignoring fossil fuel pollution as the driving force behind the climate changes we have seen in our lifetime is like pretending cigarettes don’t cause lung cancer.”Michael Phillis contributed to this report.The Associated Press’ climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Contributor: The left's climate panic is finally calming down

Millions of Americans may still believe warming exists, but far fewer view it as an imminent existential threat.

Is the American left finally waking up from its decades-long climate catastrophism stupor? For years, climate alarmism has reigned as political catechism: The planet is burning and only drastic action — deindustrialization, draconian regulation, even ceasing childbearing — could forestall certain apocalypse. Now, at least some signs are emerging that both the broader public and leading liberal voices may be recoiling from the doom and gloom.First, recent polling shows that the intensity of climate dread is weakening. According to a July report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, while a majority (69%) of Americans still say global warming is happening, only 60% say it’s “mostly human-caused”; 28% attribute it mostly to natural environmental changes. A similar October study from the University of Chicago’s Energy Policy Institute found that “belief in human-driven climate change declined overall” since 2017. Interestingly, Democrats and political independents, not Republicans, were primarily responsible for the decline.Moreover, public willingness to countenance personal sacrifice in the name of saving the planet seems to be plummeting: An October 2024 poll from the Pew Research Center found that only 45% said human activity contributed “a great deal” to climate change. An additional 29% said it contributed “some” — while a quarter said human influence was minimal or nonexistent.The moral panic is slowly evaporating. Millions of Americans may still believe warming exists, but far fewer view it as an imminent existential threat — let alone embrace sweeping upheavals in energy policy and personal lifestyle.The fading consensus among ordinary Americans matches a more dramatic signal from ruling-class elites. On Oct. 28, no less an erstwhile ardent climate change evangelist than Bill Gates published a remarkable blog post addressing climate leaders at the then-upcoming COP30 summit. Gates unloaded a blistering critique of what he called “the doomsday view of climate change,” which he said is simply “wrong.” While acknowledging the serious risks for the poorest countries, Gates insisted that humanity will continue to “live and thrive in most places on Earth for the foreseeable future.” He added that “using more energy is a good thing, because it’s so closely correlated with economic growth.” One might be forgiven for suffering a bit of whiplash.The unraveling of climate catastrophism got another jolt recently with the formal retraction of a high-profile 2024 study published in the journal Nature. That study — which had predicted a calamitous 62% decline in global economic output by 2100 if carbon emissions were not sufficiently reduced — was widely cited by transnational bodies and progressive political activists alike as justification for the pursuit of aggressive decarbonization. But the authors withdrew the paper after peer reviewers discovered that flawed data had skewed the result. Without that data, the projected decline in output collapses to around 23%. Oops.The climate alarm machine — powered by the twin engines of moral panic and groupthink homogeneity — is sputtering. When the public grows skeptical, when billionaire techno-philanthropists question the prevailing consensus and when supposedly mainstream scientific projections reverse course, that’s a sign that the days of Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” propaganda documentary and John Kerry’s “special presidential envoy for climate” globe-trotting vanity gig are officially over.Ultimately, no one stands to benefit more from this incipient trend toward climate sanity than the American people themselves. In an era when optimism can be hard to come by, the professed certitude of imminent environmental apocalypse is pretty much the least helpful thing imaginable. If one is seeking to plant the seeds of hope, nothing could be worse than lecturing to the masses that one is a climate change-“denying” misanthrope if he has the temerity to take his family on an airplane for a nice vacation or — egad! — entertain thoughts of having more children. Even more to the point, given the overwhelming evidence that Americans are now primarily concerned about affordability and the cost of living, more — not less — hydrocarbon extraction has never been more necessary.There are green shoots that liberals and elites may be slowly — perhaps grudgingly — giving up on the climate catastrophism hoax to which they have long stubbornly clung. In America’s gladiatorial two-party system, that could well deprive Republicans of a winning political issue with which to batter out-of-touch, climate-change-besotted Democrats. But for the sake of good governance, sound public policy and the prosperity of the median American citizen, it would be the best thing to happen in a decade.Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content. Ideas expressed in the pieceThe author contends that climate catastrophism has dominated progressive political discourse for decades but is now experiencing a notable decline in public support and credibility. Recent polling demonstrates weakening consensus on climate risks, with only 60% of Americans attributing warming primarily to human causes compared to 28% citing natural environmental changes, while belief in human-caused climate change has declined particularly among Democrats and independents since 2017. The author notes that public willingness to accept personal sacrifices for climate goals has diminished substantially, with only 45% of Americans saying human activity contributed “a great deal” to warming. The author highlights prominent figures like Bill Gates questioning the “doomsday view of climate change” and emphasizing that humanity will continue to thrive, arguing that increased energy consumption correlates with economic growth. The retraction of a 2024 Nature study that had predicted a 62% decline in global economic output by 2100—which peer reviewers found used flawed data—serves as evidence, according to the author, that catastrophic projections lack credibility. The author maintains that climate alarmism has been counterproductive to American well-being, fostering pessimism about the future and discouraging people from having children or pursuing economic development, and that moving away from this narrative will allow policymakers to address concerns Americans prioritize, particularly affordability and cost of living, through expanded hydrocarbon extraction.Different views on the topicScientific researchers have documented substantive health consequences from climate-related extreme events that suggest legitimate grounds for public concern rather than baseless alarmism. A comprehensive peer-reviewed literature review identified extensive evidence linking climate change to measurable increases in anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation following extreme weather events such as heat waves, floods, hurricanes, and droughts[1]. The research demonstrates that approximately 80% of the global population experiences water and food insecurity resulting from climate impacts, with particularly acute effects in rural areas facing drought and agricultural disruption[1]. Scientific studies indicate that anthropogenic warming has contributed to increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, with vulnerable populations—including elderly individuals, low-income communities, women, and disabled persons—facing disproportionate risks due to limited access to resources and protection[1]. Rather than representing unfounded catastrophism, documented mental and physical health outcomes following extreme weather suggest that public concern about climate impacts reflects genuine public health challenges warranting policy attention and resource allocation for adaptation and mitigation strategies.

South Australian bus ads misled public by claiming gas is ‘clean and green’, regulator finds

Ads to be removed from Adelaide Metro buses after advertising regulator rules they breach its environmental claims codeSign up for climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s free Clear Air newsletter hereSouth Australia’s transport department misled the public by running ads on buses claiming “natural gas” was “clean and green”, the advertising regulator has found.The SA Department for Transport and Infrastructure has agreed to remove the advertising that has been on some Adelaide Metro buses since the early 2000s after Ad Standards upheld a complaint from the not-for-profit organisation Comms Declare.Sign up to get climate and environment editor Adam Morton’s Clear Air column as a free newsletter Continue reading...

South Australia’s transport department misled the public by running ads on buses claiming “natural gas” was “clean and green”, the advertising regulator has found.The SA Department for Transport and Infrastructure has agreed to remove the advertising that has been on some Adelaide Metro buses since the early 2000s after Ad Standards upheld a complaint from the not-for-profit organisation Comms Declare.The ads have appeared on the side of buses that run on “compressed natural gas”, or CNG. In its complaint, Comms Declare said describing gas as clean and green was false and misleading as it suggested the fuel had a neutral or positive impact on the environment and was less harmful than alternatives.It said in reality gas was mostly composed of methane, a short-lived but potent fossil fuel.The Ad Standards panel agreed the ads breached three sections of its environmental claims code.It said CNG buses were originally introduced to provide more environmentally responsible transport than diesel buses, but transport solutions had evolved dramatically over the past 20 years and now included cleaner electric, hydrogen and hybrid alternatives.Comms Declare said multiple studies from across the globe had found buses that ran on CNG resulted in a roughly similar amount of greenhouse gas emissions being released into the atmosphere as buses that ran on diesel. It highlighted Adelaide Metro was now replacing its bus fleet with electric vehicles that it described as “better for the environment”.skip past newsletter promotionSign up to Clear Air AustraliaAdam Morton brings you incisive analysis about the politics and impact of the climate crisisPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionComms Declare’s founder, Belinda Noble, said the decision was “another warning to any advertisers that want to make claims about gas products being good for the environment”. She said it followed similar rulings against Hancock Prospecting and Australian Gas Networks ads.“Methane gas creates toxic pollution at all stages of its production and use and is a major cause of global heating,” Noble said.Ad Standards said the Department for Transport and Infrastructure had “reviewed the decision and will take the appropriate action to remedy the issue in the near future”.A department spokesperson said it had received a direction from the Ad Standards panel to remove messaging from “a small number” of Adelaide Metro buses.The spokesperson argued that CNG was a “cleaner burning alternative to diesel” when it was purchased, offering about a 13% cut in greenhouse gas emissions and a “considerable reduction in harmful emissions” of carbon monoxide, nitrous oxide and particulates.

What’s the best way to expand the US electricity grid?

A study by MIT researchers illuminates choices about reliability, cost, and emissions.

Growing energy demand means the U.S. will almost certainly have to expand its electricity grid in coming years. What’s the best way to do this? A new study by MIT researchers examines legislation introduced in Congress and identifies relative tradeoffs involving reliability, cost, and emissions, depending on the proposed approach.The researchers evaluated two policy approaches to expanding the U.S. electricity grid: One would concentrate on regions with more renewable energy sources, and the other would create more interconnections across the country. For instance, some of the best untapped wind-power resources in the U.S. lie in the center of the country, so one type of grid expansion would situate relatively more grid infrastructure in those regions. Alternatively, the other scenario involves building more infrastructure everywhere in roughly equal measure, which the researchers call the “prescriptive” approach. How does each pencil out?After extensive modeling, the researchers found that a grid expansion could make improvements on all fronts, with each approach offering different advantages. A more geographically unbalanced grid buildout would be 1.13 percent less expensive, and would reduce carbon emissions by 3.65 percent compared to the prescriptive approach. And yet, the prescriptive approach, with more national interconnection, would significantly reduce power outages due to extreme weather, among other things.“There’s a tradeoff between the two things that are most on policymakers’ minds: cost and reliability,” says Christopher Knittel, an economist at the MIT Sloan School of Management, who helped direct the research. “This study makes it more clear that the more prescriptive approach ends up being better in the face of extreme weather and outages.”The paper, “Implications of Policy-Driven Transmission Expansion on Costs, Emissions and Reliability in the United States,” is published today in Nature Energy.The authors are Juan Ramon L. Senga, a postdoc in the MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; Audun Botterud, a principal research scientist in the MIT Laboratory for Information and Decision Systems; John E. Parson, the deputy director for research at MIT’s Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research; Drew Story, the managing director at MIT’s Policy Lab; and Knittel, who is the George P. Schultz Professor at MIT Sloan, and associate dean for climate and sustainability at MIT.The new study is a product of the MIT Climate Policy Center, housed within MIT Sloan and committed to bipartisan research on energy issues. The center is also part of the Climate Project at MIT, founded in 2024 as a high-level Institute effort to develop practical climate solutions.In this case, the project was developed from work the researchers did with federal lawmakers who have introduced legislation aimed at bolstering and expanding the U.S. electric grid. One of these bills, the BIG WIRES Act, co-sponsored by Sen. John Hickenlooper of Colorado and Rep. Scott Peters of California, would require each transmission region in the U.S. to be able to send at least 30 percent of its peak load to other regions by 2035.That would represent a substantial change for a national transmission scenario where grids have largely been developed regionally, without an enormous amount of national oversight.“The U.S. grid is aging and it needs an upgrade,” Senga says. “Implementing these kinds of policies is an important step for us to get to that future where we improve the grid, lower costs, lower emissions, and improve reliability. Some progress is better than none, and in this case, it would be important.”To conduct the study, the researchers looked at how policies like the BIG WIRES Act would affect energy distribution. The scholars used a model of energy generation developed at the MIT Energy Initiative — the model is called “Gen X” — and examined the changes proposed by the legislation.With a 30 percent level of interregional connectivity, the study estimates, the number of outages due to extreme cold would drop by 39 percent, for instance, a substantial increase in reliability. That would help avoid scenarios such as the one Texas experienced in 2021, when winter storms damaged distribution capacity.“Reliability is what we find to be most salient to policymakers,” Senga says.On the other hand, as the paper details, a future grid that is “optimized” with more transmission capacity near geographic spots of new energy generation would be less expensive.“On the cost side, this kind of optimized system looks better,” Senga says.A more geographically imbalanced grid would also have a greater impact on reducing emissions. Globally, the levelized cost of wind and solar dropped by 89 percent and 69 percent, respectively, from 2010 to 2022, meaning that incorporating less-expensive renewables into the grid would help with both cost and emissions.“On the emissions side, a priori it’s not clear the optimized system would do better, but it does,” Knittel says. “That’s probably tied to cost, in the sense that it’s building more transmission links to where the good, cheap renewable resources are, because they’re cheap. Emissions fall when you let the optimizing action take place.”To be sure, these two differing approaches to grid expansion are not the only paths forward. The study also examines a hybrid approach, which involves both national interconnectivity requirements and local buildouts based around new power sources on top of that. Still, the model does show that there may be some tradeoffs lawmakers will want to consider when developing and considering future grid legislation.“You can find a balance between these factors, where you’re still going to still have an increase in reliability while also getting the cost and emission reductions,” Senga observes.For his part, Knittel emphasizes that working with legislation as the basis for academic studies, while not generally common, can be productive for everyone involved. Scholars get to apply their research tools and models to real-world scenarios, and policymakers get a sophisticated evaluation of how their proposals would work.“Compared to the typical academic path to publication, this is different, but at the Climate Policy Center, we’re already doing this kind of research,” Knittel says. 

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.