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.

Op-ed: Ripe for disaster declarations — heat, wildfire smoke and death data

News Feed
Friday, July 26, 2024

Extreme heat and wildfire smoke should of course be defined as major disasters by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. According to the National Weather Service, heat kills more people in this nation than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and lightning combined. The Washington Post reported that extreme heat recently killed at least 28 people across the nation.Yet, despite several requests from states over the years, most recently California during a 2022 “heat dome” and wildfires, no White House has ever approved a disaster declaration for heat or smoke.Some states outright ignore the dangers in the name of greed. Over the last 13 months, Texas and Florida have enacted laws that block localities from issuing heat protection rules for workers. Nationally, the Biden administration proposed on July 2 new rules to protect workers from heat. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of construction and agricultural lobbying groups have opposed the prospect of rules for months and are sure to oppose them in the courts.It is clear that the opposition is willing to risk sacrificing lower-wage construction and farm workers to the sun’s brutality as executives count the cash in air conditioned offices. Farm workers make an average $13.59 an hour. Hispanic construction laborers make $15.34 an hour, well below the $25-an-hour living wage for a family of four in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Living Wage Calculator. Farm workers respectively have 35 times and 12 times higher risk of heat-related injuries than in all other industries. Making the latest case for disaster declarations is a consortium of 31 environmental, public health, labor, and justice groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity. In a June 17 petition to FEMA, the groups warned that the record-breaking heat and fire disasters we are already experiencing are likely only the beginning. The world’s nations, particularly the top burners of fossil fuels such as the United States, have yet to unify to prevent uncontrolled global warming.“These may be the coolest days and the cleanest air of the 21st century,” the petition said, “and it is already unbearably hot and unsafe for too many Americans.”The petitioners hope that disaster declarations can unlock federal funds for short-term relief such as cooling centers, water supplies, emergency air conditioning and air filtration systems, and financial assistance for evacuations. Declarations could also lead to money for long-term, proactive mitigation, such as renewable energy storage and microgrids to withstand utility blackouts, and retrofitting of homes and buildings to be more energy efficient and weatherized.That is vitally important for disadvantaged families who are more likely to live on shadeless, asphalt and concrete “heat islands.” Such communities are often already overburdened with pollution associated with fossil fuel burning and proximity to polluting industries. The petition called extreme heat a “harm multiplier” for these communities because of poor housing stock, difficulty in paying utility bills, and pre-existing poorer health. In making their case, the 31 environmental groups cite data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, projecting that financial cost of extreme heat in the United States will explode fivefold to half a trillion dollars a year by 2050.There is something else that would make their case even stronger: Data on people. The federal government is woefully behind university researchers in calculating the current and future mortality of heat and smoke. It should be just as much an emergency for the government to tell us the toll of heat and wildfire smoke. Especially since the government itself says “most heat-related deaths are preventable.” Death behind closed doorsProperty damage from tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods is easy to visualize and leaves the costs of emergency assistance and repair without much question. Because of the nation’s overall wealth, which gives us relatively sturdier dwellings and stronger rebuilds, deaths from those weather disasters are a fraction of the fatalities suffered in lesser resourced parts of the world. For instance, while Hurricane Katrina took 1,400 lives in the US in 2005, Cyclone Nargis in the Bay of Bengal made landfall in Myanmar in 2008 and killed 140,000 people—100 times more people than Katrina.People perishing by heat or smoke one by one in the privacy of their homes or in the sterility of hospitals is relatively invisible. An analysis of heat deaths by the Cincinnati Enquirer found that about half of heat deaths happen at home, often to people who lack air conditioning, are elderly with pre-existing medical conditions, or who are socially isolated.The petition by environmental groups points to the current invisibility of heat deaths. It cites federal data saying there were 2,300 deaths last year where heat was listed as a factor on death certificates. That by itself was a record in nearly a half-century of such record keeping. But left as is, that toll would seem to pale next to last year’s nearly 43,000 car fatalities, nearly 43,000 gun-related deaths, or 107,000 drug overdose deaths.The number of heat deaths is assuredly far more. Heat is often not listed on death certificates as a contributing factor to the final cause of death, such as kidney failure, organ failure, and heart attack. There is no uniform protocol tying together how the federal government, the 50 states, or the nation’s 3,000 counties calculate heat-related deaths.University scientists and health and safety groups are filling in the gaps as best they can.In 2020, a study in the journal Environmental Epidemiology determined that 5,600 deaths a year were attributable to heat from 1997 to 2006, eight times higher than federal figures. In 2022, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Medical Center calculated that the number of people who died from heat-related causes between 2008 and 2017 was two to three times higher than federal figures. The Penn and Philadelphia VA researchers also found that extreme heat days were associated with “significantly higher” cardiovascular mortality among adults.This spring, Texas A&M climate scientists Andrew Dessler and Jangho Lee told the Associated Press that last year’s real national annual heat death toll may be 11,000, nearly five times higher than the 2,300 cited by the government.In the work world, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics says 43 workers died in 2022 from heat. But reports by Public Citizen, the most recent being in May of this year, estimate that as many as 2,000 workers a year (46 times more) die from heat and another 170,000 are injuries triggered by heat, such as becoming dizzy and falling off a roof.But the injury might simply be listed as a fall without mention of heat. Public Citizen says government figures are “decidedly unreliable” and “notoriously problematic” because they are based on self-reporting surveys of employers and “less than half of employers even maintain the required records.”No matter what number you’re looking at, all of them are likely to soar much higher without concerted global action on climate change. Without a drastic and immediate cut in fossil fuel emissions, the planet is currently staring at a 5-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperatures this century, with the U.S. being the world’s biggest historical contributor to global warming gases.According to a study published last year by Lee and Dessler in the journal GeoHealth, the US suffered an average of 36,444 deaths a year from extreme temperatures a quarter century ago, with most of those deaths being cold-related. With a rise of 5 degrees Fahrenheit, that number could explode to 200,000 a year this century, driven significantly by shifts of heat mortality to Northern cities. Among the cities with the highest projected temperature increases are Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Muskegon, Minnesota.Smoking out dataParallel to that, and arguably worse, there is virtually no federal data on the fatal impacts of wildfire smoke. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lists a mere 535 deaths directly from wildfires over the last 45 years in its list of “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters.” But there are likely thousands more from the smoke, which is associated with cardiovascular, ischemic heart disease, digestive, endocrine, diabetes, mental, and chronic kidney disease mortality.Such smoke is not covered by the Clean Air Act, and there is growing evidence that it is eroding decades of gains in the nation’s air quality under the act. A new study by researchers at UCLA found that the fine particulate matter (known as PM2.5) in wildfire smoke that easily passes into the lungs and spreads throughout the body, contributed to the premature deaths of more than 50,000 people in California from 2008 to 2018, with an economic impact of between $432 billion and $456 billion.Another study this spring by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 16,000 people a year died from smoke PM2.5 across the US from 2011 to 2020. That study found that elevated long-term smoke concentrations “increase mortality rates at both low and high concentrations.” Wildfire smoke, as the nation found out last year with its orange-brown skies that dulled the sun into a moon-like disk, spreads for so many thousands of miles from its source that the study projects a “large mortality burden not only in regions where large fires occur but also in populous regions with low smoke concentrations (e.g., the eastern US).”Juan Aguilera, a physician researcher at the University of Texas School of Public Health in El Paso, found that wildfire smoke stresses immune systems and triggers inflammation. He told National Public Radio that living in a wildfire-prone area is “something equivalent to smoking like one pack a day, or 10 packs a week.”Today’s 16,000 deaths a year from wildfire smoke could grow to nearly 28,000 by mid-century under a high warming scenario and take a cumulative 700,000 lives by 2055, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.“Our research suggests that the health cost of climate-driven wildfire smoke could be among the most important and costly consequences of a warming climate in the US,” NBER scientists said. That concern is bolstered by a new study by Australian researchers who found that the number of extreme wildfires has doubled since 2003, with the last seven years including six of the most extreme. Lead author Calum Cunningham told the New York Times last month, “That we’ve detected such a big increase over such a short period of time makes the findings even more shocking. We’re seeing the manifestations of a warming and drying climate before our very eyes in these extreme fires.”Adaptation could cut into the mortality risk, but it alone is likely not enough, given how Lee and Dessler noted in their study: “Many adaptive responses (e.g., installing air conditioning, improved health care, better urban planning) are too expensive for poorer individuals or communities, so adaptation will necessarily require society to pay for much of the adaptation. This would represent a huge transfer of wealth from richer to poorer members of our society, a dicey proposition in today’s political environment.”Even better, of course, would be a serious drive toward net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The International Energy Agency says no new gas, oil or coal investment is necessary as renewables, energy efficiency and electrification already can deliver the vast majority of emissions reductions.New mentality needed at FEMAThough all heat-related disaster declaration requests to FEMA thus far have been denied, agency spokesperson Daniel Llargues told National Public Radio that “there’s nothing specific” in federal law that precludes such a declaration. “If a circumstance did occur where an extreme heat incident exceeded state and local capacity, an emergency or major disaster declaration request submission could be considered,” Llargues said in an email.And the White House can make a disaster declaration regardless of FEMA’s recommendation. In May, President Biden overruled a FEMA denial of a major disaster declaration so parts of Massachusetts could get federal aid to recover from severe storms and flooding last September.The process of FEMA better understanding a “circumstance” where extreme heat and wildfire smoke constitutes a disaster starts with a better understanding of the danger. Some parts of the government are trying to mine the data, such as the National Institute of Health’s Heat Information System.Extreme heat and wildfire smoke also offers FEMA a fresh chance to create new paradigms of aid, to avoid inequities seen in other disasters. Current FEMA storm funding often maintains systemic racism, putting communities with more white residents and higher property values back on their feet, while low-income people and communities of color, historically hemmed into lower property values by redlining, are left on their knees. As Politico wrote in 2022, FEMA grants to help richer families raise homes above flood levels “have helped turn dozens of wealthy or overwhelmingly white areas into enclaves of climate resilience. The communities are seeing rising property values and economic stability, while much of the nation faces devastating effects of rising seas and intensifying floods.”One can only imagine the results if the same mentality is ultimately applied to communities marooned on “heat islands.” Seniors and Black adults are at disproportionate risk of cardiovascular deaths from extreme heat according to a Penn study last year. A 2022 Penn study warned, “As extreme heat events increase, the burden of cardiovascular mortality may continue to increase and the disparities between demographic subgroups may widen.”The same can be said for those lower-wage farmworkers, construction workers and other industries where heat is a major risk. Often, the workers in those industries are disproportionately of color and immigrants. Other trades where heat is a high risk include landscaping, and indoor jobs in warehouses, restaurant kitchens, mills, and doing maintenance.And let’s not forget public school teachers and staff, as huge percentages of the nation’s public school buildings are not equipped for the rising heat.Better data neededThere are scientists, including UCS’s Juan Declet-Barreto, who have long called for standard methodology to more accurately determine whether excess deaths originated with heat or smoke exposure. Last year, Ashley Ward, the director of Duke University’s Heat Policy Innovation Lab, wrote in STAT that we need much better and uniformed coding for external causes of injuries and incentives for health systems to apply the codes for cases involving extreme heat. Without uniform coding, the public is left to weigh the emerging body of studies that have different estimations and may “add to the incorrect assumption that there is a lack of scientific consensus.”Seconding the call for data collection is the Federation of American Scientists. Among its major list of recommendations is a “whole-of-government strategy to address extreme heat.” The federation said that true mortality counts are “essential to enhancing the benefit-cost analysis for heat mitigation and resilience.”But having heat- and smoke-related mortality data is more than that. Knowing the true toll might help jolt the nation into action on climate change sooner and lessen the mitigation and resilience we will need. One only need think back to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic and how critical data was to devise public health policy. Currently, the federal data on extreme heat and wildfire smoke itself constitutes a major disaster. This post originally ran on The Union of Concerned Scientists blog and is republished here with permission.

Extreme heat and wildfire smoke should of course be defined as major disasters by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. According to the National Weather Service, heat kills more people in this nation than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and lightning combined. The Washington Post reported that extreme heat recently killed at least 28 people across the nation.Yet, despite several requests from states over the years, most recently California during a 2022 “heat dome” and wildfires, no White House has ever approved a disaster declaration for heat or smoke.Some states outright ignore the dangers in the name of greed. Over the last 13 months, Texas and Florida have enacted laws that block localities from issuing heat protection rules for workers. Nationally, the Biden administration proposed on July 2 new rules to protect workers from heat. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of construction and agricultural lobbying groups have opposed the prospect of rules for months and are sure to oppose them in the courts.It is clear that the opposition is willing to risk sacrificing lower-wage construction and farm workers to the sun’s brutality as executives count the cash in air conditioned offices. Farm workers make an average $13.59 an hour. Hispanic construction laborers make $15.34 an hour, well below the $25-an-hour living wage for a family of four in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Living Wage Calculator. Farm workers respectively have 35 times and 12 times higher risk of heat-related injuries than in all other industries. Making the latest case for disaster declarations is a consortium of 31 environmental, public health, labor, and justice groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity. In a June 17 petition to FEMA, the groups warned that the record-breaking heat and fire disasters we are already experiencing are likely only the beginning. The world’s nations, particularly the top burners of fossil fuels such as the United States, have yet to unify to prevent uncontrolled global warming.“These may be the coolest days and the cleanest air of the 21st century,” the petition said, “and it is already unbearably hot and unsafe for too many Americans.”The petitioners hope that disaster declarations can unlock federal funds for short-term relief such as cooling centers, water supplies, emergency air conditioning and air filtration systems, and financial assistance for evacuations. Declarations could also lead to money for long-term, proactive mitigation, such as renewable energy storage and microgrids to withstand utility blackouts, and retrofitting of homes and buildings to be more energy efficient and weatherized.That is vitally important for disadvantaged families who are more likely to live on shadeless, asphalt and concrete “heat islands.” Such communities are often already overburdened with pollution associated with fossil fuel burning and proximity to polluting industries. The petition called extreme heat a “harm multiplier” for these communities because of poor housing stock, difficulty in paying utility bills, and pre-existing poorer health. In making their case, the 31 environmental groups cite data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, projecting that financial cost of extreme heat in the United States will explode fivefold to half a trillion dollars a year by 2050.There is something else that would make their case even stronger: Data on people. The federal government is woefully behind university researchers in calculating the current and future mortality of heat and smoke. It should be just as much an emergency for the government to tell us the toll of heat and wildfire smoke. Especially since the government itself says “most heat-related deaths are preventable.” Death behind closed doorsProperty damage from tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods is easy to visualize and leaves the costs of emergency assistance and repair without much question. Because of the nation’s overall wealth, which gives us relatively sturdier dwellings and stronger rebuilds, deaths from those weather disasters are a fraction of the fatalities suffered in lesser resourced parts of the world. For instance, while Hurricane Katrina took 1,400 lives in the US in 2005, Cyclone Nargis in the Bay of Bengal made landfall in Myanmar in 2008 and killed 140,000 people—100 times more people than Katrina.People perishing by heat or smoke one by one in the privacy of their homes or in the sterility of hospitals is relatively invisible. An analysis of heat deaths by the Cincinnati Enquirer found that about half of heat deaths happen at home, often to people who lack air conditioning, are elderly with pre-existing medical conditions, or who are socially isolated.The petition by environmental groups points to the current invisibility of heat deaths. It cites federal data saying there were 2,300 deaths last year where heat was listed as a factor on death certificates. That by itself was a record in nearly a half-century of such record keeping. But left as is, that toll would seem to pale next to last year’s nearly 43,000 car fatalities, nearly 43,000 gun-related deaths, or 107,000 drug overdose deaths.The number of heat deaths is assuredly far more. Heat is often not listed on death certificates as a contributing factor to the final cause of death, such as kidney failure, organ failure, and heart attack. There is no uniform protocol tying together how the federal government, the 50 states, or the nation’s 3,000 counties calculate heat-related deaths.University scientists and health and safety groups are filling in the gaps as best they can.In 2020, a study in the journal Environmental Epidemiology determined that 5,600 deaths a year were attributable to heat from 1997 to 2006, eight times higher than federal figures. In 2022, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Medical Center calculated that the number of people who died from heat-related causes between 2008 and 2017 was two to three times higher than federal figures. The Penn and Philadelphia VA researchers also found that extreme heat days were associated with “significantly higher” cardiovascular mortality among adults.This spring, Texas A&M climate scientists Andrew Dessler and Jangho Lee told the Associated Press that last year’s real national annual heat death toll may be 11,000, nearly five times higher than the 2,300 cited by the government.In the work world, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics says 43 workers died in 2022 from heat. But reports by Public Citizen, the most recent being in May of this year, estimate that as many as 2,000 workers a year (46 times more) die from heat and another 170,000 are injuries triggered by heat, such as becoming dizzy and falling off a roof.But the injury might simply be listed as a fall without mention of heat. Public Citizen says government figures are “decidedly unreliable” and “notoriously problematic” because they are based on self-reporting surveys of employers and “less than half of employers even maintain the required records.”No matter what number you’re looking at, all of them are likely to soar much higher without concerted global action on climate change. Without a drastic and immediate cut in fossil fuel emissions, the planet is currently staring at a 5-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperatures this century, with the U.S. being the world’s biggest historical contributor to global warming gases.According to a study published last year by Lee and Dessler in the journal GeoHealth, the US suffered an average of 36,444 deaths a year from extreme temperatures a quarter century ago, with most of those deaths being cold-related. With a rise of 5 degrees Fahrenheit, that number could explode to 200,000 a year this century, driven significantly by shifts of heat mortality to Northern cities. Among the cities with the highest projected temperature increases are Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Muskegon, Minnesota.Smoking out dataParallel to that, and arguably worse, there is virtually no federal data on the fatal impacts of wildfire smoke. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lists a mere 535 deaths directly from wildfires over the last 45 years in its list of “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters.” But there are likely thousands more from the smoke, which is associated with cardiovascular, ischemic heart disease, digestive, endocrine, diabetes, mental, and chronic kidney disease mortality.Such smoke is not covered by the Clean Air Act, and there is growing evidence that it is eroding decades of gains in the nation’s air quality under the act. A new study by researchers at UCLA found that the fine particulate matter (known as PM2.5) in wildfire smoke that easily passes into the lungs and spreads throughout the body, contributed to the premature deaths of more than 50,000 people in California from 2008 to 2018, with an economic impact of between $432 billion and $456 billion.Another study this spring by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 16,000 people a year died from smoke PM2.5 across the US from 2011 to 2020. That study found that elevated long-term smoke concentrations “increase mortality rates at both low and high concentrations.” Wildfire smoke, as the nation found out last year with its orange-brown skies that dulled the sun into a moon-like disk, spreads for so many thousands of miles from its source that the study projects a “large mortality burden not only in regions where large fires occur but also in populous regions with low smoke concentrations (e.g., the eastern US).”Juan Aguilera, a physician researcher at the University of Texas School of Public Health in El Paso, found that wildfire smoke stresses immune systems and triggers inflammation. He told National Public Radio that living in a wildfire-prone area is “something equivalent to smoking like one pack a day, or 10 packs a week.”Today’s 16,000 deaths a year from wildfire smoke could grow to nearly 28,000 by mid-century under a high warming scenario and take a cumulative 700,000 lives by 2055, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.“Our research suggests that the health cost of climate-driven wildfire smoke could be among the most important and costly consequences of a warming climate in the US,” NBER scientists said. That concern is bolstered by a new study by Australian researchers who found that the number of extreme wildfires has doubled since 2003, with the last seven years including six of the most extreme. Lead author Calum Cunningham told the New York Times last month, “That we’ve detected such a big increase over such a short period of time makes the findings even more shocking. We’re seeing the manifestations of a warming and drying climate before our very eyes in these extreme fires.”Adaptation could cut into the mortality risk, but it alone is likely not enough, given how Lee and Dessler noted in their study: “Many adaptive responses (e.g., installing air conditioning, improved health care, better urban planning) are too expensive for poorer individuals or communities, so adaptation will necessarily require society to pay for much of the adaptation. This would represent a huge transfer of wealth from richer to poorer members of our society, a dicey proposition in today’s political environment.”Even better, of course, would be a serious drive toward net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The International Energy Agency says no new gas, oil or coal investment is necessary as renewables, energy efficiency and electrification already can deliver the vast majority of emissions reductions.New mentality needed at FEMAThough all heat-related disaster declaration requests to FEMA thus far have been denied, agency spokesperson Daniel Llargues told National Public Radio that “there’s nothing specific” in federal law that precludes such a declaration. “If a circumstance did occur where an extreme heat incident exceeded state and local capacity, an emergency or major disaster declaration request submission could be considered,” Llargues said in an email.And the White House can make a disaster declaration regardless of FEMA’s recommendation. In May, President Biden overruled a FEMA denial of a major disaster declaration so parts of Massachusetts could get federal aid to recover from severe storms and flooding last September.The process of FEMA better understanding a “circumstance” where extreme heat and wildfire smoke constitutes a disaster starts with a better understanding of the danger. Some parts of the government are trying to mine the data, such as the National Institute of Health’s Heat Information System.Extreme heat and wildfire smoke also offers FEMA a fresh chance to create new paradigms of aid, to avoid inequities seen in other disasters. Current FEMA storm funding often maintains systemic racism, putting communities with more white residents and higher property values back on their feet, while low-income people and communities of color, historically hemmed into lower property values by redlining, are left on their knees. As Politico wrote in 2022, FEMA grants to help richer families raise homes above flood levels “have helped turn dozens of wealthy or overwhelmingly white areas into enclaves of climate resilience. The communities are seeing rising property values and economic stability, while much of the nation faces devastating effects of rising seas and intensifying floods.”One can only imagine the results if the same mentality is ultimately applied to communities marooned on “heat islands.” Seniors and Black adults are at disproportionate risk of cardiovascular deaths from extreme heat according to a Penn study last year. A 2022 Penn study warned, “As extreme heat events increase, the burden of cardiovascular mortality may continue to increase and the disparities between demographic subgroups may widen.”The same can be said for those lower-wage farmworkers, construction workers and other industries where heat is a major risk. Often, the workers in those industries are disproportionately of color and immigrants. Other trades where heat is a high risk include landscaping, and indoor jobs in warehouses, restaurant kitchens, mills, and doing maintenance.And let’s not forget public school teachers and staff, as huge percentages of the nation’s public school buildings are not equipped for the rising heat.Better data neededThere are scientists, including UCS’s Juan Declet-Barreto, who have long called for standard methodology to more accurately determine whether excess deaths originated with heat or smoke exposure. Last year, Ashley Ward, the director of Duke University’s Heat Policy Innovation Lab, wrote in STAT that we need much better and uniformed coding for external causes of injuries and incentives for health systems to apply the codes for cases involving extreme heat. Without uniform coding, the public is left to weigh the emerging body of studies that have different estimations and may “add to the incorrect assumption that there is a lack of scientific consensus.”Seconding the call for data collection is the Federation of American Scientists. Among its major list of recommendations is a “whole-of-government strategy to address extreme heat.” The federation said that true mortality counts are “essential to enhancing the benefit-cost analysis for heat mitigation and resilience.”But having heat- and smoke-related mortality data is more than that. Knowing the true toll might help jolt the nation into action on climate change sooner and lessen the mitigation and resilience we will need. One only need think back to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic and how critical data was to devise public health policy. Currently, the federal data on extreme heat and wildfire smoke itself constitutes a major disaster. This post originally ran on The Union of Concerned Scientists blog and is republished here with permission.



Extreme heat and wildfire smoke should of course be defined as major disasters by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. According to the National Weather Service, heat kills more people in this nation than hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and lightning combined.

The Washington Post reported that extreme heat recently killed at least 28 people across the nation.

Yet, despite several requests from states over the years, most recently California during a 2022 “heat dome” and wildfires, no White House has ever approved a disaster declaration for heat or smoke.

Some states outright ignore the dangers in the name of greed. Over the last 13 months, Texas and Florida have enacted laws that block localities from issuing heat protection rules for workers. Nationally, the Biden administration proposed on July 2 new rules to protect workers from heat. But the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and a host of construction and agricultural lobbying groups have opposed the prospect of rules for months and are sure to oppose them in the courts.

It is clear that the opposition is willing to risk sacrificing lower-wage construction and farm workers to the sun’s brutality as executives count the cash in air conditioned offices. Farm workers make an average $13.59 an hour. Hispanic construction laborers make $15.34 an hour, well below the $25-an-hour living wage for a family of four in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Living Wage Calculator. Farm workers respectively have 35 times and 12 times higher risk of heat-related injuries than in all other industries.

Making the latest case for disaster declarations is a consortium of 31 environmental, public health, labor, and justice groups, led by the Center for Biological Diversity. In a June 17 petition to FEMA, the groups warned that the record-breaking heat and fire disasters we are already experiencing are likely only the beginning. The world’s nations, particularly the top burners of fossil fuels such as the United States, have yet to unify to prevent uncontrolled global warming.

“These may be the coolest days and the cleanest air of the 21st century,” the petition said, “and it is already unbearably hot and unsafe for too many Americans.”

The petitioners hope that disaster declarations can unlock federal funds for short-term relief such as cooling centers, water supplies, emergency air conditioning and air filtration systems, and financial assistance for evacuations. Declarations could also lead to money for long-term, proactive mitigation, such as renewable energy storage and microgrids to withstand utility blackouts, and retrofitting of homes and buildings to be more energy efficient and weatherized.

That is vitally important for disadvantaged families who are more likely to live on shadeless, asphalt and concrete “heat islands.” Such communities are often already overburdened with pollution associated with fossil fuel burning and proximity to polluting industries. The petition called extreme heat a “harm multiplier” for these communities because of poor housing stock, difficulty in paying utility bills, and pre-existing poorer health.

In making their case, the 31 environmental groups cite data from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, projecting that financial cost of extreme heat in the United States will explode fivefold to half a trillion dollars a year by 2050.

There is something else that would make their case even stronger: Data on people. The federal government is woefully behind university researchers in calculating the current and future mortality of heat and smoke.

It should be just as much an emergency for the government to tell us the toll of heat and wildfire smoke. Especially since the government itself says “most heat-related deaths are preventable.”

Death behind closed doors


Property damage from tornadoes, hurricanes, and floods is easy to visualize and leaves the costs of emergency assistance and repair without much question. Because of the nation’s overall wealth, which gives us relatively sturdier dwellings and stronger rebuilds, deaths from those weather disasters are a fraction of the fatalities suffered in lesser resourced parts of the world. For instance, while Hurricane Katrina took 1,400 lives in the US in 2005, Cyclone Nargis in the Bay of Bengal made landfall in Myanmar in 2008 and killed 140,000 people—100 times more people than Katrina.

People perishing by heat or smoke one by one in the privacy of their homes or in the sterility of hospitals is relatively invisible. An analysis of heat deaths by the Cincinnati Enquirer found that about half of heat deaths happen at home, often to people who lack air conditioning, are elderly with pre-existing medical conditions, or who are socially isolated.

The petition by environmental groups points to the current invisibility of heat deaths. It cites federal data saying there were 2,300 deaths last year where heat was listed as a factor on death certificates. That by itself was a record in nearly a half-century of such record keeping. But left as is, that toll would seem to pale next to last year’s nearly 43,000 car fatalities, nearly 43,000 gun-related deaths, or 107,000 drug overdose deaths.

The number of heat deaths is assuredly far more. Heat is often not listed on death certificates as a contributing factor to the final cause of death, such as kidney failure, organ failure, and heart attack. There is no uniform protocol tying together how the federal government, the 50 states, or the nation’s 3,000 counties calculate heat-related deaths.

University scientists and health and safety groups are filling in the gaps as best they can.

In 2020, a study in the journal Environmental Epidemiology determined that 5,600 deaths a year were attributable to heat from 1997 to 2006, eight times higher than federal figures. In 2022, researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia Veterans Administration Medical Center calculated that the number of people who died from heat-related causes between 2008 and 2017 was two to three times higher than federal figures. The Penn and Philadelphia VA researchers also found that extreme heat days were associated with “significantly higher” cardiovascular mortality among adults.

This spring, Texas A&M climate scientists Andrew Dessler and Jangho Lee told the Associated Press that last year’s real national annual heat death toll may be 11,000, nearly five times higher than the 2,300 cited by the government.

In the work world, the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics says 43 workers died in 2022 from heat. But reports by Public Citizen, the most recent being in May of this year, estimate that as many as 2,000 workers a year (46 times more) die from heat and another 170,000 are injuries triggered by heat, such as becoming dizzy and falling off a roof.

But the injury might simply be listed as a fall without mention of heat. Public Citizen says government figures are “decidedly unreliable” and “notoriously problematic” because they are based on self-reporting surveys of employers and “less than half of employers even maintain the required records.”

No matter what number you’re looking at, all of them are likely to soar much higher without concerted global action on climate change. Without a drastic and immediate cut in fossil fuel emissions, the planet is currently staring at a 5-degree Fahrenheit rise in temperatures this century, with the U.S. being the world’s biggest historical contributor to global warming gases.

According to a study published last year by Lee and Dessler in the journal GeoHealth, the US suffered an average of 36,444 deaths a year from extreme temperatures a quarter century ago, with most of those deaths being cold-related. With a rise of 5 degrees Fahrenheit, that number could explode to 200,000 a year this century, driven significantly by shifts of heat mortality to Northern cities. Among the cities with the highest projected temperature increases are Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and Muskegon, Minnesota.

Smoking out data


Parallel to that, and arguably worse, there is virtually no federal data on the fatal impacts of wildfire smoke. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) lists a mere 535 deaths directly from wildfires over the last 45 years in its list of “Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters.” But there are likely thousands more from the smoke, which is associated with cardiovascular, ischemic heart disease, digestive, endocrine, diabetes, mental, and chronic kidney disease mortality.

Such smoke is not covered by the Clean Air Act, and there is growing evidence that it is eroding decades of gains in the nation’s air quality under the act. A new study by researchers at UCLA found that the fine particulate matter (known as PM2.5) in wildfire smoke that easily passes into the lungs and spreads throughout the body, contributed to the premature deaths of more than 50,000 people in California from 2008 to 2018, with an economic impact of between $432 billion and $456 billion.

Another study this spring by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that 16,000 people a year died from smoke PM2.5 across the US from 2011 to 2020. That study found that elevated long-term smoke concentrations “increase mortality rates at both low and high concentrations.” Wildfire smoke, as the nation found out last year with its orange-brown skies that dulled the sun into a moon-like disk, spreads for so many thousands of miles from its source that the study projects a “large mortality burden not only in regions where large fires occur but also in populous regions with low smoke concentrations (e.g., the eastern US).”

Juan Aguilera, a physician researcher at the University of Texas School of Public Health in El Paso, found that wildfire smoke stresses immune systems and triggers inflammation. He told National Public Radio that living in a wildfire-prone area is “something equivalent to smoking like one pack a day, or 10 packs a week.”

Today’s 16,000 deaths a year from wildfire smoke could grow to nearly 28,000 by mid-century under a high warming scenario and take a cumulative 700,000 lives by 2055, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research.

“Our research suggests that the health cost of climate-driven wildfire smoke could be among the most important and costly consequences of a warming climate in the US,” NBER scientists said.

That concern is bolstered by a new study by Australian researchers who found that the number of extreme wildfires has doubled since 2003, with the last seven years including six of the most extreme. Lead author Calum Cunningham told the New York Times last month, “That we’ve detected such a big increase over such a short period of time makes the findings even more shocking. We’re seeing the manifestations of a warming and drying climate before our very eyes in these extreme fires.”

Adaptation could cut into the mortality risk, but it alone is likely not enough, given how Lee and Dessler noted in their study: “Many adaptive responses (e.g., installing air conditioning, improved health care, better urban planning) are too expensive for poorer individuals or communities, so adaptation will necessarily require society to pay for much of the adaptation. This would represent a huge transfer of wealth from richer to poorer members of our society, a dicey proposition in today’s political environment.”

Even better, of course, would be a serious drive toward net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. The International Energy Agency says no new gas, oil or coal investment is necessary as renewables, energy efficiency and electrification already can deliver the vast majority of emissions reductions.

New mentality needed at FEMA


Though all heat-related disaster declaration requests to FEMA thus far have been denied, agency spokesperson Daniel Llargues told National Public Radio that “there’s nothing specific” in federal law that precludes such a declaration. “If a circumstance did occur where an extreme heat incident exceeded state and local capacity, an emergency or major disaster declaration request submission could be considered,” Llargues said in an email.

And the White House can make a disaster declaration regardless of FEMA’s recommendation. In May, President Biden overruled a FEMA denial of a major disaster declaration so parts of Massachusetts could get federal aid to recover from severe storms and flooding last September.

The process of FEMA better understanding a “circumstance” where extreme heat and wildfire smoke constitutes a disaster starts with a better understanding of the danger. Some parts of the government are trying to mine the data, such as the National Institute of Health’s Heat Information System.

Extreme heat and wildfire smoke also offers FEMA a fresh chance to create new paradigms of aid, to avoid inequities seen in other disasters. Current FEMA storm funding often maintains systemic racism, putting communities with more white residents and higher property values back on their feet, while low-income people and communities of color, historically hemmed into lower property values by redlining, are left on their knees.

As Politico wrote in 2022, FEMA grants to help richer families raise homes above flood levels “have helped turn dozens of wealthy or overwhelmingly white areas into enclaves of climate resilience. The communities are seeing rising property values and economic stability, while much of the nation faces devastating effects of rising seas and intensifying floods.”

One can only imagine the results if the same mentality is ultimately applied to communities marooned on “heat islands.” Seniors and Black adults are at disproportionate risk of cardiovascular deaths from extreme heat according to a Penn study last year. A 2022 Penn study warned, “As extreme heat events increase, the burden of cardiovascular mortality may continue to increase and the disparities between demographic subgroups may widen.”

The same can be said for those lower-wage farmworkers, construction workers and other industries where heat is a major risk. Often, the workers in those industries are disproportionately of color and immigrants. Other trades where heat is a high risk include landscaping, and indoor jobs in warehouses, restaurant kitchens, mills, and doing maintenance.

And let’s not forget public school teachers and staff, as huge percentages of the nation’s public school buildings are not equipped for the rising heat.

Better data needed


There are scientists, including UCS’s Juan Declet-Barreto, who have long called for standard methodology to more accurately determine whether excess deaths originated with heat or smoke exposure. Last year, Ashley Ward, the director of Duke University’s Heat Policy Innovation Lab, wrote in STAT that we need much better and uniformed coding for external causes of injuries and incentives for health systems to apply the codes for cases involving extreme heat. Without uniform coding, the public is left to weigh the emerging body of studies that have different estimations and may “add to the incorrect assumption that there is a lack of scientific consensus.”

Seconding the call for data collection is the Federation of American Scientists. Among its major list of recommendations is a “whole-of-government strategy to address extreme heat.” The federation said that true mortality counts are “essential to enhancing the benefit-cost analysis for heat mitigation and resilience.”

But having heat- and smoke-related mortality data is more than that. Knowing the true toll might help jolt the nation into action on climate change sooner and lessen the mitigation and resilience we will need. One only need think back to the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic and how critical data was to devise public health policy. Currently, the federal data on extreme heat and wildfire smoke itself constitutes a major disaster.


This post originally ran on The Union of Concerned Scientists blog and is republished here with permission.

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

These Are the 66 Global Organizations the Trump Administration Is Leaving

The Trump administration says it’s going to depart 66 international organizations, nearly half them affiliated with the United Nations

Many focus on climate, labor, migration and other issues the Trump administration has categorized as catering to diversity and “woke” initiatives.Here is a list of all the agencies that the U.S. is exiting, according to the White House:— 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact— Commission for Environmental Cooperation— European Centre of Excellence for Countering Hybrid Threats— Forum of European National Highway Research Laboratories— Freedom Online Coalition— Global Community Engagement and Resilience Fund— Global Counterterrorism Forum— Global Forum on Cyber Expertise— Global Forum on Migration and Development— Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research— Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, Metals, and Sustainable Development— Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change— Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services— International Centre for the Study of the Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property— International Cotton Advisory Committee— International Development Law Organization— International Energy Forum— International Federation of Arts Councils and Culture Agencies— International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance— International Institute for Justice and the Rule of Law— International Lead and Zinc Study Group— International Renewable Energy Agency— International Solar Alliance— International Tropical Timber Organization— International Union for Conservation of Nature— Pan American Institute of Geography and History— Partnership for Atlantic Cooperation— Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia— Regional Cooperation Council— Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century— Science and Technology Center in Ukraine— Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme— Venice Commission of the Council of Europe United Nations organizations — Department of Economic and Social Affairs— U.N. Economic and Social Council, or ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Africa— ECOSOC — Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean— ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific— ECOSOC — Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia— International Law Commission— International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals— International Trade Centre— Office of the Special Adviser on Africa— Office of the Special Representative of the secretary-general for Children in Armed Conflict— Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Sexual Violence in Conflict— Office of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General on Violence Against Children— Peacebuilding Commission— Permanent Forum on People of African Descent— U.N. Alliance of Civilizations— U.N. Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries— U.N. Conference on Trade and Development— U.N. Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women— U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change— U.N. Human Settlements Programme— U.N. Institute for Training and Research— U.N. Register of Conventional Arms— U.N. System Chief Executives Board for Coordination— U.N. System Staff CollegeCopyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Trump’s Offshore Wind Project Freeze Draws Lawsuits From States and Developers

Offshore wind developers and states are suing the Trump administration over its order to suspend work on five large-scale projects under construction off the East Coast for at least 90 days

Offshore wind developers and states are suing the Trump administration over its order to suspend work for at least 90 days on five large-scale projects under construction off the East Coast.The Norwegian company Equinor and the Danish energy company Orsted are the latest to challenge the suspension order, with the limited liability companies for their projects filing civil suits late Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Connecticut and Rhode Island filed their own request at that federal court on Monday seeking a preliminary injunction. The administration announced Dec. 22 it was suspending leases for five offshore wind projects because of national security concerns. Its announcement did not reveal specifics about those concerns. Interior Department spokesperson Matt Middleton said Wednesday that Trump has directed the agency to manage public lands and waters for multiple uses, energy development, conservation and national defense. Middleton said the pause on large-scale offshore wind construction is a “decisive step to protect America’s security, prevent conflicts with military readiness and maritime operations and ensure responsible stewardship of our oceans.”“We will not sacrifice national security or economic stability for projects that make no sense for America’s future,” Middleton said in a statement. Equinor owns the Empire Wind project and Orsted owns Sunrise Wind, major offshore wind farms in New York. Empire Wind LLC requested expedited consideration by the court, saying the project faces “likely termination” if construction can’t resume by Jan. 16. It said the order is disrupting a tightly choreographed construction schedule dependent on vessels with constrained availability, resulting in delay costs and causing an existential threat to the project financing.Orsted is also asking a judge to vacate and set aside the order. The company says it has spent billions of dollars on Sunrise Wind, relying on validly issued permits from the federal government. It said in the filing that its team met weekly with the Coast Guard throughout 2025, and this week, with representatives from other agencies frequently attending, and no one raised national security concerns. The administration's order paused the leases for these two projects, as well as for the Vineyard Wind project under construction in Massachusetts, Revolution Wind in Rhode Island and Connecticut, and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind in Virginia.Dominion Energy Virginia, which is developing Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind, was the first to sue. It's asking a judge to block the order, calling it “arbitrary and capricious” and unconstitutional.Orsted is building Revolution Wind with its joint venture partner Skyborn Renewables. They have filed a complaint over the order on behalf of the venture. The filing by Connecticut and Rhode Island seeks to allow work on Revolution Wind to continue. “Every day this project is stalled costs us hundreds of thousands of dollars in inflated energy bills when families are in dire need of relief,” Connecticut Attorney General William Tong said in a statement. “Revolution Wind was vetted and approved, and the Trump administration has yet to disclose a shred of evidence to counter that thorough and careful process.”Avangrid is a joint owner along with Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners of the Vineyard Wind project. They have not indicated publicly whether they plan to join the rest of the developers in challenging the administration.Work on the nearly completed Revolution Wind project was paused on Aug. 22 for what the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management said were national security concerns. A month later, a federal judge ruled the project could resume, citing the irreparable harm to the developers and the demonstrated likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.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 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – December 2025

Can Venice's Iconic Crab Dish Survive Climate Change?

For more than 300 years, Italians have fried soft-shell green crabs, called moeche. But the culinary tradition is under threat

Coastal Cities of Europe A Smithsonian magazine special report Can Venice’s Iconic Crab Dish Survive Climate Change? For more than 300 years, Italians have fried soft-shell green crabs, called moeche. But the culinary tradition is under threat Crabs not yet at the molting stage are thrown back into the Venice lagoon. Simone Padovani/Awakening/Getty Images Domenico Rossi, a fisherman from Torcello, an island near Venice, was 6 years old when he first went fishing with his dad. “I loved everything about it,” he says. “The long days out on the water, the variety of fish, even the rough winds that would sometimes capsize our boat.” Rossi vividly remembers picking up nets full of eels, cuttlefish, prawns, crabs, gobies and soles. But that rich biodiversity is now a distant memory. In the past 30 years, the population of many species native to Venice’s lagoon, a fragile ecosystem of brackish waters and sandy inlets, has shrunk. “At least 80 percent of species have gone,” Rossi says. Domenico Rossi is one of the last fishermen trained to catch local soft-shell crabs. Vittoria Traverso The 55-year-old fishermen is one of the last trained to catch local soft-shell crabs. Scientifically named Carcinus aestuarii, the green crab is the key ingredient of a beloved local dish called moeche (pronounced “moh-eh-keh”), a word that means “soft” in Venetian dialect. Dipped in eggs, dredged with flour and fried, these crabs are usually served with a splash of lemon and paired with a glass of local white wine. The origin of this dish goes back to at least the 18th century—it was mentioned in the 1792 volume on Adriatic fauna by Italian abbot and naturalist Giuseppe Olivi. As Olivi described, moeche are only found twice per year, during spring and fall, when changes in water temperatures trigger crabs to molt. Until ten years ago, it was common to find fried moeche in osterias and bacari, or informal wine bars, across Venice’s lagoon, from Chioggia in the south to Burano in the north. Recently though, it has been increasingly hard to find them. Fishermen report a 50 percent decline in catch just in the past three years. As climate change, pollution and invasive species put pressure on local species, fishermen, chefs and locals may need to rethink their centuries-old food traditions. Dipped in eggs, dredged with flour and deep-fried, the crabs are often served with polenta and lemon. Simone Padovani/Awakening/Getty Images A fragile ecosystem Spanning 212 square miles, from the River Sile in the north to the River Brenta in the south, Venice’s lagoon is the largest wetland in the Mediterranean. Only 8 percent of the lagoon is made up of islands, including Venice, while the remaining surface is a mosaic of salt marshes, seagrass wetlands, mudflats and eutrophic lakes. These diverse habitats, characterized by various degrees of salinity and acidity, have historically been home to a rich variety of species. But in the past three decades, the impact of pollution from nearby industries, erosion due to motorboat traffic and warming waters have put pressure on the lagoon’s fragile ecosystem. This period coincided with the installation of MOSE, a system of movable floodgates designed to temporarily seal the lagoon from the Adriatic Sea to protect inhabited areas from sea-level rise. While essential to Venice’s survival, MOSE now prevents high-tide waters from reaching the innermost parts of the lagoon, preventing the influx of oxygen and nutrients that come with seawater and halting the formation of sandbars and salt marshes. As a result of these changes, many habitats have degraded and some native species have been hard hit. Spanning 212 square miles, from the River Sile in the north to the River Brenta in the south, Venice’s lagoon is the largest wetland in the Mediterranean. Vittoria Traverso The green crab is found in many parts of the Mediterranean, including Italy, France, Spain and Tunisia. But it is only in Venice’s lagoon, in places like Chioggia, Burano or Torcello, that fishermen have developed a special technique to capture this crustacean during its molting phase. Like all crustaceans, green crabs molt while growing. During molting, they shed their outer shell, leaving behind an edible internal soft-shell. Fishermen in Venice’s lagoon have learned how to identify and catch molting crabs. “You need to learn to spot the signs on crabs’ shells to know if they are about to molt,” Rossi explains. “It takes years of just watching how your elders do it, and eventually you learn.” Crabs are typically caught 20 days before the start of the molting process. Once caught, crabs are placed in cube-shaped nets along the shores of canals. Fishermen, or moecanti as they are called locally, check them up to twice a day to spot signs of impending molting. About two days before their shell-shedding process, they are placed in another container. “Once there, you have to check them more frequently to pick them up right when they shed their shell and they are soft,” Rossi says. As crabs get closer to molting, they become weaker, and they can fall prey to younger, stronger crabs. A key part of a moecanti’s job is to constantly check the catch to prevent this sort of cannibalism, Rossi explains. “You have to pick out the weak ones and separate them from the rest,” he says. “It takes decades just to be able to tell where crabs are in their maturation process.” After molting, soft-shell crabs are usually sold and cooked within two days. When Rossi was a child, soft-shell crabs were abundant and considered part of Venice’s affordable rural foods known as cucina povera. But today’s scarcity has turned what was once an inexpensive fishermen’s food into a highly sought-after delicacy. Just six years ago, moeche sold for €60 per kilogram. The price of one kilogram of moeche can now reach €150, Rossi explains. Once caught, soon-to-be-molting crabs are placed in cube-shaped nets along the shores of canals. Vittoria Traverso Green crab goes out, blue crab comes in It’s hard to find accurate data on the green crab population of Venice’s lagoon. Scientists mostly rely on data from fishermen. “Based on fishermen’s catch, we can say that there has been an overall decrease of green crab in the past 50 years,” says Alberto Barausse, an ecologist at the University of Padua who has studied the impact of heatwaves on green crabs in the Venice lagoon using data from fishermen’s catch since 1945. Reasons for the decrease of green crabs are complex, Barausse explains. As detailed in his 2013 study, heatwaves can stress green crabs during their early embryo stage, making them less resilient to future threats. Changing rain patterns, with less constant rain but more frequent extreme precipitation, are changing the lagoon’s salinity levels, with a cascade of effects on its ecosystem. For example, higher salinity and warmer temperatures have incentivized the arrival of Mnemiopsis leidyi, a gelatinous marine invertebrate that eats mostly zooplankton, including the larvae of the green crab. Warmer waters have also contributed to the arrival of another highly invasive species, the blue crab. Did you know? Invasives in Oregon In April 2025, a commercial fisherman caught a Chinese mitten crab in the lower Columbia River, which serves as the border between Oregon and Washington, putting biologists on high alert. A native species of the Atlantic Ocean, the blue crab was first spotted in Venice’s lagoon around 1950. It is only in recent years that it found conditions suitable to fully expand its presence there. “Up until a few years back, water temperatures during winter were too cold for blue crabs,” says Fabio Pranovi, an ecologist at Ca’ Foscari University in Venice. “But thanks to warming waters, blue crabs now live and reproduce in the lagoon throughout the winter.” Since 2023, the blue crab population in Venice lagoon has exploded. From an ecological standpoint, blue crabs are considered an invasive species, Pranovi explains, because they compete with native species like the green crab for shelter and food. They don’t yet have a significant predator, so they are growing at a much faster rate than native species. As explained by Filippo Piccardi, a postdoctoral student in marine biology at the University of Padua who wrote a thesis on the impact of the species in Venice’s lagoon, blue crabs are omnivorous predators who have found their ideal prey among many of the lagoon’s keystone species, such as clams and mussels. In 2024, the impact of blue crabs on local clams was so acute that local authorities declared a state of emergency. For fishermen, these blue invaders are an enemy to battle with daily. “I can’t count the times I had to replace my nets in the past two years,” Rossi says. Traditional moeche fishermen like Rossi still make their fishing nets by hand. Each family has its own way of doing it, almost like a secret recipe, he explains. Because these handmade nets are used to catch green crabs, which measure around 4 inches across, they are close-knit with small holes. Blue crabs, which measure up to 9 inches, have much larger claws than green crabs, so they easily break net threads. Blue crabs have much larger claws than green grabs so they easily break the threads of handmade nets. Vittoria Traverso “They are wickedly smart,” say Eros Grego, a moeche fisherman from Chioggia. “They come, break our nets and just wait there to feast on whatever was in the net.” Damage from blue crab has been so significant that Rossi is considering replacing his nylon nets with iron cages. “It costs me about €20 to make a kilo of net,” he says. “If I have to replace them every season, it’s going to cost me a fortune.” Blue crabs also eat green crabs, Pranovi says, and, according to Rossi, they have been feasting on their smaller local cousins with gusto thanks to their size and speed. “When you see them underwater, it’s just striking,” Rossi says. “Local crabs are so much smaller and can only move on the seabed, while these crabs are twice their size and can swim really fast across the water.” In 2025, Rossi has not caught any green crabs that would be suitable for moeche. “It’s the first year that I find zero moeche,” he says. “All I find in my nets is blue crabs and some date mussels.” Grego, who works in the deeper southern lagoon, is having a similar experience. “We were already dealing with shrinking catch due to heatwaves and extreme rainfall,” he says, adding that changes in climate patterns had made the traditional molting season less predictable. The blue crab is the straw that broke the camel’s back.” Changing traditions? The arrival of blue crabs in Venice lagoon and the simultaneous decrease of the native green crabs are pushing some chefs to rethink traditional cuisine. Venissa, a one-Michelin-starred and green-Michelin-starred restaurant on the island of Mazzorbo, in the north of the lagoon near Torcello, has decided to no longer serve green crab. “Our philosophy is to cook dishes that don’t undermine the lagoon’s ecosystem,” says chef Francesco Brutto, who has been running Venissa with his partner, Chiara Pavan, since 2015. The couple embraced this style of low-impact cooking after noticing how Venice’s lagoon changed during the Covid-19 pandemic, when pressure from human activities like tourism was eased. “We spotted species we had not seen in years, like turtles and dolphins,” Brutto says. “So we decided to have as little impact as possible.” Venissa has decided to no longer serve green crab. Vittoria Traverso For that reason, Venissa mostly serves plant protein, Brutto explains. Animal protein is used only from species that are not threatened. That means invasive species like veined rapa whelk and blue crab are now fixtures of Venissa’s menu. “Right now, eating green crab is the equivalent of eating an endangered dolphin,” Brutto explains. Venissa still offers moeche, the chef clarifies, but they make it with blue crab. “Moeche of blue crab taste better in my opinion. There is more pulp compared with green crab,” he says. But not everyone is ready to give up traditional moeche. Ristorante Garibaldi, a traditional fish restaurant in Chioggia, has been serving moeche since it opened in the 1980s. “Our clients come here specifically to eat moeche,” says chef Nelson Nemedello. This year, Nemedello could only find about 800 grams of moeche from a local fisherman. “Prices are becoming insane. I paid them €170 per kilo,” he says. But demand is there, despite the price, so Nemedello and his wife keep serving green crabs. “It’s considered a food unique to this place, so people are willing to pay more for it.” According to Fabio Parasecoli, author of Gastronativism: Food, Identity, Politics, sticking with traditional foods can be a way to cling to local identity during times of rapid and economic change. Traditional foods have always been intertwined with people’s sense of identity, he says, but in the past 20 years there has been a stronger identification with food in many parts of Italy, partly as a backlash against globalization. “It’s a little bit like saying this food is who we are,” he says. “If you take this away from us, then who are we?” In the case of a place like Venice, tourists’ expectations of a specific type of local gastronomic identity also play a role. “If tourists come to Venice expecting to eat traditional food like moeche, then restaurants may feel like they have to offer that,” Parasecoli explains. Plus, as Pranovi notes, it takes time for people to adjust to new flavors. “Some people find moeche made of blue crabs too big while others say the taste is not as subtle,” he says. “It is going to take time for people to change their expectations around how moeche should taste.” Blue crab is now a fixture of Venissa’s menu. Venissa Changes in species distribution have always shaped food traditions. Parasecoli cites the example of potatoes, a species native to the Americas that became a widespread ingredient in European cuisine after its arrival from the New World in the 16th century. But in Venice, the pace of change feels fast to many locals. “I grew up in the lagoon, and it’s always been slightly changing. But in the past seven to eight years, I hardly can recognize it,” Rossi says. “It feels like being on the moon.” This pace of change is leaving fishermen and local authorities to play catch-up. Since the blue crab invasion started in 2023, authorities have ordered the capturing and killing of blue crabs. But Piccardi, who studied the impact of the blue crab for his thesis, says trying to erase a fast-growing population that has found optimal environmental conditions is unrealistic. “Our advice is to focus on catching female crabs specifically in order to slow down reproduction,” he says. “And, ultimately, to learn to coexist with this new species.” Fishermen like Rossi and Grego are adapting. “In the past three years, I have mostly caught blue crab,” Rossi explains. “I might as well shift the focus of my fishing.” While open to the idea of catching blue crab, Rossi doubts that this shift can guarantee a living. “There isn’t really a market for blue crab. They sell for less than €10 per kilo.” Tunisia, which is also dealing with massive uptakes in blue crabs, has developed a blue crab industry and established canning factories, Rossi notes. “If we did the same here, perhaps there would be some more opportunities.” Future prospects While fishermen are skeptical that their centuries-old livelihood can bounce back—Rossi nudged his son to find another career—scientists are careful to make any definitive predictions. “Things are still evolving,” Pranovi says. “When new species arrive, it takes time for ecosystems to adjust.” Green crabs may learn to cope with pressure from heatwaves thanks to oxygen released by salt marshes, Barausse says. But rising water temperatures, extreme weather events and the more frequent use of MOSE are all likely to destabilize local species, according to Pranovi. With such dynamics at play, the only way for Venice’s iconic crab dish to survive may be to change its core ingredient. This may become a familiar tale in other parts of the world. “As climate change keeps undermining the habitats of traditional species, the tension between preserving tradition and adapting with new foods will become more and more common,” Parasecoli says. Ironically, the very places where the blue crabs came from—such as the Atlantic coast of North America—now deal with an invasion of their own: European green crabs. What’s the solution? Eat them. Planning Your Next Trip? Explore great travel deals A Note to our Readers Smithsonian magazine participates in affiliate link advertising programs. If you purchase an item through these links, we receive a commission.

Senate Climate Hawks Aren't Ready To Stop Talking About It

“We need to talk about it in ways that connect directly to voters’ lives right now,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), a top environmentalist, said of global warming.

WASHINGTON — Top environmental advocates in the Senate aren’t ready to stop talking about the threat of climate change, even as they acknowledge the environmental movement needs to pivot its messaging to better connect to pocketbook concerns amid skyrocketing electricity bills and the Trump administration’s crackdown on renewable energy projects across the country.The pivot comes as centrists in the party push to downplay an issue that has been at the center of Democratic messaging for years, arguing it’s unnecessarily polarizing and has hurt the party’s brand in key states.“You have to live in the moment that you’re in,” Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) said in an interview with HuffPost. “Climate is still a giant problem for most states – I’ve had friends whose fire insurance has been canceled because the insurance companies can’t afford it anymore. So it’s not going away, but we need to talk about it in ways that connect directly to voters’ lives right now.”“If you shut down clean energy projects, you’re raising people’s electric rates,” Heinrich added. “I’m not stepping back [from talking about climate] at all, but I am connecting the dots in a way that I think people really respond to.”“I don’t think there’s any doubt that climate is a driving priority,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), another leading climate hawk in the Senate, told HuffPost. “I just think how we talk about it and whether or not we emphasize it in our ads is sort of a different question.”After years of advocating for urgent action to confront the threat of climate change, some Democrats are leaning into economic issues instead and avoiding mentioning climate change on the campaign trail. Tom Steyer, the billionaire environmentalist who once focused almost exclusively on climate change, for example, launched his campaign for governor in California with an ad focused on affordability issues and taking on big corporations. California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), another top climate advocate, has taken a softer approach to Big Oil after years of cracking down on the industry.“There’s not a poll or a pundit that suggests that Democrats should be talking about this,” Newsom told Politico about climate change recently. “I’m not naive to that either, but I think it’s the way we talk about it that’s the bigger issue, and I think all of us, including myself, need to improve on that, and that’s what I aim to do.”Other potential 2028 Democratic presidential candidates have also focused on rising energy costs when they talk about climate. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), for example, unveiled his own plan last month aimed at boosting clean energy and lowering emissions that was all about affordability. Americans deserve an “energy system that is safe, clean, and affordable for working families – we do not have to choose just one of the above,” his plan stated. Moderate Democrats, however, argue the party has become too closely associated with a cause that simply isn’t at the top of Americans’ priority lists and can be actively harmful for candidates in states where the oil and gas industries employ large numbers of people. The Searchlight Institute, a new centrist think tank founded by a former aide for Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and the late Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.), has urged Democrats to stop mentioning “climate change” entirely in favor of “affordability,” the word Trump seems to think is a “hoax” made up by the left. “In our research, Republicans and Democrats both agree that affordability should be a national priority, and they’re mostly aligned on the importance of lowering energy costs,” the group wrote in a September memo. “That said, mentioning ‘climate change’ opens up a 50-point gap in support between Republicans and Democrats not present on other issues—much larger than the gap in support for developing new energy sources (10 points) or reducing pollution (36 points).”Even if the issue doesn’t move votes, worries about climate change remain widespread: A record-high 48% of U.S. adults said in a Gallup survey earlier this year that global warming will, at some point, pose a serious threat to themselves or their way of life. And not every Democrat agrees with those urging the party to stop talking about climate change. Rhode Island Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, who has delivered hundreds of speeches on the Senate floor calling on Americans to “wake up” to the threat of fossil fuels and climate change, told HuffPost that moving away from advocating for the environment is “stupid” and “ill-informed.” He recently introduced a resolution to get senators on the record about where they stand on climate change.Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats, said that “you can’t back away from a reality which is going to impact everybody in the United States and people throughout the world.” He added that Democrats must have “the courage to take on the fossil fuel industry and do what many other countries are doing, moving to energy efficiency and sustainable energies like solar.”Democrats this year have hammered Trump’s administration for shutting down the construction of new renewable energy sources, including, most recently, five large-scale offshore wind projects under construction along the East Coast. Trump’s Interior Department cited “emerging national security risks” to explain why it had paused work on the offshore wind farms, without elaborating. “Trump’s obsession with killing offshore wind projects is unhinged, irrational, and unjustified,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement on Monday. “At a time of soaring energy costs, this latest decision from DOI is a backwards step that will drive energy bills even higher. It will kill good union jobs, spike energy costs, and put our grid at risk; and it makes absolutely no business sense.”Trump has complained about wind power since offshore turbines were built off the coast of his Scottish golf course in 2011, and has continued the assault in office, calling turbines “disgusting looking,” “noisy,” deadly to birds, and even “bad for people’s health.”Trump’s administration and GOP allies on Capitol Hill have also rolled back or terminated many of the green energy provisions included in President Joe Biden’s signature climate and health law, the Inflation Reduction Act. When it passed in 2022, it was hailed as the most significant federal investment in U.S. history aimed at fighting climate change. But Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill Act wound down much of its tax credits, ended electric vehicle incentives and relaxed emissions rules in a major shift from the previous administration.“As Trump dismantles the wind and solar and battery storage and all electric vehicle job creation revolution in our country, he simultaneously is accelerating the increase in electricity prices for all Americans, which is going to come back to politically haunt the Trump administration,” Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) told HuffPost. “So rather than shying away, we should be leaning into the climate issue, because it’s central as well to the affordability issue that people are confronting at their kitchen table.”

2025 was a big year for climate in the US courts - these were the wins and losses

Americans are increasingly turning to courts to hold big oil accountable. Here are major trends that emerged last yearAs the Trump administration boosts fossil fuels, Americans are increasingly turning to courts to hold big oil accountable for alleged climate deception. That wave of litigation swelled in 2025, with groundbreaking cases filed and wins notched.But the year also brought setbacks, as Trump attacked the cases and big oil worked to have them thrown out. The industry also worked to secure a shield from current and future climate lawsuits. Continue reading...

1. Big oil suits progressed but faced challengesIn recent years, 70-plus US states, cities, and other subnational governments have sued big oil for alleged climate deception. This year, courts repeatedly rejected fossil fuel interests’ attempts to thwart those cases. The supreme court denied a plea to kill a Honolulu lawsuit, and turned down an unusual bid by red states to block the cases. Throughout the year, state courts also shot down attempts to dismiss cases or remand them to federal courts which are seen as more favorable to oil interests.But challenges against big oil also encountered stumbling blocks. In May, Puerto Rico voluntarily dismissed its 2024 lawsuit under pressure. Charleston, South Carolina also declined to appeal its case after it was dismissed.In the coming weeks, the supreme court is expected to decide if it will review a climate lawsuit filed by Boulder, Colorado, against two major oil companies. Their decision could embolden or hinder climate accountability litigation.“So far, the oil companies have had a losing record trying to get these cases thrown out,” said Richard Wiles, president of the Center for Climate Integrity, which backs the litigation against the industry. “The question is, does Boulder change that?”After Colorado’s supreme court refused to dismiss the lawsuit, the energy companies filed a petition with the supreme court asking them to kill the case on the grounds that it is pre-empted by federal laws. If the high court declines to weigh in on the petition – or takes it up and rules in favor of the plaintiffs – that could be boon for climate accountability cases. But if the justices agrees with the oil companies, it could void the Boulder case – and more than a dozen others which make similar claims.That would be a “major challenge”, said Wiles, “but it wouldn’t be game over for the wave of litigation”.“It would not mean the end of big oil being held accountable in the court,” he said.The American Petroleum Institute, the nation’s largest oil lobby group, did not respond to a request to comment.2. New and novel litigationClimate accountability litigation broke new ground in 2025, with Americans taking up novel legal strategies to sue big oil. In May, a Washington woman brought the first-ever wrongful-death lawsuit against big oil alleging the industry’s climate negligence contributed to her mother’s death during a deadly heat wave. And in November, Washington residents brought a class action lawsuit claiming fossil fuel sector deception drove a climate-fueled spike in homeowners’ insurance costs.“These novel cases reflect the lived realities of climate harm and push the legal system to grapple with the full scope of responsibility,” said Merner.Hawaii this year also became the 10th state to sue big oil over alleged climate deception, filing its case just hours after the Department of Justice took the unusual step of suing Hawaii and Michigan over their plans to file litigation. It was a “clear-eyed and powerful pushback” to Trump’s intimidation, Merner said.3. Accountability shieldBig oil ramped up its efforts to evade accountability for its past actions this year, said Wiles. They were aided by allies like Trump, who in April signed an executive order instructing the Justice Department to halt climate accountability litigation and similar policies.In July, members of Congress also tried to cut off Washington DC’s access to funding to enforce its consumer protection laws “against oil and gas companies for environmental claims” by inserting language into a proposed House appropriations bill. A committee passed that version of the text, but the full House never voted on it.2025 also brought mounting evidence that big oil is pushing for a federal liability shield, which could resemble a 2005 law that has largely insulated the firearms industry from lawsuits. In June, 16 Republican state attorneys general asked the Justice Department to help create a “liability shield” for fossil fuel companies against climate lawsuits, the New York Times reported. Lobbying disclosures further show the nation’s largest oil trade group, as well as energy giant ConocoPhillips, lobbying Congress about draft legislation on the topic, according to Inside Climate News.Such a waiver could potentially exempt the industry from virtually all climate litigation. The battle is expected to heat up next year.“We expect they could sneak language to grant them immunity, into some must-pass bill,” said Wiles. “That’s how we think they’ll play it, so we’ve been talking to every person on the Democratic side so that they keep a lookout for this language.”4. What to watch in 2026: plastics and extreme weather casesDespite the challenges ahead, 2026 will almost definitely bring more climate accountability lawsuits against not only big oil but also other kinds of emitting companies. This year, New York’s attorney general notched a major win by securing a $1.1m settlement from the world’s biggest meat company, JBS, over alleged greenwashing. The victory could inspire more cases, said Merner, who noted that many such lawsuits have been filed abroad.Wiles expects more cases to accuse oil companies of deception about plastic pollution, like the one California filed last year. He also expects more lawsuits which focus on harms caused by specific extreme weather events, made possible by advances in attribution science – which links particular disasters to global warming. Researchers and law firms are also developing new theories to target the industry, with groundbreaking cases likely to be filed in 2026.“Companies have engaged in decades of awful behavior that creates liability on so many fronts,” he said. “We haven’t even really scratched the surface of the numerous ways they could be held legally accountable for their behavior.”

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.