Climate Break

Real Ice, a UK based start-up, has been on the forefront of exploring the viability of this new technology. Aqua Freezing involves drilling holes through sea ice to pump out the sea water below and refreeze it on the surface. Once the water freezes, it thickens existing ice to the surface. Adding snow insulation in late winter is expected to help ice persist through summer melts, thereby reducing the risk of a "Blue Ocean Event." This solution targets climate change by maintaining Arctic ice cover, which can stabilize local ecosystems and moderate global climate impacts. If the project is successful, it is projected to postpone the loss of ice caps by approximately 17 years for each year this is completed. For every four feet of water pumped onto the surface, it is projected that the ice will cover around 3 feet. 

As climate change heightens temperatures and alters climatic conditions, summer sea ice in the Arctic is melting rapidly. By the mid 2030s, it is predicted that a “Blue Ocean Event” (or BOE) will occur, meaning that the Arctic Ocean is expected to have less than one million square kilometers of sea ice. This equates to just 15% of the Arctic’s seasonal minimum ice cover of the late 1970s. As ice continues to melt, more of the ocean will be exposed to the sun's rays, thus absorbing more heat and accelerating warming. The Arctic has warmed four times faster than the rest of the world since 1979, largely due to this positive feedback loop known as Arctic amplification. Since the 1980s, the amount of Arctic sea ice has declined by approximately 13% each decade. As the BOE unfolds, it will trigger significant impacts, including droughts, heatwaves, accelerated thawing of terrestrial permafrost (releasing emissions in the process), and sea level rise. The Arctic plays a critical role in climate stabilization by acting as a large reflective surface, helping to cool the planet and maintain a stable global temperature. The BOE is thus a major climatic tipping point with catastrophic global consequences. A new methodology has been proposed to protect and restore Arctic sea ice known as Aqua Freezing. This approach uses renewable energy-powered pumps to distribute seawater on existing Arctic ice, allowing it to refreeze and thicken, helping to maintain climatic stability.

The plan aims to target over 386,000 square miles of Arctic sea ice, an area larger than California. The process of refreezing already shows promise in field tests conducted over the past two years in Alaska and Canada. Proponents of refreezing Arctic sea ice believe that this technique would buy the region time while we make the necessary emissions cuts to curb the impacts of climate change. Refreezing ice would also preserve the albedo effect, which reflects sunlight back into space, preventing warming. 

Although AquaFreezing offers a potential solution to combat Arctic melting, scientists and policymakers doubt whether sea ice can be grown over a long enough period to make a true difference in the climate crisis. Further, the project is quite costly, equating to over 5 trillion dollars and demanding more steel than the US produces in a single year. The project would require 10 million pumps; however, this would only cover 10% of the Arctic Ocean’s roughly 4 million square mile size. To cover the entire area would require 100 million pumps and roughly 100 million tons of steel each year. The US currently produces around 80 to 90 million tons of steel a year, so covering just 10% of Arctic ice would require 13% of US steel production. The production required for the project could lead to immense environmental degradation and added emissions in the process. 

Simon Woods, co-founder and Executive Chairperson of Real Ice, is hopeful that this solution will buy the region time while we make the necessary emissions cuts to curb climate change. Real Ice believes this innovative solution can preserve sea ice and thus work to combat climate change.

• Arctic News, Blue Ocean Event
• CNN, A controversial plan to refreeze the Arctic is seeing promising results. But scientists warn of big risks
• RealIce, Introducing AquaFreezing: Encouraging the natural process of Arctic sea ice generation.
• Smithsonian Magazine, Arctic Could Be Sea Ice-Free in the Summer by the 2030s
• Sustainability Times, Controversial Arctic Refreezing Plan Shows Promise, but Risks Remain
• Warp Notes, They are developing a technology to restore sea ice in the Arctic

• Youtube, Scientists’ Crazy Plan To Refreeze The Arctic

For a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/real-ice-with-simon-woods/.

Across the United States, evangelical Christians are increasingly forging a connection between faith and climate action by redefining environmental work as a sacred duty to care for God’s creation. By understanding sustainability through the lens of biblically mandated stewardship, more and more Christians are discovering renewed hope and purpose in addressing climate change.

To many evangelical environmentalists, caring for the Earth is not a political act. Rather, it is a spiritual duty. They believe that how we treat the planet should reflect how God treats us: with compassion, responsibility, and reverence. That means resisting the exploitation of natural resources and instead treating the Earth as a divine gift entrusted to humanity.

Historically, however, environmentalism and climate science have been viewed as controversial in conservative Christian circles, seen as secular or partisan issues. But that perception is beginning to shift, thanks in part to young leaders and faith-based environmental advocates who are reframing climate action as a moral and theological imperative.

One of those young leaders is Becca Boyd, a student at Indiana Wesleyan University studying Environmental Science. Raised in a Christian home, Becca often felt her environmental concerns were dismissed and even challenged. Feeling unhead, she began to experience a crisis of faith, questioning both her faith and her place in the church.

Everything changed when she was introduced to the concept of creation care in college by her professors. For the first time, she saw how her love for the environment and desire to protect it could be an act of faith rather than in conflict with it.

Like many young people in the climate action space, Becca has felt overwhelmed by the constant sense of “doom and gloom.” The narrative that it’s too late to fix the damage can leave people in despair and feeling helpless. But creation care offers her a more hopeful, spiritually grounded mindset. Rather than dwelling on what’s broken, Becca focuses her energy on healing what’s still possible.

For Becca, environmental stewardship is now a form of worship: small acts like conserving energy, recycling, or planting a pollinator garden at her school are ways of honoring God.  And by inviting others to do the same, she’s helping grow a climate movement rooted not in fear but in faith and hope for the future.

Through her advocacy, Becca has learned that the language you use to talk about climate issues matters, especially in Christian spaces. The word “climate” itself can be politically charged and can trigger defensiveness, while terms like “creation care” and “eco-theology” feel more rooted in faith and shared values.

She is also intentional about her tone, making a point to avoid “you” statements. Rather than telling people what they should do, Becca shares what she does and why. This approach opens the door to conversation rather than closing it. According to Becca, it’s about meeting people where they are and establishing a common ground — inviting them in, not calling them out. 

Creation care is still a growing movement, and while it’s gained traction in places like Indiana, there’s still a long way to go. Climate science skepticism and misinformation continue to circulate in many conservative communities. But Becca and other young Christians are starting vital conversations in churches and on campuses, emphasizing climate change as a humanitarian issue: one that affects food security, public health, and the lives of future generations. 

She also shares resources like Cowboy & Preacher, a documentary tracing the history of Christian environmentalism, to show that this movement isn’t new, and that faith and climate action have long been intertwined. 

Becca Boyd is a rising senior at Indiana Wesleyan University studying Environmental Science. She is a Climate Advocate for Young Evangelicals for Climate Action (YECA) and previously served as a College Fellow. On campus, she launched a student sustainability club and helped lead campus-wide conversations about the intersection of faith and environmental responsibility. She was recently featured in The New York Times for her work advancing Indiana’s growing creation care movement.

• YECA, Young Evangelicals for Climate Action
• Cowboy & Preacher, Cowboy & Preacher

• The New York Times, In Indiana, Putting Up Solar Panels Is Doing God’s Work
• NBC News, Evangelical environmentalists push for climate votes as election nears: 'Care for God's creation'
• American Conservation Coalition, An Environmental Education: What a Christian Environmental Ethic Looks Like

For a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/creation-care-with-becca-boyd/.

What is carbon mineralization?

As defined by the U.S. Geological Survey, “carbon mineralization is the process by which carbon dioxide becomes a solid mineral, such as a carbonate…The biggest advantage of carbon mineralization is that the carbon cannot escape back to the atmosphere.” This generally occurs by injecting carbon dioxide underground into certain rock formations so the carbon dioxide takes on a solid form: trapped and unable to reach the atmosphere. 

How does carbon mineralization work?

Two of the main methods in which carbon mineralization occurs are ex-situ carbon mineralization and in-situ carbon mineralization. With ex-situ carbon mineralization, carbon dioxide solids are transported to a site to react with fluids—like water—and gas. In-situ carbon mineralization is the opposite—fluids containing carbon dioxide are funneled through rock formations in which it solidifies. Both of these methods result in carbon dioxide trapped in a solidified form. 

In a third method of carbon mineralization, surificial mineralization, carbon dioxide reacts with alkaline substances—such as mine tailings, smelter slags, or sedimentary formations—which result in the carbon dioxide taking on a solidified form. In the case of in-situ carbon mineralization or surificial mineralization, carbon dioxide can react with surface water rather than an artificial fluid, replicating natural processes of carbon mineralization.

Currently, the biggest drawbacks and barriers preventing carbon mineralization from taking hold as a major climate solution lie in cost and research uncertainties regarding environmental risks. In terms of cost, the price for carbon mineralization is high: 5 million dollars per well to inject carbon dioxide into rock formations. Further, the risks for groundwater and its susceptibility to contamination through this method is unknown, and the potential side effects of contaminating water formations could be devastating for ecological communities which thrive off of these water systems.

Who is our guest?

Dr. Rob Jackson is a professor and senior research fellow at Stanford University, and author of Into the Clear Blue Sky, a novel on climate solutions. His lab focuses on using scientific knowledge to shape climate policies and reduce the environmental footprint of human activities. Currently, he chairs the Global Carbon Project, an effort to measure and control greenhouse gas emissions.

Resources

• USGS: U.S. Geological Survey
• ScienceDirect: A holistic overview of the in-situ and ex-situ carbon mineralization: Methods, mechanisms, and technical challenges
• National Center for Biotechnology Information: Negative Emissions Technologies and Reliable Sequestration: A Research Agenda.
• Frontiers: An Overview of the Status and Challenges of CO2 Storage in Minerals and Geological Formations

• The New York Times: How Oman’s Rocks Could Help Save the Planet
• Climate Break: Rerun: Using Concrete for Carbon Removal with Dr. Erica Dodds

For a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/carbon-capture-mineralization-with-dr-rob-jackson/

Methane in the Atmosphere: A Serious Risk

Many of the solutions we often hear about when it comes to reducing greenhouse gas emissions revolve around reducing carbon emissions, as carbon dioxide (CO2) is the primary greenhouse gas emitted by human activities. Methane, however, is the second most common greenhouse gas, emitted through agricultural practices, landfill waste, coal mining, and oil and gas operations. While methane generally receives less attention than carbon dioxide when it comes to climate solutions, recent studies have shown that it is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. According to the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, methane has a global warming potential 28-34 times higher than CO2 upon emission, which increases to 84-86 times over a 20-year period. 

How does methane enter our skies?

The concentration of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled over the past century. Both everyday infrastructure in older cities and major leaks at oil and gas fields add to the quantity of methane into the atmosphere. As for the source of these leaks, they are largely caused by equipment failures or faulty pipes and vessels. 2,595 gas incidents have been reported in the US from 2010 to 2021, adding up to 26.6 billion cubic feet of methane gas emitted. Methane impacts both the climate system and public health; breathing methane can cause damaged airways, lung diseases, asthma attacks, increased rates of preterm birth, cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and heightened stroke risk.  

What can we do?

Mining operations can be improved to reduce methane leaks and oil and gas operations can greatly reduce emissions throughout the system. As our tools of measurement and technology improve, the world has realized the greater need to attack methane emissions, which led to the Global Methane Pledge in 2021. In this pledge, 158 countries and the EU pledged to make a distinct effort to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30 percent from 2020 levels by 2030. 

Part of reducing methane emissions involves switching from fossil fuels to electricity generated from renewable sources.  According to Environmental specialist and Stanford professor Dr. Rob Jackson, our skies will become cleaner once we switch to cleaner, electrical energy sources, including electric heat pumps to cool and heat our homes, electric water heaters, and especially electric stoves. According to the Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, methane emissions from gas stoves in America—when scaled to the 20-year global warming potential of the gas—were “comparable to the carbon dioxide emissions of approximately 500,000 gas-powered cars.” Health-wise, a study conducted by Stanford’s Doerr School of Sustainability and PSE Healthy Energy found that “children who live in homes with gas stoves had a 24% higher risk of lifetime asthma and a 42% increased risk of having asthma currently.” Dr. Jackson says that making the switch to induction stoves is not only energetically cleaner and prevents the likelihood of gas leaks, but it also prevents us from being exposed to toxic pollutants such as nitrogen oxides and benzene gasses that come from gas stoves.

Some potential drawbacks: the cost of electricity

While induction stoves and a cleaner, electrical society sounds optimal, there are some challenges and barriers to making this a reality. First of all, not every person can afford to implement an induction stove and replace their functioning gas stove, as home renovations, rewirings, and big purchases such as a new stove cost a great deal of money. In this way, income inequality plays a major role in the way climate change impacts different people in society. Dr. Jackson uses the example of a person living in a lower-income community; surrounded by older, poorly-maintained appliances, people in these types of homes often breathe dirtier air indoors than outdoors. This is why Dr. Jackson proposes that the shift to clean energy be gradual; fueled by regulations and government support. Without social support, equal access to cleaner energy cannot be achieved.

In terms of major gas leaks, change is hard to make as an individual. According to the Environmental Defense Fund, the best thing we can do is to fight for national policy to repair and prevent leaks wherever they occur: whether at mining facilities or under our sidewalks. This is a difficult task, as all individuals can do is push for political action, however agreements such as the Global Methane Pledge seem to be steps in the right direction.

Who is our guest?

Dr. Rob Jackson is a professor and senior research fellow at Stanford University, and author of Into the Clear Blue Sky, a novel on climate solutions. His lab focuses on using scientific knowledge to shape climate policies and reduce the environmental footprint of human activities. Currently, he chairs the Global Carbon Project, an effort to measure and control greenhouse gas emissions.

• US Environmental Protection Agency: Overview of Greenhouse Gases
• UNECE: The Challenge
• MIT Technology Review: Methane leaks in the US are worse than we thought
• PIRG: Methane Gas Leaks
• Environmental Defense Fund: How Methane Impacts Health
• Global Methane Pledge: About the Global Methane Pledge
• Journal of Environmental Science and Technology: Methane and NOx Emissions from Natural Gas Stoves, Cooktops, and Ovens in Residential Homes
• American Chemical Society Publications: Gas and Propane Combustion from Stoves Emits Benzene and Increases Indoor Air Pollution
• Environmental Defense Fund: How to stop natural gas leaks

• The New York Times: Did I Turn Off the Stove? Yes, but Maybe Not the Gas

For a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/identifying-and-fixing-natural-gas-leaks-in-cities-with-dr-rob-jackson/

What are public utility commissions (PUCs)? 

In the transition to clean energy, state public utility commissions (PUCs), which regulate electric, gas, telecommunications, water and wastewater utilities, play an increasingly important role in achieving energy efficiency, enabling renewable energy, and implementing policies for greenhouse gas emissions reduction. PUCs  play a pivotal role in determining the energy mix, setting rates, and deciding on investments in infrastructure, such as electric vehicle (EV) charging stations. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), for example, has to balance  safety, reliable utility service, and reasonable rates through the regulation of various large investor-owned electric, natural gas, and water utilities. Utility commissions like CPUC are given a statutory mandate to ensure reasonable, adequate and efficient service to customers at just and reasonable prices. PUCs can issue regulations that impact electricity generation, the adoption of clean energy, and related emissions of pollutants and GHGs. PUCs can play an important role in shaping energy infrastructure, policy, and clean energy development.

The Role PUCs play in shaping energy infrastructure

PUCs were first created in the early 20th century to focus on overseeing operations and the utility investment in service while ensuring affordable rates. That role has evolved, and now PUCs often play a transformative role in transitioning towards a greener economy. PUCs have the ability to consider the impacts of GHG emissions, equity, grid reliability, distributed energy resources, and increased consumer choices in their policy decisions. 

PUCs oversee planning processes that affect a utility’s resource portfolio and therefore its environmental profile. A new method of planning amongst PUCs has emerged known as Integrated Resource Planning (IRP), which compares the life cycle costs of different resource choices that factor energy efficiency into their analysis. Portfolio standards have also been added to IRP, which requires certain types of resources to be included in the utilities’ mix of power procured, including renewable energy and energy efficiency. PUCs can also incorporate environmental considerations by increasing oversight of utility planning processes, setting prices, determining clean energy targets, and addressing utility incentives related to energy efficiency and distribution. PUCs thus have the ability to promote and shape clean energy adoption and development through their regulatory oversight. 

The Case for PUCs

State PUCs have significant authority, often includingI the ability to accelerate decarbonization of the energy sector, mitigate the impacts of climate change, improve public health, and assist in reaching state energy goals. Updated PUC statutory mandates that reflect state energy priorities can contribute to their success in transforming the energy grid to become more energy efficient. Energy efficiency is a cost-effective mechanism to meet future demand for electricity. Energy efficiency reduces the amount of electricity needed to meet demand thereby benefiting the overall reliability of the electric grid. With more efficient systems, utilities and states will not need to build as much new transmission and generation, which can save money and improve environmental quality. Further, modern regulations to achieve such priorities and framing for the public interest can incorporate climate and environmental justice concerns. 

The Case Against PUCs

Organizational challenges such as outdated mandates, staff constraints, gaps in technical knowledge, misinformation, and quasi-judicial processes have created barriers to innovation amongst PUCs. Some PUCs still continue to view themselves as purely economic regulators, which does not accurately reflect the current decisions they are being asked to make. Additionally, the authority of PUCs varies widely from state to state. PUCs authority is established by state legislatures, thus their power only extends as far as their statutory authorization. The level of statutory authority delegated to PUCs by legislatures also varies widely. Barriers such as these have made it difficult for some  PUCs to develop more innovative mechanisms consistent with new environmental targets and the effort to achieve a zero-carbon US grid.

While transitioning to clean energy promises long-term savings and environmental benefits, the short-term costs can be significant and potentially burdensome for consumers and businesses, posing political and fiscal challenges for PUCs. Stakeholder engagement in this transition will be vital. Labor issues also pose challenges as states transition away from  fossil fuels. In addition, challenges exist around regulatory complexities and the evolving federal and state policies. 

About Our Guest

Jill Tauber is the Vice President of Litigation for Climate and Energy at EarthJustice. Jill leads the organization in achieving an equitable shift to clean energy through her litigation and legal advocacy work. Prior to serving as VP of Litigation, Jill worked as the Managing Attorney of Earthjustice’s Clean Energy Program, focusing on achieving clean energy solutions across the country.

• RMI: Purpose: Aligning PUC Mandates with a Clean Energy Future
• RMI: The Untapped Potential of Public Utility Commissions
• EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency State Climate and Energy Technical Forum Background Document

• Columbia Law: Public Utility Commissions and Energy Efficiency

For a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/public-utilities-commissions-with-earthjustices-jill-tauber/

Climate or “eco” anxiety refers to people feeling distressed about climate change and its impacts on our ecosystems, the environment, and human health and well-being. It is rooted in a deep existential dread concerning the future of the planet. Symptoms include feelings of grief, loss, anger, sadness, and guilt, which in turn can cause jitteriness, nervousness, increased heart rate, shallow breathing, difficulty concentrating, changes in appetite, or insomnia due to worry or concern about the effects of climate change. 

According to Grist, Google searches for “climate anxiety” soared by 565 percent in 2021. And according to the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, an all-time high of 70 percent of Americans express worry about climate change. In September 2021, the largest study of its kind found that the climate crisis was causing widespread psychological distress for young people between the ages of 16 and 25 across 42 countries from both the global North and South. Over 45 percent of teens and young adults said that climate anxiety was affecting their daily lives and ability to function; 56 percent said they thought that "humanity is doomed" and nearly 4 in 10 said that they were hesitant to have children because of climate change. 

The steps people must take to address their climate anxiety depends on each individual, as people are affected by climate change in different ways. For example, some people have lost homes or even loved ones, while many others have witnessed these catastrophic events unfold on their phone screens.

Dr. Melinda Adams describes this trauma as “solastalgia,” originally coined by Australian philosopher Glen Albrecht to describe the distress caused by the destruction or loss of one’s home environment. This concept helps people to understand and express the “psychoterratic,” or the relationship between human mental health and the earth’s own well-being. Many have taken legal and political action to deal with their solastalgia. For example, last year Montana youths sued the state for its failure to recognize that approving fossil fuel projects was unconstitutional without further review of the impacts to the climate. Others have drastically altered their lifestyles, opting instead to practice underconsumption to limit their personal contributions to the changing climate. 

Dr. Adams has another solution, reminding those who suffer that the definition of solastalgia also includes hope. Hope can lead us either into action or ecoparalysis. It is within this framework that Dr. Adams introduces Native American cultural burnings as a way to achieve soliphilia, “the political affiliation or solidarity needed between us all to be responsible for a place, bioregion, planet, and the unity of interrelated interests within it.’’ 

Cultural fires or “good fires,” which involve lighting low-intensity fires to heal the surrounding ecosystem, can exemplify this step. Not only do these fires restore degraded soils, decrease vegetation or fuel overgrowth, encourage re-vegetation and biodiversity, but they also deepen the spiritual ties people have to the land they inhabit. Fire therefore has a regenerative power, both spiritually and ecologically, as participants share stories and strengthen communal and spiritual bonds with one another during these ceremonial burnings. As a member of the N’dee San Carlos Apache Tribe, Dr. Adams takes Glen Albrecht’s theory of the “psychoterratic” and frames it as a relationship between siblings. Subsequently, as siblings, humans and the land must help each other survive. By treating the earth as a more-than-human sibling, and by practicing cultural burns, participants can begin to heal from their solastalgia. 

Directly engaging with a regenerative process such as “good fires,” “grounds people’s intentions and allows for deeper connections—to place and among one another.” “[C]eremonial fires create opportunities for social, environmental, and cultural healing among young persons (Native and allied)” (Tom, Adams, & Goode at 3). Essentially, the strengthening of community through spiritually uplifting activities alleviates climate anxiety by showing young people that there are people out there who share their concern for the climate and are motivated to do something about it. 

Dr. Melinda Adams is a member of the N’dee San Carlos Apache Tribe and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science at the University of Kansas. A cultural fire practitioner and scholar, her research focuses on the revitalization of cultural fire with Tribes in California and more recently with Tribes in the Midwest. Her work with Indigenous communities combines environmental science, environmental policy, and Indigenous studies methodologies. Read more about Dr. Melinda Adams here.

• Cornell University: Climate Change & Eco-Anxiety
• It’s Not Just You: Everyone is Googling Climate Anxiety (Salon)
• Leiserowitz et al., Dramatic Increases in Public Beliefs and Worries About Climate Change (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication)
• Hickman et al.,  Climate anxiety in children and young people and their beliefs about government responses to climate change: a global survey (The Lancet Planetary Health)
• Tom, Adams, and Goode,  From Solastalgia to Soliphilia: Cultural Fire, Climate Change and Indigenous Healing (Ecopsychology)

• UC Davis: Melinda Adams: Flame Keeper
• Climate Designers: Podcast: Deep Dive with Dr Melinda Adams: Solastalgia & Soliphilia 
• Yale: Yale Experts Explain Climate Anxiety

For a transcript of this episode, please visit https://climatebreak.org/how-native-american-ecology-can-tackle-climate-anxiety-with-dr-melinda-adams/.

The  Latino Climate Justice Framework (LCJF) prioritizes environmental justice while helping to protect disproportionately affected individuals–commonly Latine people. Specifically, LCJF works with communities that “face numerous climate-related issues, from extreme heat affecting outdoor workers and poor air quality in neighborhoods near industrial facilities, to increased vulnerability to natural disasters like hurricanes, floods, and wildfires.”

LCJF has three areas of focus with different goals for how to better the health of the environment and the Latino community. Chapter one of the LCJF identifies how fossil fuels disproportionately expose the Latine community to toxic pollutants. LCJF believes that carbon capture methods are an extremely passive solution that do not address the problem; instead they hope to prioritize renewable energy while enhancing affordability and accessibility to these amenities by “ramping up recycling, reusing batteries and solar panels” and “ensuring equitable investment”.

The second chapter outlines how “latinos are 21% more likely than white individuals to reside in urban heat islands” and “only 19% of Latino/a/e children have nearby recreational green spaces, compared to 62% of white children.” They follow up with recommendations for how they hope that plans for “prioritizing urban greening projects in Latine neighborhoods with the highest heat risk and lowest tree canopy and green spaces” would improve air quality in their neighborhoods, while reducing health risks. 

The last chapter outlines how Latines have an extremely sacred relationship with land and water.  However, due to “patriarchal and white supremacist oppression” they have been deprived of their access to nature. Moreover, they acknowledge that Earth has been losing vital biodiversity for those very same reasons. Thus, they hope to reduce this problem by opposing efforts to extract natural gas and oil, build the US Mexico border on sensitive lands, and “sprawl development on public lands.”

The LCJF aims to mitigate climate change by reducing pollution from fossil fuels through stringent regulations and promoting clean energy alternatives. It emphasizes the development of climate-resilient infrastructure to protect communities from climate-related disasters. Additionally, the framework seeks to empower Latine communities by involving them directly in environmental decision-making processes, ensuring that solutions are culturally relevant and effective.

Though potential issues may include challenges with implementation, funding, political support, scalability, and policy adaptation efforts. LCJF Program Director Irene Burga argues that Latine people are often kept out of the conversation of climate equity despite the fact that they are extremely affected by climate change. If their voices are heard, she says, climate policies would be much more impactful.

Irene Burga is the Climate Justice and Cleaner Program Director at Green Latinos, where she works to bring Latine voices to government.

• Climate Advocacy Lab, Latino Climate Justice Framework 2025-28 | Climate Advocacy Lab

• LCJF, The Latino Climate Justice Framework. El Plan Para Nuestra Gente
• Green Latinos, Latino Climate Justice Framework

For a transcript, please visit https://climatebreak.org/latino-climate-justice-framework-with-irene-burga/.

Since the pre-industrialized era, the global temperature has increased by about one degree Celsius. Although one degree may not seem significant, the consequences are increases in the intensity of heatwaves and drier conditions. In addition, in dense urban settings buildings trap and absorb this heat and cause even a higher area of heat relative to surrounding areas. The heat island effect is also exacerbated by the lack of greenery. With current fossil fuel emissions, increased heating of 1.5 degrees Celsius or more is predicted to happen globally within this decade. Among the most promising solutions to combat extreme heat in cities is the effort to promote natural systems – trees, creeks, and parks in cities and creating resilience hubs where people can stay cool and safe from dangerous temperatures.  Because heat impacts individuals in multiple ways, the response to extreme heat must also be multifaceted.  

There are many possible responses to extreme heat. On an individual level, for example, when human body temperature rises to the point of heat stroke, individuals are subject to serious illness or in some cases, death.  Heat poses a particular threat when the body is physically unable to cool down. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), between 2000 and 2016, 125 million more people were exposed to heat waves than in the period before 2000. Actions individuals can take to reduce heat exposure include avoiding going outside at peak temperatures, reducing the heat inside of homes, and if reducing heat at home is not an option, going where air conditioning is available. 

For some vulnerable populations like farmworkers, staying inside where there is air conditioning is not an option. In some states, like California, a temperature of 80 degrees Fahrenheit initiates the California's Heat Illness Prevention Standard, which is enforced by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  The Standard requires that training, water, shade, and rest be provided to outdoor workers. Currently, there is no federal protection or policy for workers who may experience extreme heat. While a proposed rulemaking is in the works, it may take years before a final regulation is completed.

In the meantime, there are key actions that anyone can take, including something as simple as making extreme heat a topic of discussion as part of increasing awareness. By spreading awareness and recognizing the consequences of extreme heat, politicians and policymakers will be much more likely to pay attention to the issue and to community necessities. Global and local temperatures are continuing to rise, and, as a result, it is important to have community access to locations with air conditioning systems, heat pumps, and safety hubs particularly in communities whose residents do not have home air conditioners. Hubs may include libraries, churches, schools, and nonprofits which can be essential for providing both a cool place to shelter and a source of information and assistance.

Shifting to more green spaces is also an important solution to mitigate the impacts of increased heat. In New York, the Highline is a great example of transforming an old historic freight rail line into a park filled with rich greenery. The incorporation of nature into a previously urban dense space provides the city with more trees and access to green space. 

Addressing extreme heat in cities requires new approaches and creative thinking for a suite of implementation strategies to provide cooling to the public and creation of green space. 

Jeff Goodell is the author of the New York Times bestseller The Heat Will Kill You First: Life and Death on a Scorched Planet, which focuses on responses to extreme heat. Goodell is also a journalist who has been covering climate change for more than two decades at Rolling Stone, The New York Times Magazine, and many other publications. He has a BA from the University of California, Berkeley, and an MFA from Columbia University in New York.

• Lindsey and Dahlman, Climate Change: Global Temperatures (Climate.org, 2024)
• Dickie, Climate Report and Predictions (Reuters, 2023)
• California's Heat Illness Prevention Standard (Cal OSHA)
• Krueger, Heat Policy for Outdoor Workers (The Network for Public Health Law, 2023)
• Heat and Health (WHO, 2018)
• Heat Island Effect (The United States EPA)
• Climate Resilience Hubs (Communities Responding to Extreme Weather)
• Sustainable Practices | The Highline (The Highline)

For a transcript of this episode, please visit https://climatebreak.org/alleviating-urban-heat-traps-with-jeff-goodell/

Extreme heat, one of the adverse consequences of climate change, exacerbates drought, damages agriculture, and profoundly impacts human health. Heat is the top weather-related killer in the United States, contributing to deaths that arise from heart attacks, strokes, and other cardiovascular diseases. As temperatures are projected to increase, so will the risk of heat-related deaths. Urban heat islands, cities with large numbers of buildings, roads, and other infrastructure, are ‘islands’ of hot temperatures due to the reduced natural landscape, heat-generating human-made activities, and large-scale urban configuration. More than 40 million people live in urban heat islands in the United States, with this number only increasing as people continue to move from rural to urban areas. Around 56% of the world’s total population lives in cities. Those living in large cities are more vulnerable to the effects of extreme heat, with research showing an increased mortality risk of 45% compared to rural areas. The risk of heat-related exhaustion and death is a major public health concern that is exacerbated by the climate crisis. 

The National Weather Service is in the process of creating a new interface known as HeatRisk, which uses a five-point scale to monitor the heat-related risk for vulnerable populations based on local weather data and health indicators. By mapping heat risk, climate scientists hope that individuals will now have a better understanding of the safety concerns associated with being outside during times of extreme heat. 

Before stepping outside, most individuals check the daily weather prediction to get a sense of the average temperature. In order to measure the perceived temperature, climate scientists use a heat index, a calculation that combines air temperature and relative humidity to create a human-perceived equivalent temperature. Accurate prediction of the heat index is imperative as every passing year marks the warmest on record, with dangerous extreme heat predicted to become commonplace across arid regions of the world. Therefore, tracking such calculations is necessary in assessing future climate risk. Areas especially vulnerable to extreme heat heavily rely on an accurate prediction of temperature to determine if it is safe to go outside.

However, there are over 300 heat indexes used worldwide to calculate the threat from heat, defeating the potential universality of this metric. Each heat index weighs factors differently, making it difficult to differentiate between various metrics. Dozens of factors are used to estimate the daily temperature based on predictions of vapor pressure, height, clothing, or sunshine levels. In addition, most heat indexes report the temperature assuming that you are a young, healthy adult and are resting in the shade, not in the sun. If outdoors, the heat index could be 15 degrees higher. If you are older, you may not be as resilient during intense temperatures.

As a result, many climate scientists are calling for heat indexes that reveal the apparent risk of being outdoors on any given day. The elderly, children and infants, and those suffering from chronic diseases are more vulnerable to high temperatures than healthy, young adults, which needs to be accounted for when surveying temperature risk. 

The National Weather Service’s HeatRisk index is different from previous models as it identifies unusual heat times and places, also taking into account unusually warm nights. As such, it provides a more universal measure accounting for the degree to which people in the area are acclimated to various heat temperatures. The HeatRisk index can thus be used to gauge levels of danger associated with temperature, potentially altering an individual’s behavioral patterns. 

For those working in outdoor fields, the WetBulb Globe Temperature (WBGT) measure can be particularly useful as a way to measure heat stress as it takes into account temperature, humidity, wind speed, sun angle, and cloud coverage. Different from the heat index, the WBGT includes both temperature and humidity and is calculated for areas in the shade. If not exercising or working outdoors, people can revert to the HeatRisk scale to calculate the potential hazards of being outside for longer periods. 

Because scientists have to account for a variety of factors like geography, physics, and physiology, establishing a truly universal heat index is unlikely. For regions like Colorado, creating the criteria for a heat advisory has proven shockingly difficult. Heat indexes typically rely on temperature and humidity, however, the Colorado landscape is so dry that an advisory is very rarely triggered, even during heat waves. In such scenarios, the HeatRisk index provides a better gauge for outdoor safety. Most people underestimate the dangers of extreme heat and often ignore warning messages from local authorities. Educational programs are vital in informing the public on the dangers of extreme heat.

David Romps, UC Berkeley professor of Earth and Planetary Science, is at the forefront of heat index research. Romps has found that those exposed to extreme heat suffer restricted blood flow and are often unable to physiologically compensate. Through his research, Romps believes that heat index calculations often underestimate the potential heat impacts on individuals, with the human body being more susceptible to heightened temperatures than commonly understood. 

Further Reading

• Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, Heat Waves and Climate Change
• Huang, et.al, Economic valuation of temperature-related mortality attributed to urban heat islands in European cities, Nature Communications, 2023
• National Weather Service, What is the heat index?
• National Weather Service, NWS Heat Risk Prototype
• National Weather Service, WetBulb Globe Temperature
• Sharma, More than 40 million people in the U.S. live in urban heat islands, climate group finds, NBC News, 2023
• 2023 was the world’s warmest year on record, by far, NOAA, 2024
• Coren, The world needs a new way to talk about heat,  The Washington Post, 2023
• Hawryluk and KFF Health News, A New Way to Measure Heat Risks for People, Scientific American, 2022
• UC Berkeley Heat Index Research, David Romps
• US EPA, Climate Change Indicators: Heat-Related Deaths
• US EPA, What are Heat Islands?

For at transcript of this episode, please visit  https://climatebreak.org/calculating-threats-from-rising-temperatures-using-heat-indexing-with-professor-david-romps/

North America is no stranger to wildfires. As of August 15, 2024, 29,917 fires this year have burned more than 5.2 million acres, according to the Center for Disaster Philanthropy. While this year’s number of wildfires is below the annual average of 35,691, the yearly acres burned is above the average of 3.8 million acres of the past 10 years.

While wildfires are a naturally occurring phenomenon, their frequency is heavily influenced by climate change, especially on the west coast of the United States. Wildfire risk increases depending on a number of factors, including temperature, soil moisture, and the presence of trees, shrubs, and other fuel. Additionally, climate change dries out organic matter or “fuel” in forests, resulting in a doubling of the number of large fires between 1984 and 2015 in the western United States. As climate change creates warmer and drier weather conditions, wildfires will likely become more frequent; studies show that an average annual warming of one degree celsius would increase the median burned area per year by as much as 600 percent in some types of forests. 

Ultimately, as temperatures warm globally and drier conditions ravage the country, these fires will spread farther and become harder and harder to extinguish. 

As the planet warms, many have turned to ancient methods to mitigate the effects of climate change. Notably, Dr. Adams borrows the concept of “good” fires from Native American cultural fires practices, where low intensity fires are lit to heal the surrounding ecosystem. In order to positively change the public’s relationship with fire, fire agencies in California and Native American tribes have started using this term. Generally, “good” or cultural fires not only restore degraded soils and decrease vegetation or fuel overgrowth, but also deepen the spiritual ties people have to the land they inhabit. Specifically, good fire increases organic matter, keeps soil surfaces vegetated through the regrowth of plants, and encourages biodiversity. 

In California, many ecosystems rely on fire for its regenerative powers. Dr. Adams notes that fire connects to water, soil health, and the health of animals and surrounding areas. It can also mitigate invasive species growth and eliminate harmful pests that are killing a lot of trees, making them more susceptible to catching fire and starting larger forest fires. As a result, fire promotes many benefits for ecosystem health.

Dr. Adams writes that as a member of the N’dee San Carlos Apache Tribe, she maintains a sacred attachment to the land, and believes that humans and the Earth are relatives. Subsequently, as siblings, humans and the land must help each other survive. Following these teachings around our relationship to more-than-human sibling and reciprocity, “good” fire participants can achieve “futurity” (intergenerational exchanges) that will safeguard future protection of the environment and human communities. Listening to these Native American Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) could lead the way to developing a more sustainable relationship to the planet and, in doing so, mitigate the effects of climate change.

The concept of “good” fire stems from Indigenous Matriarchal Ecology. Many Native American tribes are matriarchal, such as the Cherokee and the Navajo. Applying traditionally “matriarchal” values such as care, tenderness, and love to environmental conservation could be an effective climate change solution. Inclusivity and the centering of Indigenous women’s knowledge can also allow opportunities to enhance plant and soil health, remediation, and rematriation of the quality of our plant and soilscapes to provide a prosperous support structure that enables ecosystems to thrive.

By practicing Indigenous Matriarchal Ecology, cultural fire participants can collectively start seeing the Earth as a Mother: one who gives life and receives it in return. This is why Dr. Adams and her colleagues focus on the role the soil can play in the fight against climate change through the practice of Matriarchal Ecology. Dr. Adams writes that applying a soil health approach to ecology in tandem with cultural fires can play an important role in climate mitigation by storing carbon and decreasing greenhouse gas emissions. By restoring degraded soils and adopting soil conservation practices, such as cultural fire and Indigenous Matriarchal Ecologies, “good” fire practitioners can enhance the Earth’s carbon sequestration capacity and build resilience to climate change. Furthermore, these soil improvements on formerly mined and degraded lands could make soilscapes more resilient to erosion and desertification, while maintaining vital ecosystem services. And hopefully, these practitioners can inspire others, non-Native and Native alike, to develop a better understanding of and relationships with the planet.

Indigenous Matriarchal Ecologies can highlight the positive effects of cultural fire on environmentally degraded soils, while simultaneously building native plant and soil resilience toward climate and cultural futurity that all communities can enjoy.

Dr. Melinda Adams is a member of the N’dee San Carlos Apache Tribe and an Assistant Professor in the Department of Geography and Atmospheric Science at the University of Kansas. A cultural fire practitioner and scholar, her research focuses on the revitalization of cultural fire with Tribes in California and more recently with Tribes in the Midwest. Her work with Indigenous communities combines environmental science, environmental policy, and Indigenous studies methodologies.

• Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: Wildfires and Climate Change
• California Native Plant Society: Native Plants and Climate Change: Indigenous Perspectives 

• UC Davis: Melinda Adams: Flame Keeper
• Climate Designers: Podcast: Deep Dive with Dr Melinda Adams: Solastalgia & Soliphilia 

For a transcript of this episode, please visit https://climatebreak.org/regenerating-our-ecosystems-with-good-fire-with-dr-melinda-adams/.