You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
New research shows that climate change is making urban fires more frequent.
New York City and Los Angeles — America’s two biggest cities — have both burned in the past four months.
Though the Pacific Palisades and Altadena fires were far more destructive, turning nearly 40,000 acres of homes, schools, parks, and businesses to ash, the New York fire was in many ways just as startling. A record dry fall in the Northeast led to 600 blazes across the East Coast in October and November, including one in Prospect Park in the heart of Brooklyn, the city’s most populous borough. The FDNY later reported that it fought more than 370 brush fires in the five boroughs in 2024 — a rate of more than one a day in a place not traditionally associated with wildfires.
According to new research by Long Shi and his colleagues at the University of Science and Technology of China, published today in Nature Cities, these kinds of urban fires are becoming increasingly common due to climate change. “The impacts of climate change on vegetation fire have been well explored” by other researchers, Shi told me via email. Until now, however, the impact of anthropogenic warming on urban fires was “still unknown.”
Shi and his colleagues created a global fire incident database covering 2,847 cities across 20 countries. They found that for every 1 degree Celsius increase in air temperature (that’s just shy of 2 degrees Fahrenheit), the frequency of vehicle and outdoor fires increased by about 2.5% and 4.7%, respectively. That means that under a scenario with no new climate mitigation policies, under which greenhouse gas emissions roughly double from current levels by 2100, vehicle fires would increase by 11.6% and outdoor fires by as much as 22.2% by the end of the century.
Fire incidents typically fall into one of four categories: building, vehicle, and outdoor fires, which are usually urban, and vegetation fires, which include forest and grassland fires. Historically, fire research has tended to focus on vegetation fires, but the vast majority of the 50,000 fire-related deaths and 170,000 fire-related injuries sustained each year around the world are in urban fires. Part of that is because urban fires are much more difficult to study. “Some fire ignitions, such as inside buildings, cannot be directly detected by satellites,” Shi and his colleagues write in their report. There was also no preexisting global fire incident databases for Shi’s team to rely on, so they spent years just assembling the fire incident data before they could begin their analysis.
The final 2,847 cities considered for the report account for 20.6% of the global population — “the most comprehensive and biggest city-based fire incident database so far,” Shi said. The researchers then looked at the changes in the frequency of urban fire incidents between 2011 and 2020, focusing on building, vehicle, and outdoor fires, including garbage and landfill fires.
Perhaps surprisingly, Shi’s team found that building fires could decrease by 4.6% under a high greenhouse gas emission scenario. Their research showed that building fire frequency drops when the outdoor air temperature is “comfortable,” from 20 to 26 degrees Celsius (68 degrees Fahrenheit to about 79 degrees Fahrenheit). “This may be because people tend to stay indoors during uncomfortable weather, elevating the likelihood of accessing fire sources or devices that provide ignition sources for fires, such as fireplace heating and electrical cooling appliances,” the authors wrote. (Canada, Estonia, and Finland showed an opposite trend, which the authors hypothesized was because “people in northern countries spend more time outside in winter as they enjoy winter sports” — or just because of the relatively short period of available fire data.)
The increase in vehicle fires is a more interesting case, as the authors note. “Although we cannot separate human factors from vehicle fires, their tendencies differ from those of building fires,” they write, noting that approximately 81% of vehicle fires ensue “without human intervention.” Around two-thirds of those “befall as a result of equipment or heat source failure,” while collisions are responsible for just 5%. The rise reflected in the research may be due to “the increased failure rates of … vehicle components under rising air temperature,” though the authors also note that this finding could change as more people adopt electric vehicles, which catch fire at a lower rate than their gasoline-powered counterparts.
Though Shi is still seeking fire incident data from the countries not included in this study, the research published in Nature could have significant implications for urban planners today, Sara McTarnaghan, a principal research associate at the Urban Institute who was not involved in the study, told me.
“A lot of our capacity and infrastructure for planning around climate change in the United States really started out focused on sea-level rise and other flood-related risks,” McTarnaghan said. But fires are “a huge piece of that equation, and there’s certainly linkages with climate change that need to be better understood.”
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Oh, he’d never self-identify as an environmentalist. But not even climate activists have had the courage to propose a 10% tax on energy.
Dear Donald Trump,
I will be honest with you. I doubted at first. I didn’t understand the plan. But now that I see what you are doing, I have to say: I underestimated you. I was not really familiar with your game.
Yes, I finally see it all now. Even though you have attacked environmentalists for years, even though you have called climate change a “hoax” and a “scam,” and even though you have given climate deniers access to the highest echelons of your administration, I finally appreciate your peculiar genius.
You say that your big and beautiful tariffs are meant to bring about a new American golden age, but I know you’re hiding the truth. With your unprecedented tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports — and your levies on building materials of all sorts — you are doing what nobody else has had the courage to do.
You are trying to engineer the shock decarbonization of America — no matter the peril, no matter the cost.
Yes, it might seem crazy. But think about it. For years, whenever environmentalists have gathered in secret — and I’m talking the real radicals here, not the ones who send out mailers or go on TV — they plot about a vast agenda to remake America. They hate the fossil fuel industry, of course. But they go further than that. They loathe driving, so they want to destroy the auto industry. They hate big trucks, especially SUVs and pickups. They want to make gasoline more expensive. And really, if we’re being honest, they want to force everyone to live in cities.
I don’t go for such a radical agenda, myself. I’m much more of a moderate. But I have to admit: I know a secret radical environmentalist when I see one. And you, Mr. Trump — well, I won’t say it out loud. But as one former Democratic climate official texted me (and this is real), it might be time to start talking about a “GREEN NEW DONALD.”
Just think about it. Transportation is the most carbon-intensive sector of the U.S. economy, and big personal vehicles — SUVs and pickups — are responsible for the largest share of that pollution. Selling those big trucks to Americans is what drives Ford and General Motors’ profits, and those two companies have developed complex supply chains that can cross the U.S., Mexican, and Canadian borders half a dozen times before their vehicles’ final assembly. The biggest trucks — like the Chevy Silverado — have a particularly arcane value chain, spanning Canada, Mexico, Germany, and Japan.
Environmentalists have struggled to figure out how to deal with Americans’ affinity for these big cars. But you, Mr. Trump, you knew just what needed to be done. You slapped giant tariffs on cars and trucks and auto parts, which could spike new car prices by $4,000 to $10,000, according to Anderson Economic Group.
There’s even a good chance that price hike could hit internal combustion cars worse than it hits EVs — in part because the internal-combustion car supply chain has existed for longer and has had more time to ooze across North America. This widespread damage could prompt layoffs at Ford and GM — but you didn’t hesitate for the climate’s sake, comrade! You were ruthless.
But Mr. Trump, you didn’t stop there. As you surely know, roughly a third of America’s greenhouse gas emissions come from natural gas. It is the prize jewel of fossil fuels, and it’s absolutely core to the U.S. energy system — and Mr. Trump, you did not hesitate to tax it directly. Thanks to your new 10% tariff on Canadian energy imports, American consumers can now expect to pay an extra $1.1 billion a year for natural gas, according to the American Gas Association. Those higher costs will be concentrated in western states and New England.
Your tariffs are also going to make electricity prices go up, particularly in some of the swingiest congressional districts around the Great Lakes. Electricity will also get more expensive in Maine, which has a Senate race in 2026. Mr. Trump, this is an act of true political courage. Normally, environmentalists wouldn’t support raising electricity prices, because it might discourage people from buying EVs or electrifying their homes. But since you’re raising electricity and natural gas and oil prices at the same time, you’re practically begging Americans to buy heat pumps, induction stoves, and invest in energy efficiency technologies essential for decarbonization. And to do so even though it might put your own party’s control of the Senate at risk? You are one hell of an environmental zealot.
Even your steel and aluminum tariffs and your new levies on Canadian lumber are inspired by your climate fervor. By raising the cost of new construction, you are discouraging single-family home construction and all but forcing more Americans to live in multi-family buildings, which are more energy efficient and have lower emissions. Mr. Trump, you really think of everything! I never should have doubted. You are going to make us live in the pods! And with your steep agricultural tariffs, you might even make us eat the bugs!
The most impressive thing you’ve done, though, is your sly little attack on the American oil industry.
The American fossil fuel industry imports more than a million barrels of oil from western Canada every day. This sulfurous sludge is important to the U.S. refining industry because it complements the lighter oil that comes roaring out of American fracking wells. By combining America’s lighter oil with Canada’s heavy crude, U.S. refineries can cheaply churn out a range of high-value products, including gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel.
It’s really important that these American refineries have easy access to as much western Canadian oil as they need as its easy availability lets them ramp up and down different types of fuel production depending on what the market requires at the moment. That’s why they have invested tens of billions of dollars in equipment specially designed to process heavy, sulfur-rich Canadian oil.
In the past, Canadian companies have tried to expand these exports. As you remember, more than a decade ago, one Canadian company wanted to build a pipeline known as Keystone XL. But this came with downsides for the climate: Canadian crude is some of the most carbon-intensive oil in the world, and burning it in large quantities could have meant it was “game over for the climate,” according to journalist-turned-activist Bill McKibben.
The goal of fighting the Keystone XL pipeline was to raise the cost of importing Canadian crude oil, hopefully keeping it in the ground, while undercutting U.S. refinery profit margins. Activists won that fight — and they had your help, Mr. Trump. After the Biden administration revoked Keystone XL’s construction permit in 2021, its developer sued the U.S. government in international trade court and lost. Ironically, it may have had a better shot at winning its case under NAFTA than under its Trump-negotiated replacement, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
But of course, even that didn’t unwind America’s and Canada’s decades of economic integration. The United States still imports hundreds of millions of barrels of Canadian oil a year, and all that oil damages the climate while simultaneously keeping U.S. gasoline prices low.
But Mr. Trump — you are now attacking this too! You astound me. You have bashed those Canadian oil imports with a 10% energy tax. This will prove even more effective at hurting the North American fossil fuel industry and raising American gasoline prices than blocking the Keystock XL pipeline did, because it will knock refineries right in their profit margins. If you play your cards right, you might even raise the cost of diesel and jet fuel too!
Now, Mr. Trump: I realize you can’t come out and say all this. In fact, you claimed last week that you wanted to revive Keystone XL, even though its developer has given up on it.
This struck many people as silly, but I know just what you are doing here. With your words, you are trying to look like a fossil-fuel-friendly Republican to please your base. But with your actions, you are actually raising taxes on the U.S. fossil fuel industry. What other explanation is there? Surely nobody would be so silly as to propose making it cheaper to import Canadian crude oil at the same time that they deliberately make it more expensive. And surely nobody would say they support autoworkers while actually destroying the U.S. auto industry. That would be truly self-defeating — and Mr. Trump, you are a winner!
Some people — well, really, just your Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick — have implied that you might lift these tariffs as soon as tomorrow. I don’t believe them. I know what you’re up to here. You are not going to fold so soon. You are trying to keep talking the talk even as you whack away at cars, oil, and gas. I might even say that you are like a moldy strawberry: “Republican red” on the outside but “deep green” on the inside.
Now, you could go even further. Conservatives have long observed, however sarcastically, that since carbon emissions correlate with GDP in so many countries (although not in the U.S.), the fastest way to fight climate change is to engineer a giant recession. Some might assume this would be going too far for you — it would be going much too far for me. But on Tuesday, the International Chamber of Commerce warned that your tariffs could set off spiraling trade wars, putting the country in “1930s trade-war territory” and triggering a new Great Depression. Just think of how the emissions will fall from that!
Oh, Mr. Trump! You really ARE a Green New Donald. You truly are willing to sacrifice anything for the climate — even if it means kneecaping the American economy, bamboozling the world, and even ending industrial civilization to do it! Oh, Mr. Trump, I am overcome. You astound, captivate, and enthrall me. Now I understand how JD Vance feels.
But tariff-related price pain could still be coming for the Northeast and Upper Midwest.
Just as Trump’s tariffs on Canada and Mexico went into effect in the wee hours of Tuesday morning, electricity prices in the Northeast appeared to spike. As I wrote back when the specter of tariffs first loomed in January, New England sources a substantial amount of electricity from Canada, meaning that the new duties could raise energy bills in the Northeast. But it’s far from clear that’s what happened here.
If you look at real-time hourly prices for electricity for New England over the past few weeks, you’ll see they regularly fluctuate between roughly $50 and $125. Here’s what electricity prices looked like in the preceding week — there was also a price spike between midnight and 1:00 a.m. on March 1.
At this point, the idea that the tariffs will apply to electricity imported from Canada is little more than a rumor. The two independent system operators in the northeast, ISO-New England and NYISO, both appear to still be in the dark on the question. When I reached out to NYISO this morning, the organization directed me to a statement it issued last week that says:
“It is not yet clear whether imports of electrical energy from Canada are subject to the Canadian Tariff Order or, if they are, whether the NYISO will be required to play any role in collecting or remitting duties. The NYISO believes that there are strong legal and policy arguments that the answer to both of these questions is ‘no.’”
When I followed up asking whether this meant that the Trump administration had not provided NYISO with any clarity on these questions, the organization declined to comment, adding, “We will continue to keep stakeholders and policymakers apprised through the open governance process as this process continues.”
Similarly, ISO New England would not confirm whether or not it had received any guidance from the Trump administration. “Based on legal precedent, we do not believe the tariffs placed on Canadian imports apply to electricity, but we are seeking additional guidance,” a spokesperson told me, adding that the power system was still “operating reliably,” and that imports are at similar levels as previous days.
Both organizations submitted proposals to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission last week for how they would collect duties on electricity imported from Canada and recover the costs from customers, were they directed to do so by the federal government. In its filing, ISO-NE estimated that a 10% to 25% tariff could amount to $66 million to $165 million in additional costs to customers annually. (Another open question is whether the hypothetical tariff on electricity would be levied at 10% or 25%.)
As I reported at the end of January, there is no precedent for tariffs to apply to electricity. According to past reports from the U.S. International Trade Commission, the federal agency that advises on international trade and tariffs, “imports of electrical energy are not considered to be subject to the tariff laws of the United States.”
Whether or not the tariffs apply to electricity, some parts of the U.S. are likely to see a price spike imminently. On Tuesday morning, the Wall Street Journal reported that the minister of Ontario declared that the province would apply a 25% export tax on electricity delivered to roughly 1.5 million customers in New York, Michigan, and Minnesota. If the Trump administration proceeds to increase tariffs next month, the province threatened to stop exporting electricity to the U.S. altogether.
The Northeast may also experience higher electricity prices as a result of new 10% duties on natural gas imported from Canada. The Northeast is also heavily reliant on gas for heating, though imports from Canada to the region have declined in recent years as production in Appalachia increased.
The American Natural Gas Association issued a statement this morning noting that 9% of U.S. natural gas supplies are imported from Canada, and that the president’s 10% tariff on Canadian natural gas could burden U.S. consumers with $1.1 billion per year. It said the effects would be felt most in border states, including Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
On a massive winter storm, NOAA’s future, and battery storage
Current conditions: A large wildfire threatens the Japanese city of Ofunato, which was devastated in the 2011 earthquake and tsunami • Mardi Gras celebrations are in disarray as New Orleans braces for high winds • Statewide tornado drills scheduled for tomorrow in the Carolinas have been postponed due to the threat of actual tornadoes.
Last month was the third hottest February ever recorded, marking the first time since June 2023 that a single month has not been the first or second warmest in history, according to climate researcher Zeke Hausfather. But global temperatures were still worryingly high, averaging 1.59 degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial era. Hausfather noted that temperatures dropped sharply in February, which “may be a sign that the short-term cooling effect of La Niña is at long last kicking in, though it is too early to know for sure.”
A powerful winter storm is moving across the country this week, bringing an array of threats including strong winds, blizzards, tornadoes, and hail to millions of Americans. Starting today, “more than half of the country will be at risk for winds that can toss around loose objects, including trash cans, and impact travel, especially at airports and via high-profile vehicles,” according to AccuWeather. The National Weather Service warned of “potentially historic” fire conditions in central Texas, with winds gusting at up to 50 mph.
Meanwhile, the Rockies and upper Midwest will be hit with heavy snow and high winds, while severe thunderstorms will rattle across the southern Plains, South, and Southeast. Some could spawn tornadoes, cause power outages, and drop large hail as well as huge amounts of rain.
Outrage and concern is growing over the Trump administration’s cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. After having slashed more than 800 NOAA jobs (and with plans to slash up to half of the agency), the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, is reportedly canceling leases for NOAA centers that are essential to gathering national weather data and making accurate forecasts. “If this actually happens, it would spell the end of U.S. numerical weather prediction – the scientific models, run on supercomputers, used to create virtually all weather forecasts,” warned climate scientist Daniel Swain. More than 1,000 people rallied outside a NOAA building in Colorado yesterday to protest the cuts, and NOAA staffers marched outside the agency’s HQ in Maryland. “NOAA is critical to safe seafood that we eat, to weather forecasts involving dangerous hurricanes,” one demonstrator said. “A million different ways NOAA is a critical part of our lives and we need to keep this agency strong.”
The European Union is loosening the deadline on its new vehicle emissions rules, giving automakers a bit more time to comply. The EU wants to bring vehicle emissions to zero by 2035, starting with new caps this year that would have meant that about one-fifth of all cars sold would need to be electric in order for automakers to avoid fines. Many manufacturers have been pushing back, but were planning to “pool” their emissions and buy credits from Tesla and other EV makers to be in compliance. The change of plans means carmakers now have three years to meet the new emissions targets, which will perhaps “enable them to buy fewer emission credits from Tesla,” Electrekadded. Environmentalists said the move will slow the EV transition, and Volvo CEO Jim Rowan said Volvo “has made the heavy investments needed to be ready for 2025.” “Companies like ours should not be disadvantaged by any last-minute changes to legislation,” Rowan said.
A former coal-fired power plant in Alabama’s Walker County is set to be transformed into a large battery storage facility. Construction on Alabama Power’s Gorgas Battery Facility will start this year, with completion expected in 2027. It will house lithium ion phosphate batteries with a two-hour duration capable of storing 150 megawatts of electricity, which is equivalent to the capacity needed to power about 9,000 homes. It will connect directly to the grid. This will be the state’s first ever utility-scale battery energy storage system. “This facility will help Alabama Power understand how we can best use battery systems on our electric grid so that customers have power when they need it,” said Jeff Peoples, CEO of Alabama Power. The Gorgas coal-fired facility was retired in 2019.
“This isn’t a good time to put a red flag in front of the bull.”
–Jennifer Holmgren, CEO of LanzaTech Global Inc., sums up why her firm, and many others, are starting to downplay their climate initiatives.