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:
Here’s how European fires differ from those in the American West.

With late-season fires on Portuguese Madeira and Spanish Tenerife recently brought under control, European nations can finally begin to relax after a historic and deadly wildfire season. The mainland continent experienced “far more fires and a larger burned area [in 2023] than in an average fire season,” The New York Times reports, including the single largest wildfire in the EU since record-keeping began in 2000, in Greece.
In the United States, we’re used to words like “historic” and “deadly” when it comes to our wildfires. American fire researchers often point to the U.S. Forest Service’s long history of wildfire suppression as a big reason why we have the cycle of megafires that we do today. Fire had long been a natural part of the ecosystem of the American West; if the land is prevented from burning, plants grow up thick in the underbrush, turning forests into explosive tinderboxes that, once ignited, burn out of control. This is part of why U.S. fire managers emphasize the importance of prescribed burns and teaming up with Indigenous fire practitioners, whose centuries of stewardship helped to keep the North American landscape healthy.
But what’s the deal with Europe, where there isn’t the same legacy of outlawing managed burns and wildfires still seem to be getting bigger and worse by the year?
The first thing to understand is the ways in which U.S. and European fires are the same. Both are being fanned by the same global conditions: “Climate change has led to numerous environmental changes that can increase the frequency and magnitude of dangerous fire weather — increased drought, high air temperatures, low relative humidity, dry lightning, and strong winds, resulting in hotter, drier, and longer fire seasons,” a 2022 United Nations report found. A 2021 study supported by NOAA in the U.S. likewise describes climate change as “the main driver of the increase in fire weather in the western United States.”
The second thing to understand is the ways in which the fires on the two continents are different.
In the U.S., the danger of wildfires to human life and property tends to be exacerbated by the way development has expanded further and further into the vast, unmaintained, “empty” wildlands that make up most of the land in the West. By contrast, fire problems that arise in Europe are largely because people have left the landscape.
Humans have been lighting fires on the European continent for a very, very long time. “The latest studies show that human-driven fires [were already affecting] landscape transformation in the Central European Lowlands 8,500 years ago,” researchers at the University of Latvia explain in a 2021 paper about European fire frequency. The main purpose of those human-started fires had been to clear land for agriculture and grazing, but the practice has gone on for so long that it “has left [regions of Europe] with a complex pattern of land-covers and fire occurrence that shows little if any resemblance of a natural fire regime,” a separate study in the Journal of Environmental Management explains.
Until fairly recently, this more or less worked out okay: People managed the land they lived on, set low-intensity fires to burn new pastures or fields, and sometimes put out fires if they happened to threaten property or life. The problems began when people started moving away from farms and into the cities during the 20th century. In a study by the Journal of Environmental Management researchers, which looked at Italy, there was a 20% drop in agricultural areas and a 74% increase in flammable forest cover between 1960 and 2000.
The abandonment of the countryside was particularly pronounced in Eastern Europe, where the collective farms of the Soviet Union were left to go fallow after the fall of the Iron Curtain — from “Poland through Slovakia to Ukraine, an estimated 16 percent of farmland has been abandoned since 1988,” Wired reports — but southern Europe has also seen a land-use shift due to aging farming populations and general rural decline. “In the past three decades,” Wired goes on, “Europe has seen a net loss of farmland larger than Switzerland.”
What that means in practice is that land that had once been managed by rural farmers has been left to return to its original and unmonitored state, whether that’s grasslands, shrublands, or, especially, forests. While it’s taken them a few decades to spring up, these new trees are especially prone to burning: The European Data Journalism Network (EDJNet) reports that in Spain, for instance, forests made up 27% of the overall acres burned by wildfires between 2000 and 2005, but jumped to 42% between 2017 and 2022. In the same time frame, forest fires went from making up a quarter of wildfire-affected lands in Finland to 40%. As EDJNet adds, “The current fire map of Europe is, in this sense, an illustration of the rural exodus and abandonment of the countryside.”
In trying to fight these new forest fires, Europe has fallen into the same “fire paradox” that we have in the United States: the better you are at putting out fires, the more chances you give to fire-prone vegetation between the trees to grow out of control, so when the next fire hits, it’s much worse. This is also where climate change comes back into play: By drying out dead grasses and other plants in these newly abandoned landscapes during the hot summers, the warming planet makes the forests especially vulnerable to flare-ups.
Though the U.S. and Europe have, in a sense, largely had opposite land-use problems — in the American West, people are moving too deep into the countryside, while in Europe, people are typically moving out — the solutions might actually be the same. Fire managers on both continents are encouraging local communities and governments to revitalize farmland as a means of combating worsening fire seasons. In the U.S., this might work by surrounding urban areas with a “buffer” of farms, in order to separate human development from a naturally fire-prone landscape. In Europe, it might take the form of agroforestry, or mixed-use forest-and-farmland, to help break up otherwise homogeneous and flammable swaths of forest or fields.
It might be easier said than done: the number of farmers and size of farmland has been on the decline in both the U.S. and Western Europe for decades, and it will take enormous socioeconomic shifts to reverse that trend. But while American and European fires might be different beasts with their own histories, their overlap also poses an opportunity. The U.S. European Command has helped fight fires in Greece; Portugal is one of the international wildfire partners of the U.S. Department of the Interior. And while fire season might be largely over on both sides of the Atlantic this year between now and the first flare-up of spring, there will be so much to learn — from each other.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
The data center boom is everywhere you look in U.S. economic and emissions data.
This is an edition of Heatmap Daily, an evening review of the day’s news written by our executive editor. Sign up for it here.
It isn’t exactly a new thought, but I’ve been struck recently by how many trends in America’s economic and environmental data are fundamentally about the data center boom and the return of electricity demand:
First, the Energy Information Administration reported this week that U.S. emissions grew by more than 2% last year, driven by surging electricity demand and an increase in coal-fired generation.What caused that higher power demand? New factories and data centers — as well as record summertime cooling demand.
Second, many of the new factories driving that higher power demand are themselves producing goods that are … let’s say … data center-adjacent. There are the enormous new semiconductor fabs, of course. But Ford and General Motors have also set up new production lines (or repurposed old ones) to manufacture grid-scale batteries to meet power demand.
Third, take a look at the recent U.S. spending on private non-residential construction — in other words, everything American companies are building that is not houses, condos, or apartments.
The construction industry’s spent almost $60 billion on data centers over the past year, which is more than it spent on all other office buildings combined (and more than it spent building warehouses, too). Just a handful of categories — data centers, power plants, electricity infrastructure, and certain kinds of electronics manufacturing — now make up a third of all U.S. private non-residential construction investment. They’ve never made up such a large share of construction spending since data collection began in 2014.
As The New York Times recently noted, the American economy is unusually dependent on the American stock market right now — and the stock market is unusually dependent on artificial intelligence. This week, investors started to balk at the enormous spending hyperscalers are planning to keep building out the AI boom; Alphabet’s shares dropped 8% this week after it boosted its planned 2026 capital expenditure and signaled 2027 will be even bigger. If the data center boom started to slow down in earnest, then more than just that budget will change.
Speaking of which, my colleague Emily Pontecorvo wrote earlier this week about how many businesses are struggling to even estimate their carbon emissions from artificial intelligence. The carbon accounting startup Watershed recently unveiled a new formula to help companies get a sense of their AI-related emissions.
But even that formula is still limited by the amount of data hyperscalers publish — and they don’t publish that much. Google, for instance, is the only AI company that has (laudably) provided estimates of its emissions on a per-prompt basis. Yet no company has published its per-token emissions, or how emissions sync up with particular models or regions.
So Emily asked Google: Why aren’t you — or any other model provider — disclosing this kind of data yet?
The tech company didn’t get back to us until after we’d published Emily’s story. But its response was interesting enough that I wanted to quote some of it here.
The problem is “industry consensus,” Cooper Elsworth, a Google spokesperson, told us. “There is currently very little consensus on how to comprehensively and fairly measure the serving environmental impact of generative AI (such as text generation),” he wrote. “Without standardized, ‘apples-to-apples’ frameworks, it is difficult to compare different providers accurately.”
That’s partly because energy use — and emissions data — can vary from site to site and depend on “custom-built hardware, software compilers, and advanced inference techniques.” And he claimed Google doesn’t always have the measurement hardware in place to provide such specific estimates: “Providing precise, repeatable data requires highly advanced measurement infrastructure,” he said. “For example, software-based energy monitoring tools often suffer from sampling biases. For our study, we had to step away from top-down averages and directly measure actual energy at the physical power supply unit (PSU) level across our deployed fleet. Not all providers have the telemetry or data sets required to benchmark their operations at this level of granularity.”
Read Emily’s story to understand the other reasons why estimating — or even “guesstimating” — AI-related carbon emissions is so challenging.
A conversation with Emma Uridge of the Kansas Health Institute.
This week’s conversation is with Emma Uridge, analyst with the Kansas Health Institute. Uridge spent copious hours analyzing state and local laws on data center development to best understand how policymakers are responding to the potential environmental public health impacts of large AI infrastructure, including power and water. The report, which came out this week, also goes in depth into those health impacts. I reached out to her to discuss what she sees as must-watch territory for our readers on this emerging policy arena.
Our conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
What is actually being done on policy when it comes to data centers — beyond moratoria of course?
So first I’d like to just talk about the point of moratoria. It’s helpful to talk about how these policies emerge in the first place. One area where moratoria are helpful is when a data center is proposed but the county has no approach for how they’d like to potentially regulate them. That’s temporary, most of the time. It lets local governments conduct research on the various impacts and also negotiate community benefits, ones that can mitigate any potential negative impacts — like Lancaster Pennsylvania, which instituted a community benefit agreement that maximized the potential benefits of development while mitigating what large data centers can do. That agreement looked at capping municipal water use at 20,000 gallons per day and requiring 100% clean energy. It had financial penalties for non-compliance. The company also committed $20 million to their local economic development and clean energy fund. There are ways to negotiate with developers.
We also see amendments to existing zoning. Data center proposals are increasingly popping up in rural areas, many of which are unzoned, so there’s no way a county can negotiate unless there’s a moratorium in place.
Other policy solutions include different performance standards or requiring on-site renewable energy, like what Jefferson County, Missouri, looked at. Also setback requirements, mandatory noise buffers, ending by-right zoning.
Where are local governments getting ideas for regulating data centers?
A lot of the technical information comes from developers. That can in cases be seen as a biased source of information. I wouldn’t say there’s a dedicated group providing assistance to local governments when a project is proposed — which is a similar story to wind industry development, where we have only a handful of consultants who provide technical advice. It can be really helpful to get a multi-disciplinary approach to hearing information. It can be helpful to have the utility commission, public health folks, those in academia, as well as the developer.
As of right now, especially in rural areas, local governments have a hard task of balancing pushback while getting the most accurate, evidence-based, neutral information to make decisions. That balance can be contentious.
What is the federal government doing on data center policy? How is the Trump administration approaching it?
A few things there. In the early days, the drive was for AI expansion and to be competitive with foreign adversaries. Now due to the amount of public pushback in red and blue localities and a more cautious approach.
I’m not seeing a lot of actual policy movement at this time.
I know the EPA is looking at the chemicals used in cooling data centers because when that water is cycled through the system, some of it is discharged into the water system, so they’re looking at the Toxic Substances and Control Act for monitoring that.
How much of an impact does this minimal federal role have on industry behavior?
Y’know, this isn’t specific to data centers. This is true for all kinds of large-scale development: there’s a need to require some sort of federal monitoring and regulation.
That’s where I see an emerging role for public health. At the federal level, there could be policy movement towards requiring some sort of environmental monitoring at data centers to make sure they’re operating responsibility. Looking at specific water use relative to water availability and what happens when there’s a time of severe, persistent drought. With air quality too — we’ve seen areas where the grid isn’t as reliable so their diesel generators are kicking on more and affecting air quality for residents.
We’re just not seeing all of that right now. We need corporate disclosure.
What do you see as the most important public health impacts from data center development?
It varies by localities. The most discussed obviously is water usage. One thing I’d note about my conversations with folks enthusiastic around emerging tech is, there are still questions that need to be asked about the capacity of localities to support a data center. Like a small town in Kansas may only be using 40% of their water for their utility needs. If a data center came online, how much of that water goes to the data center?
One area underexplored within the public health discipline is energy poverty and energy security. The ability of a household to meet the needs of everything energy provides in our lives. It’s known we have an aging electric grid but we’re not talking enough about large-scale blackouts when the grid is not sufficient to support some of these new data centers.
Plus more of the week’s big development fights.
1. Laramie County, Wyoming — Meta is fighting the fine it received in the Cheyenne data center water pollution controversy, and the conflict between the tech giant and the city’s small board of public utilities is continuing to spill out into the public.
2. Niagara County, New York — This county just rejected a solar project’s highway work permits in a show of retaliation against the state’s Office of Renewable Energy Siting.
3. Barron County, Wisconsin — The anti-solar protest is the new campaign stop in deep red Wisconsin.
4. Chesapeake, Virginia — A large battery storage project on the Virginia coastline is on the rocks amidst rampant local opposition.
5. Lewis County, West Virginia — West Virginia is now a key battleground in the fight over transmission, as a line spanning all of West Virginia and Maryland — and cutting through Data Center Alley in Virginia — causes compounding consternation.