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 to think about air quality and safety.

The smoke that blanketed the East Coast this week is beginning to clear, and you may be wondering if it’s safe to go outside without a mask or whether you should crack a window to air things out.
The answer is likely yes, it's safe to go outside — with a few caveats. But you might want to wait before opening your windows.
The good news is, the Air Quality Index across much of the Northeast is now registering at under 100, putting most places in the “good,” or “moderate” category. But to make smart decisions about your health, it’s helpful to understand what those AQI numbers actually mean.
The categories are pegged to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, which are set by the Environmental Protection Agency and cover various major pollutants. The Clean Air Act requires that these standards protect public health with an "adequate margin of safety.”
When you check the AQI on the EPA’s website or your weather app, what you’re seeing is a measure of five pollutants: particulate matter, ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. When the AQI is below 100, that means none one of those pollutants are present at a concentration above the levels deemed protective by the EPA. But when any of the pollutants ticks above those levels, the AQI will change to “unhealthy for sensitive groups,” (orange), “unhealthy” (red), “very unhealthy” (purple), or “hazardous,” (maroon) depending on how bad it is.
For example, the standard for PM2.5, the primary health hazard in wildfire smoke, is a 24-hour average of 35 micrograms per cubic meter. When the AQI is below 100, that means PM2.5 levels are below that concentration. At the height of the smoke crisis on Wednesday, average PM2.5 levels in New York City were at 326 micrograms per cubic meter. That brought the AQI into the “hazardous” range, under which the EPA advises:
Everyone should avoid all physical activity outdoors; people with heart or lung disease, older adults, children, and people of lower socioeconomic status should remain indoors and keep activity levels low.
By contrast, at this moment my AQI in Brooklyn is registering at 54, or “moderate.”
At that level, EPA advises: “Unusually sensitive people should consider reducing prolonged or heavy exertion.”
If you look at the average AQI for the month of June in the New York City metropolitan area over the last decade, it has always hovered around 70. By that measure, today is looking pretty good.
I spoke to Jon Samet, a pulmonologist and epidemiologist and the dean of the Colorado School of Public Health, about how to make sense of these numbers. He said that to some extent, it’s up to the individual to use their best judgment.
“If you go below 100, the world may not be risk free, but it's in a range where the risks have been found to be acceptable,” he told me. “The caveat I would offer is that for those people who have heart and lung disease, or any other condition that makes them potentially susceptible, then they should think carefully.” The same goes for children with asthma, who may be particularly susceptible to air pollution.
The bad news is that it’s basically impossible to make statements like, “when the AQI goes below X number, it’s safe to take your asthmatic kid to the playground,” because it’s an imperfect measurement.
“Part of the challenge right now is that epidemiological studies show that even when you make your way below the standard, there's still evidence of adverse effects,” said Samet. “So far, we haven't found risk-free levels of air pollution.”
The best advice he could offer is that if the AQI is below 100, but you go outside and the visibility is poor, or you start coughing, or your eyes burn, that’s a signal to go back inside or pull out your N95 mask. “Pay attention to your own response,” he said.
Personally, looking at the historical averages in New York City makes me feel comfortable going outside without a mask.
As for opening windows to air out any smoke particles that made it inside, John Volckens, an air quality expert and professor of mechanical engineering at Colorado State University, told me it was a good idea to wait until we’re back in the “Good” zone. “While ‘moderate’ isn’t going to be harmful over the short-term for healthy individuals (i.e., those without respiratory or cardiovascular disease), most of the PM contributing to the moderate level will still be from wildfires, so you won’t really be ‘airing out’ your apartment at that point,” he said.
Guess I’ll have to wait a little bit longer to flush out my apartment — but in the meantime, I’m going for a walk.
Editor's Note: This article was updated to include new comments from John Volckens.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
There is a heat wave in Europe, the world’s fastest warming continent. And so, as you may have heard, a perennial topic of online climate discourse has returned: Why don’t more Europeans have air conditioning?
I’m partially convinced this is psy op, or at least a figment of how social media organizes attention. I have a hypothesis that various “For You” page algorithms, especially that of the social network X, began to reward content that performed unusually well across national borders a few years ago. Since then, the amount of America vs. Europe content has surged. (Of course, writers have been comparing American and European lifestyles for much longer than that.)
Suffice it to say, though: It’s a fraught topic. I’ve assumed that as extreme heat gets worse as the climate changes, Europeans will simply get on with it and install AC, much as Americans in the Pacific Northwest have done. Yet there are cultural and regulatory obstacles to AC’s growth in Europe.
I’m sure I’ll write about it in the future, but for now I want to get a grip on the facts themselves. And so as a Friday special, I present to you — the facts about European AC, as I understand it:
Thanks so much for reading, and talk soon.
The movement against data centers is raising up a raison d'etre of the anti-renewables movement: protecting would-be farmland.
Farm owners and operators across the U.S. are winning national headlines almost every week for rejecting big dollar offers from data center developers. In Hanover County, Virginia, protestors are chanting “Grow Tomatoes, Not Data Centers.” In Pennsylvania and elsewhere, Republican legislators are mulling proposals to block the sale of so-called “prime farmland” for data center development. In Texas, the fight over data center development has engulfed the race for the state’s ag commissioner seat. In the Midwest, where agriculture reigns supreme, statewide races and congressional campaigns are slowly but surely being defined by the issue. Like in Nebraska where Austin Ahlman, an independent candidate running for Congress in Nebraska’s first district, told me he believes the data center backlash is reflective of a populist politics that broadly criticize elites and top-down control of the economy: “I think sometimes people misunderstand the anxieties of rural Americans when it comes to these data centers because a lot of their fears are about control long term.”
Unlike the farmland backlash around renewable energy development, the loudest critics are on the anti-monopolist left. On Wednesday, the prominent opposition group Food and Water Watch signaled farmland could soon be a watchword in the national data center debate – in a fashion analogous to what we’ve seen with renewable energy. The organization’s blog post entitled “The AI Data Center Boom Is Coming for Farmers” declared data centers verboten because of the threat they posed to “small and midsized family farmers.” Mitch Jones, deputy director of the campaign outfit, said he believes the threat to farmland is “a compelling reason to oppose data center development” but that his organization’s fight is primarily focused on protecting small business owners and an anti-monopoly sentiment.
“If data centers are coming into their areas, this puts even more pressure on them. It drives up the cost of their electricity, just as it does anyone else. It competes with them for water for crops, and it affects the value of their land in a perverse way,” Jones told me.
None of this should be surprising. An agricultural workforce has always been a good barometer for figuring out if a community will accept new infrastructure of any kind. We’ve seen as much time and time again with renewable energy, carbon capture, fossil energy and mining, just to name a few industries.
This same rule is true with data centers. In April, county commissioners in Kosciusko County, Indiana, unanimously rejected a Prologis data center; nearly 90% of acreage in Kosciusko County is being actively farmed, according to the Heatmap Pro database. Linn County, Iowa, in February enacted a rule severely restricting data center development in unincorporated areas; almost three-fourths of the land is used by the ag sector. A potential Amazon facility is causing heartburn in Clinton County, Ohio; nearly all land in the county is used for farming and utility-scale solar development has a recent history of conflict with landowners.
To be candid, I’m struck by the similarity in the backlash over siting data centers on farmland – a resemblance so close that some counties are starting to restrict renewable energy and data center development on farmland at the same time. This week, Eau Claire County, Wisconsin created a new “farmland preservation plan” discouraging utility-scale solar energy and data centers on any potential farmland. (More than 40% of land in this county is currently being used for farmland, according to Heatmap Pro.)
Jones at Food and Water Watch said his organization taking on the “protect farmland” mantle had nothing to do with the success this argument has had against renewable energy. “That thought never entered my head,” he told me, adding that if communities respond to the data center backlash by taking steps that short-circuit solar and wind too, that’s “a coincidence.”
I kept pressing. What if the pivot to farmland protection leads to more communities restricting renewable energy along with the data centers? “If you’re looking for a reason to oppose solar and wind, you can come up with that without having to attach data centers to it,” Jones said. “We’ve seen rural communities oppose solar and wind before data centers blew up across the country. It’s nothing new.”
And more of the week’s top news around project fights.
1. Virginia Beach, Virginia – The right-wing interest group lawsuit against Dominion Energy’s Coastal Virginia offshore wind is now dead, concluding one of the wackier tales of the Trump 2.0 energy era.
2. Box Elder County, Utah – Call it the Box Elder County massacre.
3. Davidson County, Tennessee – We have the latest updates in the Nashville Zoo data center drama and they’re a doozy and a half.
4. Clark County, Ohio – Yet another utility-scale solar farm is in the Ohio state permitting graveyard.