You’ve reached your free article limit
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:
Is it safe to turn it on an AC? If you have an air purifier, where should you put it? An air quality expert answers our pressing questions.

You’re in your apartment, windows closed, hiding out from the wildfire smoke blanketing your city. But it’s starting to smell a little bit like barbecue, and your eyes are getting watery. What should you do?
Wildfire smoke contains tiny particles, invisible to the human eye, that can enter your lungs and bloodstream. Those particles can exacerbate the risk of having an asthma attack, heart attack, and stroke. They also have lasting effects on your heart and respiratory system, and can lead to premature death. You really want to take the likelihood that smoke is getting into your home seriously.
But that can lead to a lot of questions.
Maybe you have an air purifier. Where should you put it?
Maybe you don’t have an air purifier, but you have a window air conditioner. Is it safe to turn it on?
I called up John Volckens, a professor of mechanical engineering at Colorado State University, and grilled him on every home configuration I could think of to understand how you can protect yourself against the dangers of smoke. Volckens studies air quality, exposure science, and air pollution-related disease. He has even pioneered the development of new pollution sensor technologies. He had a lot of helpful tips to offer.
It’s important to understand there’s really no way to fully prevent smoke from getting inside your home. Even if you don’t smell it or feel its effects, you should do what you can to protect yourself.
That’s because most homes and buildings “breathe.” As the sun heats the upper reaches of the building, it warms the air, which expands and wants to escape. As the air flows out, the lower part of the house, where it’s cooler, draws new air in to replace it.
“The analogy would be like if a 6-foot flood of water came to your house. It doesn’t matter how many sandbags you have, the water’s coming in, right?” Volckens said. “If the air quality index is like 400 outside for a few hours, it’s going to get to like 200 inside your home no matter what.”
The number one thing you can do is get an air purifier. You might not be able to find one in stores right now or have one delivered in time, but there are other options, too, as I’ll discuss below.
Place it wherever you are.
We spend a third of our lives in bed, so Volckens said he likes to have one in the bedroom. “If you have seasonal allergies, creating that kind of safe space for your immune system can be really helpful,” he told me.
But if you only have one device, when you’re done sleeping, just pick it up and move it into the kitchen, office, or living room with you. It should only take about an hour to work its magic and get whatever room you’re in to the best air quality that it’s capable of.
Window AC units work by recirculating the air in your apartment, so they won’t exacerbate the issue and are generally safe to use. The filters in your window units won’t do much to improve your air, though — they are designed to catch larger particles like dust and animal fur, and smoke particles will slip right through.
If you have a central air conditioning system that delivers cool air through ducts and vents, that’s another story. Those are typically designed to draw in air from the outside. In that case, the best thing to do is install what’s called a MERV filter, which you can purchase at most hardware stores or big box stores. Volckens recommends picking up a filter rated MERV-13, which can capture the smallest particles at a relatively high rate.
“It will probably be like 75% efficient. So if 100 wildfire smoke particles pass through that filter, only 25 will get through,” he said. “You're going to knock down the concentration significantly, especially as that filter keeps cycling air through your home.”
The one thing to keep in mind is that these filters are so good, they will get clogged quickly. A clogged filter will cause your HVAC system to work too hard, which could lead to mechanical issues, so make sure you remember to replace it every couple of months.
What's the alternative to an air purifier?
DIY air filters are surprisingly easy to make and incredibly effective. No, really. All you have to do is buy a box fan, duct tape, and a MERV filter. Tape the filter to the back of the box fan. That’s it.
“They work just as well as commercial air cleaners,” said Volckens. They’re a little bit louder, but otherwise, it’s the exact same idea. “A commercial air purifier might have a fancier fan and a fancier filter, but it’s still just a fan and a filter.”
And if you want to get a little fancier, you can build what’s called a Corsi-Rosenthal box. It’s the same idea, but envelops the fan intake in four filters instead of one. The Washington Post has a very easy-to-follow video showing how to build one. “They work as best as the highest-end air cleaners you could buy for one-fifth or one-tenth of the cost,” said Volckens.
N-95 masks, like the kind recommended to protect against COVID-19, also effectively filter out pollution, and are your best bet. Even a blue surgical mask will be somewhat helpful, said Volckens.
If you’re tired of being cooped up at home, you can also find what Volckens likes to call “clean air zones.” He recommended the public library, a Starbucks, or any other public building. Go support your local movie theater.
“Most public buildings actually have more efficient air cleaning than homes because the buildings were built more recently and they’re built to code standards that require cleaner air.”
Wildfire smoke is truly disgusting. The particles can contain thousands of chemicals, and they will stick to any surface they touch — the ceiling, the carpet, your clothing. You can certainly wash your clothes and linens, but it might not be possible to scrub every surface of your home.
“The best thing you can do when the air does clean up is to just open all your windows and get some good air exchange going,” said Volckens. “I guarantee, yes, you’ll have that wildfire smell for a couple of days, but it will eventually go away.”
Before we hung up, I asked Volckens if there were any other tips we didn’t cover.
“The only thing I’ll say is that this problem isn’t going away,” he said. “And it’s our doing, right? This is the result of a warming planet.”
This article was last updated on June 28, 2023.
Read more about wildfire smoke :
The 5 Big Questions About the 2023 Wildfire Smoke Crisis
Wednesday Was the Worst Day for Wildfire Pollution in U.S. History
When There’s Smoke, Getting Indoors Isn’t Enough
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 proposal resolves an issue that has bedeviled the industry since 2022.
Is Rosemont about to be BAAJA blasted away?
In a 2022 decision formally titled Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Rosemont Copper Company its claim under the General Mining Act of 1872 did not give the company license to dump literally millions of tons of waste rock on adjacent Forest Service land. Though Rosemont argued that the use fell under the law’s provisions for “mill sites” on public lands used for mining, the court found that because the parcel in question lacked valid mining claims of its own, the Mining Act did not justify its use under its own permissive regime.
The conservative energy group ClearPath Action described the decision as “a significant departure from long-held mining practices.” Industry groups said that the decision would vastly extend and complicate the process of mining on public lands by putting areas with mineral claims into a separate legal and permitting category from adjacent land that had customarily been considered part of the mining development.
Almost immediately after the court decision, the mining industry and its allies in Congress got to work trying to “fix” the Rosemont decision in order to restore the pre-2022 status quo.
One proposed fix — the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act — has been introduced several times in both houses of Congress, including as far back as 2023 in a Senate bill co-sponsored by Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada and Jim Risch of Idaho.
Another version of the bill, sponsored by Nevada Republican Mark Amodei, Nevada Democrat Steven Horsford, and Alaska Republican Mark Begich, passed the House of Representatives late last year with a handful of Democratic votes. Both bills would have explicitly established that miners could claim public land for waste rock disposal as long as it was “reasonably necessary” and “reasonably incident” to mineral development.
Now they may all be getting their wish. The comprehensive permitting bill introduced by Republican and Democratic leaders in the Senate known as the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, includes the full text of the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act
Both parties have been trying to jumpstart the domestic mining and critical minerals industry, especially for materials key to energy sectors, such as copper and lithium. The long lead time it takes to permit and open a mine is one of the major barriers to developing the domestic mining industry (along with nasty price competition from overseas miners and refiners, especially those controlled by Chinese firms).
This is not the first time a bipartisan permitting bill has included what’s known a “Rosemont fix.” There was also one in the 2024 Energy Permitting Reform Act, and in the Senate FREEDOM Act introduced by Cortez Masto and Arkansas Republican Tom Cotton this past summer.
You may have noticed lots of Nevadans associated with these bills. That’s because “Nevada is to mining as Texas is to oil and gas,” Aaron Mintzes, deputy policy director of Earthworks, a frequent and vigorous adversary of the mining industry, told me
While environmental groups generally supported the Rosemont decision, some groups supporting the clean energy industry backed the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, including Bipartisan Policy Center’s lobbying arm, the clean energy trade group Advanced Energy United, and the Zero Emission Transportation Association, which includes several copper and lithium companies among its members. (Mintzes described ZETA as “the lithium mining lobby” and an “outlier” among clean energy groups in supporting the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act.)
Instead of a technical fix that would comply with the spirit of existing law, Mintzes described the changes to mining regulation in BAAJA as giving mining companies “a nearly unlimited amount of public lands for their waste dumps, for their roads, for their pipelines, for their transmission lines, and for any other purpose that would be reasonably incident to mining.” That goes beyond the mill sites envisioned by the 1872 law, he said.
The National Mining Association, on the other hand, praised the bill Wednesday, with its president Rich Nolan saying in a statement that the existing permitting process is “mired in duplication, endless litigation and uncertainty,” and that “elected officials on both sides of the aisle have long acknowledged that the status quo cannot continue.”
Albert Gore, the executive director of the Zero Emission Transportation Association, told me that there was a “broad recognition” among miners, refiners, and operators that the Rosemont decision required a statutory fix.
“It needed to be clarified in order to remove uncertainty. It's hard enough to invest in mineral production in the United States,” Gore said.
BAAJA’s mining provisions also include the Abandoned Hardrock Mine Fund, which would be funded by maintenance fees collected by the Department of the Interior under the same 19th century mining law. This fund would support a program established by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law to clean up abandoned mining sites.
In a transcript of a strategy call between environmental organizations on the BAAJA published by Punchbowl, Mintzes described the fund as “the one good thing I spotted in this bill so far.”
Exploratory projects are making a splash in Maine and Alaska.
A legal brawl is brewing over what could be the nation’s first underwater data centers.
Two subsidiaries of a new LLC named DeepGreen have applied for “preliminary” permits from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that would give four years of permission for studies and analysis towards constructing underwater data centers off remote coastlines in Maine and Alaska. The data centers as proposed would be powered entirely by tidal energy, as in, the power of waves themselves – a technological innovation from hydropower still being piloted around the world. Project descriptions submitted to FERC lay out what these data centers would look like in broad strokes: hundreds of hydrokinetic turbines, dozens of underwater “data center pods,” and miles of subsea cable. The permits would not authorize construction, which would need its own lengthy review process. But these early green lights would tee both areas up for years of potential conflict over hypotheticals that feel real to those on the ground.
There are upsides from purely a carbon emissions perspective. Relying on tidal energy suggests they’d be greenhouse gas-free, powered by the energy of the ocean. It would also eliminate the land use problem that upends so many AI data center projects. There are also clear environmental risks, as they’re also being suggested in ocean areas often coveted for protection, off coastlines where it’s unclear if the neighboring communities will accept them.
DeepGreen’s Alaska project is proposed within a more than 1,000-acre channel of the Cook Inlet, an estuary coveted by fishermen and wildlife conservation advocates, where fights over resource development already occur often. The upstart company’s Maine project is planned for the northernmost tip of the state, in the Bay of Fundy, which shares a transnational border with Canada. Canadian tidal power generation for the general populace marginally exists today in the Bay of Fundy – with major stipulations for marine life protection because it affects the general nature of water currents.
It’s crucial to note neither project has much information available online, sans brief text file project descriptions available through FERC’s online filing database. There is no public-facing website to date for the project, or for DeepGreen itself. When I contacted Louis Wolfson, a vice president at the company who is listed on company filings, he declined to talk about the developments over the phone and suggested I contact him at an email address listed in FERC application documents. That email address uses a website – “DeepGreenCoastal.com” – that does not seem to exist.
Still, we already know enough to say both development areas are likely to require substantial federal review. Not only does their presence in these waters almost necessitate it but both development areas receive considerable whale traffic. DeepGreen has already acknowledged a need to coordinate passive acoustic monitoring and “non-invasive study methodologies” with the National Marine Fisheries Service, the federal marine protection agency run out of NOAA. The Bay of Fundy is a prominent summer home for the endangered North Atlantic Right Whale and the National Marine Fisheries Service has already intervened in the FERC case for the Maine project, signalling in its filing that Endangered Species Act and fish habitat consultations “may be necessary for the project.”
The Center for Biological Diversity has also filed motions to intervene in both FERC cases, which they tell me is a prelude to potential litigation. “Putting one of these in the ocean just seems like a dystopian nightmare but it was especially alarming because of the areas they want to put these in,” Kristen Monsell, CBD Oceans Program Litigation Director, told me in an interview. “[The motions] are a step required in order for us to participate in the permitting process at FERC and then preserve our ability to challenge the decision in court if we think that’s necessary.”
In Maine, the coastline neighbors are the city of Eastport, which is vociferously opposed to this data center being built. The city passed a moratorium on data center development in response to the project and filed a request to intervene in its FERC case this week. “The City's concerns include potential effects on fisheries, marine habitat, water quality, currents, sediment, underwater noise, electromagnetic fields, equipment heat, existing uses of the waterway, and access to marine resources,” the city stated. “Questions also remain about equipment failure, storm damage, emergency response, equipment recovery, site restoration, and eventual decommissioning. These concerns are specific to the proposed placement and extended operation of computing and energy infrastructure on and beneath the seabed.”
In Alaska, DeepGreen doesn’t face a situation like Eastport with a bustling tourist destination-turned-nemesis, but there’s still quite a bit of local confusion and consternation.
The Kenai Peninsula Borough, which is the equivalent of a county-level government, is currently neutral on the development. But the Alaska Commercial Fisheries Conservation Alliance, a newly-formed nonprofit that includes fishing permit holders in the Cook Inlet, submitted a filing to FERC claiming the project site doesn’t properly take into account existing fishing permit holders and that “a preliminary permit proceeding that advances a project of this scale without any commercial fishing impact assessment” would fail the agency’s public interest obligations.
I asked DeepGreen if it had any comment on the litigation risk around their projects. This is what Louis Wolfson provided: “Preliminary permits under the Federal Power Act do not authorize construction or physical disturbance. Their sole purpose is to establish priority while environmental, bathymetric, and technical feasibility studies are conducted. Stakeholder participation is an expected and healthy part of the FERC regulatory process. DeepGreen welcomes the engagement of conservation organizations, local communities, and regulatory resource agencies as we evaluate whether these sites can deliver low impact, zero carbon infrastructure in full compliance with federal environmental laws."
And more of the week’s biggest fights around project development
1. Ottawa County, Michigan – A congressional district House Democrats are targeting for control of the Lower Chamber is now a battleground over solar development on farmland, and I’m waiting to see if President Trump gets involved.
2. Texas – The Lone Star State sure is action-packed right now, huh? Let’s break down a few of the most important fights.
3. Lincoln County, Oklahoma – A massive wind project in rural Oklahoma is now on hold amidst continued local opposition, according to a Republican member of the state legislature.
4. Clinton County, Indiana – Well hey, at least some places are still approving some things. Like in rural Indiana, where a community actually voted for considering a data center.