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:
Talking to Google Geo’s vice president of sustainability, Yael Maguire.

While browsing Google Flights for an escape from the winter doldrums, I recently encountered a notification I hadn’t seen before. One particular return flight from Phoenix to New York was highlighted in light green as avoiding “as much CO2 as 1,400 trees absorb a day.”
I’d seen Google Flights’ emissions estimates before, of course — they’ve been around since 2021 — but this was the first time I’d seen it translate a number like “265 kg CO2e” into something I could actually understand. Suddenly, not picking the flight felt like it would have made me, well, kind of bad.
Yael Maguire, the vice president and general manager of the sustainability team at Google Geo — which includes Maps, Earth, and Project Sunroof, the company’s solar calculator — stressed that Google isn’t trying to take people’s agency away with these kinds of light-green guilt trips. “We want to make the sustainable choice the easy choice,” he told me, in reference to a slew of new tools the company has been rolling out, from fuel-efficient routing in Maps (which Google estimates has eliminated the emissions equivalent of 500,000 internal combustion cars from the road since 2021), to suggesting train routes to flight-shoppers, to nudging Europeans to ditch their cars when public transportation could get them to their destinations in a comparable amount of time.
Last week, I spoke to Maguire about the sustainability projects at Google Geo, including the team’s Solar API, which provides solar-planning data for millions of buildings worldwide. Our conversation has been lightly condensed for clarity and brevity.
Do you see your job at Google Geo as passively presenting sustainability information to users, or do you see it as actively nudging people toward making better choices for the planet?
We’re not trying to take agency away from anybody. We want to make sure — whether you’re a consumer choosing an eco-friendly route, or you’re a developer who’s thinking about trying to build more sustainably, or you’re a solar developer who wants to help with that — we want the choices to be in their hands. But we want to make it the easiest choice possible because, while it’s ultimately their decision, it will lead to carbon reductions over time.
That’s the idea behind fuel efficiency suggestions in Google Maps, where a route is prominently displayed with the little leaf, right?
Exactly. We launched a capability in Google Earth last year to help real estate developers do high-level planning and building development to make the sustainable choice the easy choice. As they’re saying, “We’re trying to get this many units with these kinds of amenities, etc., etc.,” we give them the tools to optimize for all the things they want to optimize for. But we can also say, “Hey, if you also care about sustainability, you can use different materials, we can get more sunlight in the area, and you have this much potential for solar.” And that just comes bundled with the tool itself.
We always try to find the co-benefits. I know for me personally, I always try to make the sustainable choice as much as I can. But I know that other people may not be as motivated by that, and having those co-benefits — like, it saves money, or it saves time, or it saves fuel, whatever it might be. We want to try to bring those together as much as possible.
When I was in Tbilisi, Georgia, a few months ago, I was using the ride-share app Bolt, and at the time it had a feature where if you tried to book a car to a location less than a 15-minute walk away, it would suggest you walk instead. I saw in a video from Google’s sustainability summit last fall that you’re rolling out something similar in some locations in Europe — France was one. Do you find these sorts of rollouts in the U.S. are stymied at all by how un-walkable most American cities are?
We are trying to make the most of cities as they are. They’re hard to change. But one of the things I find really encouraging is there’s definitely a long timeframe for this. Mayors and the folks in their departments of transportation recognize that they have to make more options available for people to commute and move around. They’re not necessarily going to be able to change things overnight. But there are major changes that are happening — for example, in the city of London, we were able to announce hundreds of miles of new bike lanes. So a lot of changes are happening over a relatively short amount of time, too.
Sometimes it’s hard to know what is going to be the impact of those decisions, though. And so, again, with these tools, city planners have the opportunity to scenario plan and say, “Okay, we’re thinking of trying to put bike lanes in this corridor in the city, what is going to be the impact on carbon?”
I wanted to ask a similar question in the context of a new feature that suggests train routes to Europeans looking for short-haul flights. How is Google thinking about promoting low-emissions transportation options like trains to Americans, eventually, when our infrastructure often isn’t there yet? Is this a challenge you talk about internally?
It is definitely something that is top of mind. But I do think even in the U.S., there are times when taking a train is actually faster. There are actually a lot of instances where walking, cycling, and public transportation are the most effective ways to get somewhere — and that’s not even considering the cost side of it, which is also something people might want to consider. I’m actually fairly optimistic — when I worked in San Francisco, I took public transportation, and I tried to walk as much as I can in all the cities that I’ve lived in, so I feel like I have lived experience in what the reality [in the U.S.] is. And some of these alternative options can be very effective. There’s more work to do, though, to make sure that we’re doing this globally.
Arguably, Google Maps could have a significant role to play in the success of the larger EV transition in terms of making charging stations and trip planning easy and handy for drivers. I’ve been working on planning my first EV road trip this summer and have been pretty intimidated, to be honest. Can you tell me what is in Google’s pipeline to help make this process easier for drivers?
I can’t talk about things that haven’t been announced yet, but I will say that, just as an overarching goal, we want to make that as easy as possible. I’m an EV owner, I have been for a number of years, and I know sometimes it can be a cognitive task to think about, “How am I going to charge and what is that experience going to be like?” So I would just say that we are really aware and trying to deeply understand the problem as much as possible, and our goal is to really address it.
Even when someone is thinking about purchasing a car, oftentimes people go to Google Search to look for vehicles, and we can help people understand what the potential is of a particular vehicle they’re considering. What typically concerns people is a long-distance trip. So we’ve made a tool where you can plug in a familiar destination — like for me, I live in San Francisco, it might be going to Tahoe— and for a given car you can see how many charges would you have to do on the way. Being able to make that info a little bit easier for people to see before they even buy the car is a thing that we’ve tried to do.
We’re also trying to make charging experiences as positive as possible. The first thing is, honestly, just getting as many chargers on the map as possible. There are a number of different providers who have charging infrastructure and sometimes all the data isn’t widely available so we’ve tried really, really hard to work with those partners. We have information on, I believe, 360,000 chargers worldwide and we’re constantly trying to grow that. On top of that — and I hope you don’t experience this — but not all the chargers work. You’ve probably seen on Google Maps, there are reviews, right? So there’s all kinds of work happening there.
My EV doesn’t have Google Maps integrated, unfortunately, but I’m really looking forward to one day having this feature where I can search for a charger along the route. We’d like to get to that point where you don’t actually have to do all this planning in advance and you can just get in your car and plan along the way like you would if it was another type of vehicle.
It’s one thing to have a tool like the Google Tree Canopy available for cities and organizers, and it’s another thing for people to actually use that tool and act on the information. How are you measuring your success?
We measure our success ultimately by what people do with our tools. So it’s not just about putting the tool out there. We actually try to understand what people are doing. In the case of what we did with eco-friendly routing, we worked with the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the U.S., for example, to help validate our carbon emissions model. We’re going through that process for everything we do, whether it’s Project Sunroof or the Solar API, or other things like that.
You preempted my next question, but maybe you can talk about it in a more macro sense — Google has the goal of “collectively reducing 1 gigaton of carbon equivalent emissions annually by 2030” with tools like Solar API. Can you give me any sort of progress update?
This is a project that’s been going on for some time. We’ve been working with solar developers for a while, but we’ve been pleasantly surprised not only by the solar developer community engagement, but there’s actually other industries that have shown interest. So MyHEAT — they’re not a typical solar installer, but they’re finding this data really useful to go to cities and help them with the plans that they have.
So the gigaton goal itself, there is nothing to share now other than the progress on eco-friendly routing, but it is something that we hope we’ll be able to share progress on over time. But so far, we’re quite happy.
At a time when there’s a lot of nervousness around AI — and often for good reason — you’ve been pretty vocal in your excitement about how such tools can be used for the positive purposes of sustainability. Tell me why you’re an optimist.
Here’s why I’m an optimist: Because it’s where I put all of Google’s public goals in context. We talked about the gigaton goal, we talked about the Solar API — but I think this is also a question about energy usage and carbon intensity. We will continue to invest in the infrastructure that we need — and we need that infrastructure to be able to actually help solve some of these problems, by providing information to people — but at the same time, the company has been really focused on trying to minimize the carbon intensity of the energy we produce. So, since 2017, we’ve been operating off of 100% renewable energy; this is on an annualized basis. We also have an initiative to use carbon-free energy — so the source of the energy that ultimately goes where electrons are going to our data centers, we’re actively measuring what percentage of that is carbon-free on a 24/7 basis.
With our net-zero commitments, to be on a net basis by 2030, that includes all of our AI infrastructure. That’s where I would try to separate the energy use that’s required to operate AI from the carbon intensity, which I think is very different. Our data centers, we estimate, are one-and-a-half times more efficient than your average data center. And with AI workloads themselves, in some instances, we’ve been able to get the energy usage down by 100x, and the corresponding amount of carbon intensity down by 1,000x.
But to your point, at the same time, it is very much on our minds that the carbon intensity to run all of these AI workloads — how does that compare to the benefits that they’re able to provide? I think that’s where I am. I do have a lot of optimism about the efficiency work, about the trajectory of carbon-free energy and net zero. The upsides in terms of what it does for solar, what it does for transportation — yeah, I am a big believer.
The big reason why I’m so excited about this opportunity in the Maps and Geo space is I just think there’s so much opportunity for all kinds of organizations, including individual citizens, to make these choices and changes to their environment. And I think the role that AI has is enormous — obviously not the whole thing, because it doesn’t build cycling lanes. People have to go do that. People have to change policies around how buildings are going to have less carbon intensity when they’re built. There’s tons and tons of other work that is required to actually build the future that we want, that is lower carbon intensity — ideally zero. But I do think that AI plays an enormous role as decision support for all those choices that are needed in the future.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
We didn’t know days like this could happen. Then we learned how bad they really are.
When I woke up this morning in Chicago, the Air Quality Index was in the 300s, and I could barely see the top of the skyscraper across the street. The weather app on my phone featured a little image of a man wearing a World War I-style full-face gas mask. That’s fun, I thought. I didn’t know it could do that.
I went downstairs. Old photographs of the city were hanging in the hotel lobby — girls playing in bathing suits next to the lake — and I realized that the haze shrouding the old Lakeshore Drive condos was in fact haze, smoke, particulate matter, and not a lens artifact. It really used to be that smoky all the time, back before the Clean Air Act. Then I glanced up and saw that the haze out the window was far worse than the century-old pollution in the picture.
It’s significant, I think, that a mass smoke-out like this has now happened to the eastern U.S. for a second time. Second times matter. When exhaust from Canadian wildfires blanketed the Northeast and parts of the Midwest in June 2023, exposing more Americans to wildfire smoke than on any previous day in history, one could almost write it off as a freak occurrence. It was upsetting, sure, and reminiscent of California’s climate-addled amber skies. But didn’t wildfire smoke also descend on New England once in the 1780s? Even on a warmer planet, couldn’t this remain a once-in-a-century blip?
Twice in just over three years, though — that‘s more than a hiccup. That’s almost a trend. To get smoked out once may be regarded as a misfortune; for it to recur again, without any plan to respond, starts to look like carelessness. The federal government is doing roughly diddly squat about adaptation — President Trump can build a fan on the border and make Canada pay for it — but state and local governments across the eastern U.S. will now need to reckon with a new form of extreme weather. You grew up with snow days, but now we’ll have smoke days — and schools and sports leagues and concert venues will need rules about how to deal with them. When should games be canceled, tickets refunded? Is smoke more like a heat wave or a hurricane? Hotels and office buildings will need to review their ventilation policies and possibly upgrade their equipment; municipal emergency response plans will be revised and printed in triplicate.
All this will happen because the smoke has invaded a second time — and arguably a third, if you count last year’s minor episode — and that means it could come back again. For that reason, this event strikes me as a much bigger deal than what happened in 2023. The smoke is now a fact of life; institutions will need a policy about it. The tortious creep of litigation risk will enforce that outcome, even if no federal official enforces it.
So it goes. But to be clear, this new inconvenience is not what worries me most about today’s events. No, what frightens me instead is that today’s airborne toxic event is not something that was supposed to happen. Until a few years ago, we had not thought too hard about whether a major smoke exposure event like this could happen on the East Coast at all. It had not seemed possible.
For years, economists and climate scientists have simulated how global warming might affect the U.S. and global economies. They poured years of careful work into this modeling, and they simulated — with ever-increasing levels of statistical persnicketiness — what extreme heat and sea-level rise might do to agricultural yield, labor productivity, energy demand, heat mortality, and real estate values, among other potential sources of damage. This work was useful; it improved our practical understanding of coastal flooding, to name one example. It also helped calibrate U.S. regulatory policy, even if it never achieved the crowning heights of helping to set a national carbon tax.
Yet these careful models almost never accounted for mass smoke exposure days. Indeed, the kind of thing that happened this week — when heavy haze blows down from Canada and exposes more than 100 million people to hazardous air — was not countenanced by the simulations at all. Only in recent years did economists begin to study events like these, and only because mass exposure events like 2023’s happened first.
We’ve long known that the tiny shreds of particulate matter in wildfire smoke dance across the body’s barriers and penetrate its deep places, etching their way into lung, heart, and brain tissue. Inflammation follows. What makes days like today unique is the scale: Tens of millions of Americans inhaling wildfire smoke at the same time. As we’ve started studying this phenomenon, it’s become clear that the mortality effects of days like today, the deaths elevated above what you’d otherwise expect, can persist for years. That becomes extraordinarily expensive for society.
How costly? “When monetized,” a group of Stanford and Princeton economists wrote in Nature last year, in the first major study on the topic, “the climate-driven smoke deaths result in economic damages that exceed existing estimates of climate-driven damages from all other causes combined in the U.S.A.”
You read that right: The cost of climate-worsened wildfire smoke alone is larger than what earlier studies said every other estimated cost of climate change would be, combined.
To summarize, wildfire smoke did not appear in our economic simulations of climate change. As recently as a few years ago, we did not really know that days like today — or June 7, 2023; or September 15, 2020; or September 9, 2020 — could occur. Then they happened. And happened again. And then we studied them and discovered that, in fact, they may be more expensive for the U.S. economy than we once thought climate change itself would be.
That worries me. Now we know these smoke-out days can happen; now they are fast becoming a rare but predictable feature of summer life. But until recently they were unimaginable. What other ignominies, what other tail risks and airborne surprises, are lurking in the uncontrolled experiment we’re running on the biosphere? What else — unforecast, unmodeled, unstudied, unthought of — lies ahead? After 10 years of covering the climate system, I am not someone who lies sleepless fretting about atmospheric CO2. But I do wonder what else we don’t know enough about to ask.
“Microsoft, you can’t hide, we can see your dirty side!”
Protestors interrupted one of the final sessions of PNW Climate Week — a conference that brings together climate leaders across Washington, Oregon, and British Columbia — objecting to Microsoft’s rising carbon emissions from data centers and partnerships with oil and gas companies. The company’s Chief Sustainability Officer Melanie Nakagawa was having a one on one conversation with GeekWire climate reporter Lisa Stiffler at Seattle’s City Hall when protestors carrying signs reading “Microsoft’s AI pollutes” and other slogans began shouting from the audience.
I was there, having just moderated the prior panel on how to finance Washington’s clean energy ambitions. Early on there were some rumblings in the crowd from up front. “Climate leaders don’t build gas pipelines in Moses Lake,” was the first objection I heard clearly. It came shortly after Nakagawa kicked off the conversation by highlighting Microsoft’s partnership with sustainable aviation fuel startup Twelve, which recently opened its first commercial-scale SAF plant in Moses Lake, Washington. The tech giant has supported the project through a strategic investment from its Climate Innovation Fund, as well as an offtake agreement for the fuel that will help offset its emissions from employee travel.
Whether Microsoft is building a gas pipeline in this particular community I haven’t been able to determine, though it seems irrelevant to Twelve’s SAF facility, which doesn’t rely on natural gas. But it is true that Microsoft is one of the largest power consumers in Grant County, Washington, home to Moses Lake, where a natural gas pipeline operator is looking to expand its network to accommodate data center load growth.
Another audience interruption was more pointed. “How does signing a 20-year deal with Chevron help you reach your clean energy goals?,” one protestor asked, referring to Microsoft's recently announced power purchase agreement with Chevron for nearly 2.7 gigawatts of natural gas-fired power to supply a West Texas data center. The project represents one of the largest gas-powered artificial intelligence developments in the U.S., and Stiffler acknowledged that she had been planning to ask about it, herself.
Nakagawa answered the question. at least in part, saying “that project with Chevron is initially using natural gas and it’s a natural gas contract,” before emphasizing that the company has built “over 4.5 gigawatts of clean energy already today,” and remains committed to balancing speed-to-power with its clean energy goals. She added that, “with this deal in particular, we’re looking at a range of tools in our toolbox to ensure that we can continue to grow our power, but also do so in a way that is responsible and sustainable.” She stopped short, however, of making any commitments to transitioning the project to renewable energy over time.
The session became more chaotic from there. Another protestor stood up, shouting that “Microsoft is enabling genocide in Palestine.” Other activists joined in, while still other audience members shouted back. As Nakagawa recovered and resumed answering a question from Stiffler about Microsoft’s recent decision to pause its carbon removal purchases after years of dominating the nascent industry, protestors throughout the crowd began a chant of “Microsoft, you can’t hide, we can see your dirty side.” Security eventually shepherded many of them out.
Stiffler continued speaking with Nakawaga about the company’s clean energy efforts, touching on many of the protestors’ concerns as she asked about community opposition to data centers, the role of large corporations in the clean energy transition, and whether Microsoft can realistically achieve its goal of becoming carbon negative by 2030.
Nakawaga emphasized that the company must, “first and foremost, listen to where the communities are and what they are calling for.” Regarding the concerns she hears most often, she explained that “first has been transparency. Second has been around resource uses and what are we doing about those resource uses. We’re hearing about jobs and employment and investments in education, investments in housing.”
If this session was any indication, those concerns won’t go away anytime soon.
Heat kills more Americans than any other extreme weather event in the United States. But wildfire smoke — while not strictly “weather” — appears to kill even more. Current excess death estimates put American heat mortality at about 10,000 people per year, or possibly as high as 12,000. Recent studies on wildfire PM 2.5 exposure suggest a mortality of double that: 24,000 all-cause deaths every year.
Needless to say, wildfire smoke is definitely not something you want to inhale if you can avoid it. (And really, you should try to.) But for the 115 million Americans in the Great Lakes and Northeast regions of the country who’ve been exposed to hazardous air from the fires in Ontario and Minnesota this week, there’s a chance that the damage is already done. According to a wildfire smoke mortality estimation tool from Cornell University’s School of Public Health and the Northeast Regional Climate Center, the total mortality for this smoke event could already be as high as 424 people so far, including nearly 100 in Michigan and more than 50 in both New York and Wisconsin.
Alistair Hayden, an assistant professor of practice in Cornell’s Department of Public and Ecosystem Health, stressed to me that the tool is a “first draft,” and that his team is still working on getting it peer-reviewed. “We intend it as a hypothesis that people can test in the coming weeks or months to confirm our numbers,” Hayden told me. “I’m really hoping to be proven wrong.”
But Hayden also emphasized that while the West Coast might historically be where many smoke-related deaths have occurred, “this is the third out of four years [in the Northeast] that we’re having the smoke, so it seems like something we should be planning for,” he said. “It reminds me of that saying: ‘Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.’”
Admittedly, the smoke this week is a bit of a freak occurrence. A cooler-than-average sea surface pattern across the North Pacific, known as a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, helped produce weak low-pressure areas in the northwestern part of the United States, which in turn allowed for heat domes to develop across the Southwest and Plains. After one did just that earlier this month, the hot, high-pressure dome then shifted north, where it developed “dryness across Canada, followed by the lightning-producing thunderstorms,” Chad Merrill, a senior meteorologist at AccuWeather, told me. Then, boom: widespread fires.
“It is very unusual to have a combination of an El Niño and a negative phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation,” Merrill went on. “That’s one of the unusual factors this year, which contributed to the heat dome being farther north in that particular position.” The heat dome and jet stream then worked together to direct the thick smoke down into some of the most populous regions of Canada and the U.S.
That’s what makes this particular smoke event so bad. Were the smoke blowing over remote regions of Canada, as it would under more usual conditions, “then the big cities and the Great Lakes wouldn’t experience the smoke; it would have gone north toward the Hudson Bay and then Greenland,” Merrill said. In fact, the Canadian fire season is tracking below average overall; it’s the meteorological conditions that made this week’s smoke events, as one outlet put it, “the perfect storm.”
Wildfire smoke in the region is not historically anomalous, however. A 1903 article in The New York Times describes a “yellow day” similar to smoky events in 1894, 1881, and earlier. But large-scale burns in Canada’s dense, remote boreal, which produce more smoke, are increasing. Though it’s difficult to attribute any one wildfire directly to climate change because of the complex nature of such events, we do know that fire weather is becoming more common with the warming of the atmosphere from greenhouse gas emissions. As modeled by Zeke Hausfather in the Friday edition of his newsletter The Climate Brink, “hotter, drier seasons burn the most” in Canada — and “recent years cluster there” as the country has outpaced the global average in warming.
But as Hausfather also writes, “While overall area burned is the climate-linked trend, who breathes the smoke on a given week in July is mostly driven by the weather.” This is similar to the way that, though it may be a quiet year in the Atlantic, it only takes one hurricane making landfall in the right (or wrong) spot for the season to be remembered as catastrophic.
On the other hand, as foolish as it might be for the Central Plains and East Coast to still believe smoke is the exclusive domain of Westerners, it is also a mistake to assume smoke only comes from without. As I reported earlier this year, the Eastern half of the country has seen a 10-fold jump in the frequency of large burns over the last 40 years. Nowhere is safe from the smoke.
Planning and preparation, then, should be paramount. But as Grist learned last month, there are no established Air Quality Index numbers that would trigger the postponement, relocation, or cancellation of, say, a FIFA World Cup game, including the final, which is set to be played in New Jersey on Sunday. White House officials are reportedly meeting with FIFA’s president on Friday to discuss contingencies, given the unhealthy air quality in the region.
Which brings us back to Hayden’s modeling. He offered a note of optimism in that research by Stanford’s Sam Heft-Neal and his colleagues indicates that emergency room visits do not rise in tandem with increasing wildfire smoke. “As smoke gets bad, the health impacts get bigger. But then as smoke gets worse and worse, the amount of health impacts actually goes down, measured for emergency room visits,” Hayden said. “The idea is that people modify their behavior in higher smoke” — say, by staying indoors, wearing masks, or canceling outdoor events.
It’s time to treat smoke as an East Coast phenomenon, in other words. Doing so will save lives. “Will [smoke events] become more frequent in the future? Most likely we will see a recurrence,” Merrill, the meteorologist, told me. “How often they happen is yet to be determined.”