What Is the Climate Crisis?
The climate crisis refers to the destabilization of the climate conditions that have allowed human communities and current ecosystems to survive and thrive on Earth. It is caused by a rise in global temperatures that scientists conclude is “unequivocally” driven by human activity — primarily the burning of fossil fuels and secondarily the destruction of forests and other natural carbon sinks. Since humans began using fossil fuels in earnest at the start of the industrial revolution, global temperatures have risen to 1.1 degrees Celsius above the 1850 to 1900 average. Global heating has now reached a rate of increase of more than 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. This warming has already led to the melting of Arctic sea ice, the retreat of glaciers, and more frequent and intense extreme weather events like heat waves, foods and droughts. These events have already claimed lives, driven species to extinction and forced more than 13 million people from their homes in Africa and Asia in 2019 alone. With every further warming increase, the risks of additional harms become ever more severe.
Luckily, there is something we can do about it, but we have to act quickly. The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that we must curb greenhouse gas emissions by 60 percent of 2019 levels by 2035 in order to limit global temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and save hundreds of millions from suffering and poverty by 2050. Unfortunately, temperature projections based on current policies and pledges put the world on track for 2 to 3.2 degrees of warming. The climate crisis is therefore a crisis in two senses of the word. It is both “a time of intense difficulty, trouble, or danger” and “a time when a difficult or important decision must be made.” We can choose to drive our gas-powered SUVs down what UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the “highway to climate hell,” or we can turn off the ignition, take our feet off the gas pedal and walk together down a greener path.
What Are Greenhouse Gases?
Greenhouse gases get their name because they contribute to something called the greenhouse effect. When the sun’s rays penetrate the Earth’s atmosphere, these gases stop some of the heat from escaping back into space, acting like the walls of a greenhouse. Greenhouse gases already exist in the atmosphere without human intervention, and this is normally a very good thing: Without the greenhouse effect, Earth’s surface temperatures would be around 33 degrees Celsius cooler. However, human activity has released more of these gases into the atmosphere in the last two centuries, throwing the system out of balance, trapping more heat and causing global temperatures to rise.
What Are the Main Greenhouse Gases That Contribute to the Climate Crisis?
There are four main greenhouse gases causing additional warming.
Carbon Dioxide
Carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas most responsible for heating the planet. It is a naturally occurring molecule that can be released through events like volcanic eruptions. However, since 1750, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere from the burning of fossil fuels have increased by 50 percent to reach levels not seen since around four million years ago, when sea levels were as much as 25 meters higher (approximately 82 feet) than today. In 2021, carbon dioxide reached a record 415.7 parts per million. Humans also emitted record levels of carbon dioxide over the past decade — 54 gigatonnes a year between 2012 and 2021.
Methane
Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide — producing 28 times more warming than carbon dioxide over a 100 year period. At the same time, it lingers in the atmosphere for much shorter — around 12 years to carbon dioxide’s hundreds. The combination of methane’s potency and shorter lifespan makes reducing methane emissions a strategic priority for limiting global warming in the short term.
Methane is released both naturally — by plants decaying in wetlands — and by human activities including landfills, rice farming, the digestion of livestock animals like cows and the use of fossil fuels. Natural gas is 70 to 90 percent methane. These activities account for 50 to 65 percent of global methane emissions, and overall the gas has caused 30 percent of the post-industrial temperature hike. Indeed, the amount of methane in the atmosphere has more than doubled, reaching a record 1,908 parts per billion in 2021.
Nitrous Oxide
Nitrous oxide is a greenhouse gas primarily released by the production and use of agricultural fertilizers, though it is also emitted when fossil fuels or plant matter are burned. It is released naturally as part of the nitrogen cycle, but around 40 percent of current emissions comes from human activity. While it’s been called “a forgotten greenhouse gas” when compared to carbon dioxide and methane, it is still responsible for around 6 percent of greenhouse gas emissions. It’s also very powerful — a single molecule of nitrous oxide has 300 times the warming potential of a single molecule of carbon dioxide — and it persists in the atmosphere for around 114 years. In 2021, its atmospheric concentration reached a record 334.5 ppb, which is 124 percent of its pre-industrial levels.
Chlorofluorocarbons
Chlorofluorocarbons are the one greenhouse gas that does not occur naturally. They were created for industrial purposes and used as refrigerants, solvents and propellants for spray cans until it was discovered that they were burning a hole in the ozone layer. World leaders came together and agreed to phase out their use under the Montreal Protocol of 1987. It’s a good thing they did, because it turns out that CFCs are thousands of times more effective by mass at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. A study found that the agreement to restrict their use reduced global warming by as much as 25 percent. However, they are still occasionally emitted. A spike in 2013 was tied to illegal use in China that the nation later dealt with, but they are still released from CFC “banks” — pre-1987 insulation or cooling systems that continue to emit the chemicals.
What Are the Main Human Activities Causing the Climate Crisis?
Scientists often refer to “anthropogenic,” or human-caused, climate change. But there are really a few main human activities that are largely to blame.
Burning Fossil Fuels
The burning of fossil fuels is responsible for more than 75 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions and almost 90 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. This is because fossil fuels are made from dead and decaying lifeforms fossilized over millions of years — and carbon is the building block of life. The carbon that once helped form the DNA and proteins of ancient plants and animals is concentrated by time and pressure into coal, oil and natural gas. When these fuels are burned, that carbon once stored beneath the Earth enters the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Leaks from fossil fuel extraction, production and transportation are also an important source of methane emissions. Many human activities currently rely on fossil fuels, from industry to heating and electricity generation to transportation. We need to find an alternative way to power these activities in order to stop overheating the atmosphere.
Land-Use Change
The second most important contribution to the climate crisis is deforestation, agriculture and other land use change, accounting for around a quarter of total greenhouse gas emissions and around 13 to 21 percent from 2010 to 2019. Trees and other plants store carbon in their trunks, leaves and roots and in the soil beneath them. When those trees are cut down or that soil is disturbed, the carbon ends up in the atmosphere and contributes to the climate crisis. What’s more, those trees and plants are no longer there to suck more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.
Agriculture
Tree clearing for agriculture drives more than 90 percent of tropical deforestation worldwide. In addition to getting rid of carbon sinks, the global food system emits greenhouse gases through the production and use of fertilizers and the methane-laden burps and manure of cows and other ruminants. The livestock sector as a whole is responsible for between 11.1 percent and 19.6 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
What Are the Main Impacts of the Climate Crisis Now and in the Future?
The climate crisis has already impacted every region on Earth. The latest IPCC report finds that both these current impacts and the risks of each increment of future warming are more severe than previously anticipated.
Hotter Temperatures
The most obvious impact of the climate crisis is an increase in temperature. Since 1970, global temperatures have increased faster than during any other 50-year period during at least the last two centuries. The last nine years are the nine warmest since record keeping began 143 years ago, and all of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 2010. Some scientists think 2024 might be the hottest year yet. How much temperatures continue to rise will depend on how quickly we can wean ourselves off fossil fuels. Policies in place as of 2020 put the world on track for 3.2 degrees Celsius of warming by 2100, but that could be lowered to 2 degrees Celsius if we cut greenhouse gas emissions by 35 percent by 2035 and 1.5 degrees Celsius if we cut emissions by 60 percent by the same date.
More Extreme Weather Events
The climate crisis has already led to more frequent and extreme weather events. The IPCC says it is “virtually certain” that heat waves have become more common and intense in most regions since the 1950s, with climate change the “main driver.” These heat waves have already claimed tens of thousands of lives. Most marine heat waves since at least 2006 were also likely caused by climate change, and these have doubled since the 1980s.
Because warmer air holds more moisture, the climate crisis can also lead to more extreme precipitation events, which have increased in intensity and frequency over most land areas since the 1950s. Hurricanes and other tropical storms have become wetter and more intense. Climate change has led to more or longer droughts in some regions, making the megadrought in the U.S. West 42 percent more severe. Higher temperatures and drier conditions have led to more frequent, larger and longer-lasting wildfires. If the climate continues to warm, combined heat waves and droughts and ideal wildfire conditions are expected to become more frequent. Tropical storms will continue to become more intense.
Ice Melt and Sea Level Rise
Warmer temperatures are melting ice in the world’s mountains and polar regions. The Arctic is warming nearly four times as fast as the global average, and the Greenland Ice Sheet has lost 255 gigatons of ice each year between 2008 and 2016, while Arctic sea ice has declined since 1978, with the rate of decline increasing in the last two decades and 95 percent of the oldest and thickest ice already gone. In Antarctica, ice sheets are melting at a rate of around 150 billion tons per year.
The polar ice sheets hold around two thirds of the globe’s fresh water. When they melt, that water enters the ocean, raising sea levels. To date, their melting has caused around a third of sea level rise since 1993. However, the melting of glaciers and ice sheets had driven the majority of accelerated sea level rise between 2006 and 2015. As of 2018, global sea levels had risen by 0.2 meters (approximately eight inches). In addition to polar melting, the sea level is rising because water expands as it warms. If the Greenland ice sheet were to melt entirely, it would raise sea levels by 23 feet, while the melting of all glaciers and ice sheets would raise them by more than 195 feet. While this would occur over a period of centuries, even relatively small amounts of sea level rise can threaten coastal communities with erosion, flooding, saltwater intrusion into aquifers, habitat loss and more powerful storm surges. Sea levels along the coastal U.S. are expected to rise by a foot by 2050 and two feet by 2100.
Mountain glaciers are melting as well — between 85.3 percent of Northern Hemisphere glaciers, including Greenland’s, retreated between 2000 and 2020, and nearly half of non-polar glaciers could melt by 2100 even if temperature rise is limited to 1.5 degrees. This would have devastating impacts on communities that rely on glaciers for water, power and cultural identity.
Ocean Impacts
The ocean has absorbed 90 percent of the excess heat added to the planet in the last decades, with the past 10 years being the ocean’s warmest since the 19th century. Most of this heating is occurring between zero and 700 meters (approximately 2,297 feet) from the surface. In addition to contributing to sea level rise, more intense tropical storms and the melting of sea ice, the additional heat threatens marine biodiversity through deadly marine heat waves. One of the most infamous impacts of these heat waves is coral bleaching, when warmer than average temperatures compel corals to expel the algae that give them both color and food. If temperatures rise to 2 degrees, 99 percent of tropical reefs could be lost. In general, ocean warming last century has combined with the impacts of overfishing to reduce the amount of certain fish species available for fishers.
Heat isn’t the only product of fossil fuel emissions that the ocean absorbs. It takes in around 30 percent of the carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere, leading to something called ocean acidification. Carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater into carbonic acid, which further breaks down into hydrogen ions and bicarbonate ions. Through this process, the ocean has gotten about 30 percent more acidic since the industrial revolution. When there is more hydrogen floating around in the ocean, it easily bonds with the carbonate that shell-making animals like corals and oysters need to form their shells. The decrease in carbonate is already impacting these animals, and further acidification could actually dissolve their shells. A more acidic ocean could also harm other animals like clownfish, who struggle to find their ideal habitat during their larval stage when acidity increases.
Biodiversity Loss
The ocean isn’t the only habitat where the climate crisis threatens the abundance and variety of lifeforms. The Earth is currently in the midst of a sixth mass extinction driven by human activity — losing species at a rate 1,000 times greater than any other moment in written history – and the climate crisis is an important contributor to this loss. As many as a million plant and animal species face extinction, several of them within decades.
The climate crisis is making life harder for at least 10,967 species on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, hastening extinction through extreme weather events, wildfires, and the spread of pests and diseases. As conditions change within a species’ range, some will be able to move into better conditions but not all will be able to relocate quickly enough. A 2020 study found that plants and animals living in areas that saw a significant increase in maximum possible temperature were more likely to be wiped out locally. By 2070, 30 to 55 percent of those species could become entirely extinct depending on how successful we are at controlling emissions.
Food and Freshwater Scarcity
All of these changes to natural processes and ecosystems will not leave human society unaffected. Already, the climate crisis is increasing both food and water insecurity through drought, ocean warming and acidification and the loss of sea ice that Indigenous Arctic communities rely on for hunting. Partly because of climate change, around half of the world’s population endures “severe water scarcity” for at least some of the year.
All of this will only get worse. Around 22 percent of the world’s population relies on glaciers for their primary source of drinking water, and future melting could deprive them of this essential resource. Saltwater intrusion from sea level rise also threatens to inundate the freshwater supply of people living on low-lying atolls. As crop yields decrease as temperatures rise, this could push 43 million people below the poverty line by 2030 just in Africa.
Poverty, Conflict and Displacement
A decrease in water and food resources will inevitably push populations into poverty, exacerbate conflicts between them and force people from their homes in search of a better life. As the climate warms, its impacts will interact more often with other factors like resource competition or political tension to exacerbate conflict. For example, while the civil war in Syria cannot be blamed on climate change alone, there is evidence that it was inflamed by the worst multi-year drought the country had seen in 900 years.
The war sparked a refugee crisis, with 5.5 million Syrians now living in other countries after fleeing the violence. Between 2010 and 2019, extreme weather events directly displaced around 23.1 million people each year. A recent Somalia-based study found that a 50 millimeter reduction in monthly rainfall could increase displacement by a factor of two, and a monthly temperature rise of 1 degree Celsius could increase displacement by a factor of 10. Depending on how much is done to curb emissions, one billion people could be climate refugees by 2050.
Human Health
The Lancet’s 2022 report on climate change and health concluded that human health was already “at the mercy of fossil fuels.” The number of heat-related deaths for people older than 65 increased by around 68 percent from 2000 to 2004 and from 2017 to 2021. Extreme weather events expose people to health hazards like increased wildfire smoke and infectious diseases that spread when drought puts sanitation at risk. Heat waves and other extreme weather events can have a negative impact on mental health, not to mention the growing issue of climate anxiety.
The range of disease-carrying organisms is already expanding as temperatures warm. For example, between 2012 and 2021, the ideal climate for the transmission of dengue by the Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes increased by 11.5 percent and 12 percent respectively. In the future, even more climate change could interact with other factors like urbanization to increase the risk of future pandemics.
Who Is Most Responsible?
All of humanity is not equally responsible for the climate crisis. Certain nations, companies and individuals have emitted significantly more greenhouse gases than others.
Countries
Historically, the U.S. is the country that has emitted the most climate-warming emissions, contributing around 20 percent to the total between 1850 and 2021. It is followed by China at 11 percent, Russia at 7 percent, Brazil at 5 percent and Indonesia at 4 percent. The culpability of the latter two is largely because of deforestation. Former colonial and industrial powers Germany and the UK contributed 4 and 3 percent respectively, but this doesn’t include emissions from their overseas colonies. A different set of calculations found that the UK and EU were together responsible for 22 percent of emissions between 1751 and 2017, while the U.S. was responsible for a quarter.
Today, China emits the most of any nation followed by the U.S., India, the EU, Russia, Japan, Brazil, Indonesia, Iran and Canada. Together, these countries are responsible for more than two-thirds of global emissions, and the top three are responsible for 42.6 percent. In comparison, the 100 least-emitting countries only contribute a modest 2.9 percent.
Companies
Certain companies — especially fossil fuel and meat and dairy companies — contribute disproportionately to the climate crisis because their business models are bound up with either burning oil, gas or coal or clearing biodiversity for agriculture. Only 100 fossil fuel companies — including ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Chevron — have contributed 71 percent of global emissions since 1988, one study found. Not to be left out, the top five meat and dairy companies in the world have a carbon footprint equal to Exxon’s.
But the fossil fuel industry’s responsibility extends beyond its product. In recent years, evidence has emerged that most if not all of the major oil and gas companies were aware of the dangers posed by their actions in the 1970s and 80s but instead chose to fund climate denial and lobby politicians against shifting to renewable energy. Based on both their emissions and their political actions, a recent study calculated that the 21 largest fossil fuel companies owe the world at least $5.4 trillion in reparations.
Individuals
For the most part, individuals are not the driving force behind climate change. Even if you drive a gas-powered car an hour and back to work each day or heat your home with electricity from a coal-powered plant, your choices are largely shaped by the economic pressures and energy and transportation infrastructure that scaffolds your life. However, there is an exception: uber-wealthy individuals who ride in private jets and invest in polluting industries.
A 2022 study found that the wealthiest 10 percent of people on Earth were responsible for almost half of global emissions. While there is a large gap between the emissions of individuals in wealthier and poorer countries, there is now a greater gap between the emissions of wealthy and poorer individuals within the same country. The poorest 50 percent of the U.S population, for example, is actually emitting at close to the nation’s 2030 per capita emissions goal, while the richest 10 percent would need to slash their emissions by 86 percent to meet it.
Why Is the Climate Crisis a Social Justice Issue?
The disparity in responsibility for the climate crisis is why the IPCC emphasized climate justice in its most recent report. “Climate justice is crucial because those who have contributed least to climate change are being disproportionately affected,” report author Dr. Aditi Mukherji said in a statement upon its release. “Almost half of the world’s population lives in regions that are highly vulnerable to climate change. In the last decade, deaths from floods, droughts and storms were 15 times higher in highly vulnerable regions.”
What’s more, the climate crisis can exacerbate existing inequalities, making life harder for racial minorities trapped by historic redlining in urban heat islands, women in agriculture who already face pay discrimination before having to contend with climate shocks or low-income people in previously colonized countries who must now endure drought or severe storms. Responding urgently and equitably to the climate crisis is therefore essential from a social justice perspective, both to avoid the widening of existing gaps and to take the opportunity to close them as we reimagine society along more sustainable lines.
What Has Been Done About It So Far?
The international community has been talking about taking action on climate change since 1992, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted. Since then, world leaders have held 27 conferences of the parties to this convention, or COPs, at which they have made varying degrees of progress. Perhaps the most significant COP was COP 21, which met in Paris in 2015. It was here that nations negotiated the Paris Agreement to keep warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and ideally limit it to 1.5 degrees. Nations were supposed to submit voluntary nationally determined contributions (NDC) every five years to say how much they would reduce emissions, with the end goal of reaching net zero emissions by 2050.
To date, the world is not on track to honor the Paris Agreement. For one thing, there is an “implementation gap” as current policies lag behind countries’ NDCs. Policies in place as of 2020 would put the world on track for 3.2 degrees Celsius of warming, while aligning policies with pre-COP26 NDCs through 2030 would limit it to around 2.8 degrees. Since COP26, nations have come forward with more ambitious pledges and net-zero promises. Accounting for these pledges could lower warming to 2.4 to 2.6 degrees Celsius. By considering longer term or net-zero pledges, Climate Action Tracker saw a possibility for 2 degrees of warming, and an even more optimistic 1.8 degrees when including net zero promises in effect or in discussion from around 140 countries.
While existing actions and policies are not sufficient, they have already made a difference. Policies to improve energy efficiency, halt deforestation or develop renewable energy sources have likely prevented several gigatons of carbon dioxide a year from entering the atmosphere. Progress already made has rendered the worst-case emissions scenario, which assumed a 500 percent increase in coal use and projected a 6-degree-Celsius temperature rise by 2100, “exceedingly unlikely.” That said, a 3-degree warmer world would still mean the near eradication of both coral reefs and Arctic sea ice and more days in which heat and humidity would reach dangerous levels for human survival. And the latest IPCC assessment cycle found that the temperature threshold for various risks — such as extreme weather events or threatened systems — was lower than previously estimated. Honoring the Paris Agreement goal is more urgent than ever.
What Still Needs to Be Done?
Climate action falls into two broad categories: mitigation and adaptation. Mitigation means actively reducing the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere to stabilize global temperatures, while adaptation means adjusting to the changes in sea level or weather patterns that are already locked in.
Mitigation
The most important thing that can be done to stave off additional climate change is to stop burning fossil fuels as soon as possible. This means both not developing any new fossil fuel projects and even ceasing to exploit the deposits that already exist. The IPCC found that emissions from already existing fossil fuel infrastructure would gobble up the remaining carbon budget for limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, unless those emissions were somehow offset or removed from the atmosphere with still-unreliable carbon capture technology.
In order to have a 50 percent shot at the 1.5 target, greenhouse gas emissions must fall by 60 percent by 2035. This can be achieved by shifting rapidly to renewable sources of energy like wind and solar, replacing gas-fueled cars and trucks with electric vehicles and improved public transit, designing more sustainable cities, boosting the energy efficiency of buildings, decarbonizing industry, making agriculture more sustainable, protecting and restoring natural carbon sinks like forests and actively removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through carbon capture and storage.
Adaptation
Human activity has warmed the atmosphere enough that some climate impacts are already occurring and likely to continue. However, we can change how we design communities and infrastructure to make them more resilient to these changes. For example, the Billion Oyster Project in New York is restoring the city’s oyster reefs in part to protect it against storm surges and sea level rise, while the government of California is learning from the once-banned Indigenous practice of controlled burns to prevent larger fires. Farmers on the coast of Vietnam have begun keeping bees to help with mangrove restoration instead of gathering dwindling snails and crabs, while El Salvador is protecting itself from floods and landslides by restoring its surrounding forests.
When it comes to adaptation, there is still more work to be done. The 2022 UN Adaptation Gap report found that 84 percent of countries participating in the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change had some kind of adaptation plan, up 5 percent from the year before. However, funding for adaptation in the Global South is five to 10 times less than it needs to be, and the gap is widening instead of shrinking.
Political and Social Change
The climate crisis isn’t merely a technological problem caused by how we power our daily lives. It’s a political problem caused by an economic and political system that often prioritizes the short-term profits of large corporations over the long-term well-being of communities and ecosystems and considers nature as “resources” to be exploited for economic gain.
Therefore, solving the climate crisis means making fundamental changes to the way we write our laws and structure our society. This could include things like giving rights to nature, so that communities have a legal recourse to protect forests from destruction or waterways from pollution, or ideas like degrowth and doughnut economics that seek to reorganize the economy around meeting everyone’s essential needs without overtaxing our planetary support system. Many activists are calling for ideas like a Green New Deal or a just transition that would use mitigating and adapting to the climate crisis as an opportunity to address and resolve long-standing inequalities and make sure that when we transition to a new form of energy, no one is left behind.
Takeaway
The climate crisis may be the single greatest challenge humans have faced as a species. Every day seems to bring a new unprecedented weather event or another study warning about unsustainable emissions use or unavoidable climate impacts. But that doesn’t mean we should give up hope. While not everyone is equally to blame for climate change, everyone can play a role in the solution, from reducing one’s carbon footprint to experimenting with alternative, more sustainable forms of community to participating in climate activism to put pressure on world leaders or fossil fuel executives. The good news is that many climate solutions — from clean energy to urban trees — would make the world healthier, greener, more just and all around more pleasant to live in. Change is inevitable, but if we come together to stop burning fossil fuels and adapt in a way that prioritizes the most vulnerable among us, there’s still a chance that it can be change for the better.
The post Climate Crisis 101: Everything You Need to Know appeared first on EcoWatch.
https://www.ecowatch.com/climate-crisis-facts-ecowatch.html
Stewart Brand, who popularized the “blue marble” photograph that changed humanity’s perspective on the fragility of the Earth, points out that Californians and Europeans use half the energy of the typical American, without losing any quality of life. This quote comes from Whole Earth Discipline: Why Dense Cities, Nuclear Power, Transgenic Crops, Restored Wildlands, and Geoengineering Are Necessary, and Brand is also the creator of the Whole Earth Catalog.
Post and share Earth911 posters to help people think of the planet first, every day. Click the poster to get a larger image.
The post Earth911 Inspiration: Half The Energy and Doing Just Fine appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/inspire/earth911-inspiration-half-the-energy-and-doing-just-fine/
Green Living
Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Project Repat Is Saving US Jobs & T-Shirts From Landfills
Project Repat, founded by Ross Lohr and Nathan Rothstein, had prevented more than 11 million T-shirts from landfills while bringing some sewing work back to the United States when we talked with them in 2019. They’re still going strong. Tune into a classic conversation as Earth911’s Mitch Ratcliffe talks with Rothstein about the inspiration behind Project Repat and the massive changes in U.S. T-shirt manufacturing over the past 30 years. After migrating to Mexico, T-shirt printing jobs have gone overseas and few American companies still make them.
Project Repat has a better idea: turn old shirts into keepsake quilts hand-sewn using T-shirts sent by customers. Instead of tossing a T-shirt in the donation bin, it can be turned into a part of a memorable and snug quilt. Love a sports team? Make a quilt of the team T-shirts and jerseys you’ve purchased over the years. Want to remember a school or a company where you worked? In all likelihood, you have the makings of a Project Repat quilt. Reasonably priced based on the size, Project Repat takes your order and receives your shirts by mail, then turns them into fleece-backed quilt.
- Subscribe to the podcast in iTunes.
- Follow the podcast on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube.
Editor’s note: This epsiode originally aired on October 7, 2019.
The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Project Repat Is Saving US Jobs & T-Shirts From Landfills appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/podcast/earth911-podcast-october-25-2019-saving-us-jobs-and-t-shirts-from-landfills-with-project-repat/
Every wildfire starts small. The problem is that by the time most are detected, minutes have already passed and, under increasingly common conditions driven by a warming climate, a fire can grow beyond any tanker truck’s capacity to contain. The gap between ignition and coordinated response currently averages around 40 minutes. Firefighters have long understood the math: a spoonful of water in the first second, a bucket in the first minute, a truckload in the first hour. The XPRIZE Wildfire competition is an $11 million global effort to prove that autonomous systems, including AI-enabled drones, ground-based sensor networks, and space-based detection platforms, can collapse that window to 10 minutes. Our guest is Andrea Santy, who leads the program. She came to XPRIZE after nearly two decades at the World Wildlife Fund, where she watched conservation projects fall to wildfire. That experience sharpened her understanding of the stakes: wildfires are now the leading driver of deforestation globally, having surpassed agriculture. In places like the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and parts of tropical East Asia, a single fire can eliminate species found nowhere else on Earth. In cities, it can destroy entire neighborhoods in hours. On January 7, 2025, Santa Ana winds drove flames through Pacific Palisades and Altadena, destroying more than 16,000 structures, killing 30 people, displacing 180,000 residents, and generating between $76 billion and $130 billion in total economic losses from a single event. Annual U.S. wildfire costs, when healthcare, lost productivity, ecosystem damage, and rebuilding are included, are estimated between $394 billion and $893 billion. XPRIZE announced the five autonomous wildfire response finalists just over a year after the LA fires: Anduril, deploying its Lattice AI platform with autonomous fire sentry towers and Ghost X drones; Dryad, running solar-powered mesh sensor networks that detect fires at the smoldering stage; Fire Swarm Solutions, coordinating heavy-lift drone swarms that can deliver 100 gallons of water autonomously; Data Blanket, building rapidly deployable drone swarms for real-time perimeter mapping and suppression; and Wildfire Quest, a team of high school students from Valley Christian High School in San Jose who used multi-sensor triangulation to locate fires that can’t be seen from monitoring positions, solving the literal over-the-hill problem that any fire detection system faces.
The conversation covers what the finalists demonstrated during semi-final trials at 40-mile-per-hour winds, why the decoy fire requirement — distinguishing a wildfire from a barbecue, a pile burn, or a flapping tarp — is one of the hardest AI classification problems in the competition, and how autonomous systems would integrate with existing incident command structures. Santy is direct about where progress is lagging: the testing is ahead of the regulations. Autonomous drones operating beyond visual line of sight and coordinating with manned aircraft in active fire emergencies require FAA frameworks that don’t yet exist at the necessary scale. There’s also the deeper ecological tension — the growing scientific consensus that many fire-adapted landscapes need more fire, not less, and that indigenous fire stewardship practices developed over millennia have a place alongside autonomous suppression technology. One XPRIZE finalist is already working with an indigenous community in Canada to pilot their heavy-lift drone system in a remote area where that community is exploring how the technology fits their land management approach. Meanwhile, the Trump administration’s FY 2026 budget proposes eliminating Forest Service state fire capacity grants, cutting vegetation and watershed management programs by 30%, and zeroing out $300 million in forest research funding — maintaining suppression spending while gutting the prevention and detection infrastructure that could reduce what there is to suppress. The engineering, Santy says, has arrived. Whether the institutions can move at the speed the crisis demands is the harder question.
You can learn more about XPRIZE Wildfire and follow the finalists at xprize.org/competitions/wildfire.
- Subscribe to Sustainability In Your Ear on iTunes
- Follow Sustainability In Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube
Interview Transcript
Mitch Ratcliffe 0:09
Hello, good morning, good afternoon, or good evening, wherever you are on this beautiful planet of ours. Welcome to Sustainability In Your Ear. This is the podcast conversation about accelerating the transition to a sustainable, carbon-neutral society, and I’m your host, Mitch Ratcliffe. Thanks for joining the conversation today.
Fire season is coming, and we’re going to dig into how new technology may catch and contain fires in the first few minutes after ignition. There’s a saying among firefighters: you can fight fire in the first second with a spoonful of water, in the first minute with a bucket of water, and in the first hour with a truckload of water. The problem is that by the time most wildfires are detected, minutes have already passed, and in those minutes, under increasingly common conditions, a fire can grow beyond any tanker truck’s capacity.
On January 7, 2025, hurricane-force Santa Ana winds drove flames through Pacific Palisades and Altadena in Los Angeles, and in a matter of hours, more than 16,000 structures were destroyed. Thirty people were killed, and 180,000 residents were forced to flee. The total economic losses are estimated to be between $76 billion and $130 billion from a single fire event. And that was just one week in one city. In 2025, the U.S. recorded more than 61,500 wildfires that burned nearly 5 million acres, leading to annual U.S. wildfire costs of between $394 billion and $893 billion when you factor in the cost of healthcare, lost productivity, ecosystem damage, and the expensive task of rebuilding entire cities.
So there’s an identifiable gap in the current best practices, which take roughly 40 minutes from ignition to deliver a coordinated response. What if you could cut that to 10 minutes, when only a few buckets of water could extinguish a threat? And what if autonomous systems — AI-enabled drones and ground-based sensor networks — could detect a fire, distinguish it from a prescribed burn, and suppress it before getting a human on the radio?
That’s the challenge behind the XPRIZE Wildfire program, an $11 million global competition now entering its final year, and our guest today is Andrea Santy, the program director leading it. Andrea came to XPRIZE after nearly two decades at the World Wildlife Fund, and before that she spent time at the Smithsonian Institution, leading conservation and academic programs.
On January 29 — just after the one-year anniversary of those LA fires — XPRIZE announced the five finalist teams advancing in the autonomous wildfire response track of the competition. They include:
Andruil, a defense technology company deploying a Lattice AI platform with autonomous fire sentry towers and Ghost X drones that watch for fires at the moment they break out;
Dryad, a German company running solar-powered sensor networks that detect fires at the smoldering stage;
Fire Swarm Solutions, a Canadian team coordinating heavy-lift drone swarms that can carry 100 gallons of water autonomously to the point where a fire begins;
Data Blanket, building a rapidly deployable drone swarm system for real-time perimeter mapping and suppression; and
Wildfire Quest, a team of high school students from Valley Christian High School in San Jose who partnered with two aerospace companies to use multi-sensor triangulation to locate fires that cannot be seen from monitoring locations — because, after all, a lot of fires happen just over the hill.
A separate track of the competition, the space-based wildfire detection and intelligence program, includes 10 finalists from six countries who are heading to Australia in April for their own finals. Those teams will have one minute to detect all fires across an area larger than a state, and 10 minutes to deliver precise reports to firefighting decision-makers on the ground.
We’re going to talk with Andrea about what the finalists demonstrated during live trials, why the decoy fire requirement is one of the hardest AI classification problems in the competition, and how these autonomous systems would actually integrate with existing wildfire incident command structures. We’ll also dig into the tension between suppression technology and the growing scientific consensus that many landscapes need more fire, not less, and whether indigenous fire stewardship practices have a place in this conversation.
You can learn more about XPRIZE Wildfire at xprize.org/competitions/wildfire. Can autonomous drones and AI-driven sensor networks actually detect and suppress a wildfire in less than 10 minutes? Let’s find out right after this brief commercial break.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Welcome to the show, Andrea. How are you doing today?
Andrea Santy 5:34
I’m doing great, Mitch. Thanks for having me.
Mitch Ratcliffe 5:34
Well, thanks for joining me. We’ve had XPRIZE leaders on the show a number of times, and you do such interesting work. You announced the finalists just at one year after the catastrophe in LA. How did that reshape the urgency and direction for the XPRIZE Wildfire competition?
Andrea Santy 5:34
It definitely focuses a more intense light on the competition and the need for these solutions. Climate change is driving more intense, more frequent wildfires all around the world, and so I think the urgency was already there. But when you have a disaster at the scale and scope of the LA fires, it absolutely changes the way that everybody thinks about wildfires.
Mitch Ratcliffe 6:04
What’s the realistic timeline for these technologies in the competition to potentially start changing the way that we fight fire and the outcomes of those fires?
Andrea Santy 6:14
So I’ll start by saying we were in LA when the fires started. XPRIZE has a lot of LA-based staff, and we’re originally LA-based, and we were having our staff meeting — so our entire staff was there. We knew from our prize that it was going to be very high risk, and so we were in touch with fire chiefs as the fires were starting. We were able to go out and see where the fires had gone through the Palisades and part of the city — basically 24 hours after it had happened.
It really, I will just say, definitely had a huge impact in terms of being able to see a landscape, communities, homes, schools, and businesses that had been devastated. A lot of the technology being integrated with these solutions can be deployed almost immediately. I think that as the fire agencies begin to get their hands on more of this technology, we’re going to have a hopefully relatively quick uptake. Cameras, sensors, satellite data — a lot of this is already being deployed. So we’re looking at how quickly and under what conditions it can help improve our detection. And then we have other components that I would say are going to have a longer timeline to full deployment.
Mitch Ratcliffe 7:56
It sounds like part of the problem, then, is just knitting all this together. Does that also apply to areas outside of major cities? Do we have the resources to do this on a nationwide basis?
Andrea Santy 8:10
Yeah, absolutely. We’re doing our testing for our space-based competition in Australia, so we’re looking at how you detect fires over vast areas from satellites as quickly as possible and deliver that information down within 10 minutes, with 15-minute updates. For our autonomous track, we’re testing in Alaska — so it will definitely be a real-world scenario where we can understand the capabilities of these technologies in forested areas, in really vast terrain, and under different environmental conditions. Part of why we’re working with these partners is because they’re great partners, but it also allows us to validate this technology under real-world, challenging conditions.
Mitch Ratcliffe 9:03
So how does the wildfire strategy change when this technology is in place? You’ve already mentioned that the climate crisis is accelerating the size and pace of these fires. Is the goal to suppress more fires earlier so that available resources can be deployed to those that actually break out? What’s the big-picture change in policy here?
Andrea Santy 9:26
XPRIZE really decided to double down on early detection and autonomous response, and we have two tracks. I’ll talk about the detection piece first because it’s digestible for everyone. Every wildfire starts small. They don’t start as a huge catastrophe — they start small, often in pretty remote areas. Sometimes they burn really fast, sometimes slower, depending on the conditions. But if you can address a wildfire at its very smallest phase, essentially post-ignition, that gives you the best chance to address it — either through autonomous suppression systems or through your fire service. If you have more eyes, ears, and noses on the landscape, the better your chance of getting that alert as soon as possible, which allows the fire service to decide how to prioritize their resources.
The second component we’re advancing is autonomous detection and response. Sensors and cameras handle the detection; the autonomous response system deploys, verifies there is a fire — that it’s not a barbecue but an actual wildfire that needs suppression — and places suppressant fully autonomously. That’s what we’re going to be testing in Alaska: can they execute this full end-to-end system? Is the technology integrated? Will it reach the scale and scope of the challenge and the geography? Because 1,000 square kilometers — which is our testing area — is roughly the size of San Antonio, Texas. The teams will have to find multiple fires and demonstrate persistent monitoring and persistent response. Imagine having a fire starting in a ravine: if you can get something out there in minutes, your chance of knocking it down — even just deterring the spread enough that firefighters can arrive — we hope will be a game changer.
Mitch Ratcliffe 12:13
We’re talking about autonomous drones. But one of the things that happened in the LA wildfire was that Santa Ana winds were so extreme, fixed-wing aircraft couldn’t fly. Can a drone perform in those conditions?
Andrea Santy 12:27
During our semi-final testing, our team traveled the world to observe these solutions in action. While not at scale, each of the five finalists was able to demonstrate that they could detect a fire, navigate to it, and suppress it fully autonomously over a small area. Coincidentally, relatively strong winds followed us — nothing like the Santa Ana winds, but we had 40-mile-per-hour winds pretty consistently during testing. It was odd, but it was helpful in terms of validating the technology.
Because you don’t have a human pilot, it’s not that helicopters and planes can’t fly — it’s that they can’t fly in that type of wind without putting a human at risk. This approach removes at least that human element. It’s going to continue to be a challenge, but many of the drones have a relatively high wind tolerance, and as the technology improves, the systems themselves are providing the input to stay balanced.
Mitch Ratcliffe 13:54
These systems are also being combined with sensor networks. Can you talk about how those are being deployed?
Andrea Santy 14:01
Some teams are really focused on ultra-early detection by deploying a sensor network — many, many sensors connected through a mesh network — allowing small, distributed sensors across a large area, which gives you great coverage. All of the different teams are competing under the same scenario, so we’ll get to see which technologies work under which conditions. There’s no single silver bullet that works in every condition, every geography, and every forest type. We’re also working on a pilot phase post-competition so the teams can continue to test and deploy, gaining even better understanding. Building trust with fire agencies — so they know what the technology can do under critical situations — is really important.
Mitch Ratcliffe 15:24
Do the fire agencies participate in these trials as well?
Andrea Santy 15:28
Absolutely. We have partners from different fire agencies in Australia — we’re doing our testing with the Rural Fire Service of New South Wales, which is a testing partner. Many of our judges come from different fire agencies across the United States and around the world. From the beginning, that was really an ethos we set forward — making sure this was done hand in hand with the fire agencies.
Mitch Ratcliffe 15:59
You’ve mentioned decoy fires. I’m curious how the trials will incorporate them. You mentioned barbecues — are you going to have people setting up small fires to lure the competition’s sensors?
Andrea Santy 16:11
I can’t say too much because testing hasn’t happened — I can’t give away the secret sauce. But yes — the teams do know they will have decoys and will need to ensure their technology ignores them. It can be anything from something flapping in the wind that resembles the color of fire all the way to barbecues or pile burns — anything that would confuse the technology.
Mitch Ratcliffe 16:52
And that could happen any day of the year. Really interesting. One of the most compelling things about the competition is the breadth of sources of ideas and the range of approaches — including even a high school team from Valley Christian High School in San Jose. What does that diversity tell us about where wildfire innovation will actually come from?
Andrea Santy 17:15
At XPRIZE, we believe that ideas can come from anyone, anywhere, and I think XPRIZE Wildfire really demonstrates what that looks like. We had teams from over 55 different countries enter the competition. We currently have six countries represented through our finals teams, and the range spans from Valley Christian — a high school team — through universities, startups, and all the way up to major industry. That truly spans the whole spectrum.
What I really love about our competition is that for many of the teams, this is both a company and a passion. Wildfires happen in so many places, and so many teams have been personally impacted. The high school team talked about growing up in areas where wildfires are a constant presence — they are very cognizant of the need for these solutions. Something remarkable: one in six Americans live in an area of wildfire risk, and 25% of Californians.
Mitch Ratcliffe 18:57
It’s a very tangible problem for so many of us, particularly in the West. And the smoke from fires in Canada is now familiar on the East Coast — it’s changed the very shape of life. This is a great place to take a quick commercial break. We’ll be right back.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. Let’s return to my discussion with Andrea Santy. She is Program Director of XPRIZE Wildfire — a competition headed into its final year with two groups of finalists vying to win shares of an $11 million prize to help commercialize their technologies.
Andrea, the autonomous competition requires teams to detect and suppress a high-risk wildfire in a 1,000-square-kilometer area — roughly the size of San Antonio — and do it within 10 minutes, while ignoring decoy fires. That’s four times faster than current best practices. Have any of the teams met that benchmark yet in the trials?
Andrea Santy 19:57
As I mentioned, the five teams advancing to finals all demonstrated they have end-to-end solutions to autonomously detect, navigate, and suppress a fire. Our semi-final testing was at a much smaller scale, and while some teams did it in less than 10 minutes, this finals competition is at a very large scale — and it is going to be challenging. Every XPRIZE is very audacious. We really want to push the limits, but we’re very confident we’re going to have a team that can do it. Still to be seen, but that is what finals is for.
Mitch Ratcliffe 20:42
Absolutely. It’s great that we’re testing in such diverse settings. Australia and Alaska seem very different. Is that actually the case, or are wildfire conditions globally roughly the same?
Andrea Santy 20:59
Very different. In Alaska, it will be wildfire season, and we’re testing in an area of much lower risk. The vegetation is different. The geography is different. The fuels — the plants and trees — are different. In Australia, the teams will be arriving as it comes out of summer and goes into fall, which means we don’t actually know exactly which specific days we’ll test, because the Rural Fire Service has to execute prescribed burns when it’s safe. We have a two-week testing window, with five planned days of testing, and approximately 20 fires of varying sizes that the teams will need to identify under different conditions and vegetation types.
Mitch Ratcliffe 22:11
Let’s talk a bit about the space-based prize. Lockheed Martin is adding a million dollars for the teams that can demonstrate the fastest and most accurate detection. Is detection turning out to be the harder technical problem — or is it the transition from detection to action, that coordination piece we talked about?
Andrea Santy 22:40
Lockheed Martin is supporting the autonomous wildfire response track — which we call Track B. The autonomous track requires teams to detect, navigate, and suppress, with all teams using drones. There’s a lot of different detection technology, from sensors that detect particulates up to cameras, and sensors and cameras mounted on drones.
Getting that detection into these autonomous response systems is really the step change — having something that communicates without human intervention, with drones that can fly under wind conditions and navigate to the right location, confirm there’s a fire, and then suppress it accurately. The teams will be testing on a moving fire — not a barrel of fire, but an actual fire that will be dynamic and small-scale but moving. That’s really challenging and requires quite a bit of system training. During semi-finals, accurately hitting the target was one of the harder challenges.
Mitch Ratcliffe 24:43
As you talk about it, it sounds like the transition from detection to addressing the fire appropriately — choosing the right suppression mechanism — is something you’ll continue to work on.
Andrea Santy 24:58
The teams are definitely still working on their systems. They have until June to have all of their systems working. Yeah, it requires a lot of different components.
Mitch Ratcliffe 25:20
And obviously that’s part of the bigger challenge — coordinating technological responses to a changing climate and acute situations like fire. As you observe the environment with these systems, are we also potentially identifying opportunities for prescribed burns in order to reduce fire risk?
Andrea Santy 25:45
Absolutely. While our competition is focused on detection and response to incipient-stage wildfires, I do think this technology can be utilized across many different scenarios — including prescribed burns, where you want to monitor large burn areas to ensure nothing escapes. That is definitely a use case, and anything that reduces our risk. Personally, I think it could provide peace of mind: if you have something on hand that can prevent a prescribed fire from spreading when weather conditions change unexpectedly, that’s enormously valuable.
Mitch Ratcliffe 26:43
Indigenous communities have managed fire for millennia using these kinds of burning practices. Have you engaged with tribal fire practitioners? Do they see autonomous technology as complementary to, or in tension with, their traditional fire stewardship programs?
Andrea Santy 27:02
We have engaged with some. I was just at a meeting where I was able to meet with a representative from an indigenous community in Canada, and they are actually going to pilot-test one of the team’s technologies — specifically a team with a heavy-lift drone. It was really exciting to talk with them and learn more about how they envision it being used. Their community is quite remote, and understanding how this technology could work within their context was a great conversation.
Mitch Ratcliffe 27:41
When I think about the swarm of drones approach to fire management, the regulatory landscape seems like a significant challenge. The FAA has been grappling with drone airspace management. Does the regulatory framework need to change significantly to accommodate these systems?
Andrea Santy 28:06
That’s an excellent question. Current regulations and protocol don’t allow drones in airspace with manned aircraft. As the technology gets better, there are definitely ways this can happen — there are pilots and tests already occurring with other partners looking at shared airspace for heavy-lift drones operating at higher altitudes. Beyond visual line of sight is one area where the testing is definitely ahead of where the regulations are.
Mitch Ratcliffe 28:55
What has your conservation career taught you about how technology deployment can shape our relationship with nature?
Andrea Santy 29:07
I got into this position in part because many of the projects I was working on at the World Wildlife Fund were being lost to wildfire, and I felt we hadn’t really understood the impact of wildfires on conservation. Wildfires are now the main driver of deforestation globally, having surpassed agriculture. In places like the Amazon, the Congo, and parts of tropical East Asia, there’s such critical biodiversity — and I think if we can use technology to monitor these areas, understand where fires are happening, and deploy appropriate responses, my hope is that we can save really, really important places. There are endemic species that only live in very, very small areas, and one fire could wipe out an entire species.
I also worked for a long time on projects where your goal was 20 to 50 years away. Being able to work with XPRIZE, where in three years we’ve seen an absolute transformation in both what the technology can do and how people understand what technology is for — I think we need more of these competitions, more technology applied to conservation problems. I’m really hopeful.
Mitch Ratcliffe 31:23
After three years with XPRIZE Wildfire, do you feel like we can turn back the rising incidence of wildfire and all the costs we’re seeing pile up when cities burn?
Andrea Santy 31:35
I think so. Communities and citizens around the world are understanding the problem at a deeper level. This is going to be all hands on deck. You need citizens and homeowners making sure they have zone zero — no vegetation around their homes. You need communities, city and state incentives, industry engagement. You need prescribed fire and better forest management policies that allow good fire on the landscape, and communities that encourage it. All of these factors together are what will get us to a new paradigm.
Mitch Ratcliffe 32:29
You mentioned raising awareness — this competition actually sounds like really good TV. Have you thought about how to tell this story of wildfire innovation so that people can get engaged with and behind this kind of activity?
Andrea Santy 32:49
We’ve discussed at length how we would be able to document some of the testing. For the autonomous wildfire response, it is a very big, vast area, and turning it into good TV is probably a step beyond us — but I think the teams have amazing stories to tell. We’re going to capture a lot of imagery to share that story out. We have a resource page that provides a lot of different information to homeowners and individuals about other really amazing organizations doing great work in the wildfire space.
Mitch Ratcliffe 33:47
How can our listeners follow along as you complete the project?
Andrea Santy 33:51
We’d love to have them follow along. The easiest way is xprize.org/wildfire — we have lots of information about the competition and the teams, lookbooks to learn about which teams are competing, social media updates, and a newsletter you can subscribe to. During the testing events we’ll be sharing quite a bit of good information. The events are in fairly remote, closed-system locations, so we can’t invite everyone there — but we’ll definitely be exploring how to make sure as many people as possible can get their eyes on what we’re doing.
Mitch Ratcliffe 34:42
Andrea, thank you very much for spending time with us today. It’s been a really interesting conversation.
Andrea Santy 34:48
Thank you so much. We hope all your listeners think deeply about wildfire and what they can do. Our goal is that collectively we can all work together to reduce this wildfire risk and keep good fire on the landscape.
[COMMERCIAL BREAK]
Mitch Ratcliffe 35:11
Welcome back to Sustainability In Your Ear. You’ve been listening to my conversation with Andrea Santy, Program Director of XPRIZE Wildfire, an $11 million global competition now in its final year. Learn more and follow the finalists at xprize.org/competitions/wildfire.
This conversation revealed, at least for me, that solutions to wildfire are arriving — but perhaps faster than the systems built to receive them can accept and use them. We’ll need more public funding to deploy these technologies, and right now we’re moving in the wrong direction. As wildfire damage grows, total federal wildfire spending is holding roughly flat at around $7 billion a year. However, the Trump administration’s FY 2026 budget proposes eliminating the Forest Service’s state fire capacity grants, cutting vegetation and watershed management programs by 30%, and zeroing out the $300 million in forest research funding that was in the budget previously. So we’re maintaining the suppression budget while cutting the prevention, detection, and research infrastructure that could reduce what we have to suppress.
Fortunately, we have XPRIZE Wildfire to take on some of the burden — but it’s not enough. Consider what Andrea said about early detection: every wildfire does start small. If autonomous systems can get suppressant on a fire quickly enough, it might not even need to be fully extinguished — just deterred enough that firefighters can arrive to finish the job. The technology to do that end-to-end and autonomously is already being demonstrated in the field. But Andrea was equally direct about what’s lagging: the testing is ahead of where the regulations are.
Consider autonomous drones operating beyond visual line of sight and coordinating with manned aircraft during active fire emergencies. For that to work, the FAA’s frameworks for widespread drone operations need to be reinvented. The recent closure of El Paso International Airport over nearby counter-drone laser testing is evidence of how unprepared we truly are for the innovations that are coming.
In short, the engineering has arrived, but institutions need support to integrate that engineering into their operations. A similar gap is evident in who’s doing the innovating: teams from over 55 countries entered this competition, and a high school team from San Jose made the finals by solving the problem of locating fires beyond ridgelines using multi-sensor triangulation — not because they had institutional backing, but because they had access to a well-defined problem and the drive to solve it, along with the incentive of XPRIZE’s $11 million award.
The XPRIZE premise that ideas can come from anyone, anywhere — it turns out — is literally true. But recognizing that changes nothing if the regulatory, procurement, and deployment systems still favor incumbents and slow-moving approval processes.
Underlying all these challenges is what Andrea brought to this work from nearly two decades at the World Wildlife Fund: wildfires are now the leading driver of deforestation globally, having surpassed agriculture. The game has changed, but policy is still anchored in now-outdated 20th-century strategies. One fire in the wrong place can drive a species to extinction, or it can burn a city to the ground.
Andrea said she’s hopeful — not because the problem is easy, but because in three years she’s watched a transformation in what technology can do and how people understand what technology is for. That hope is well earned. But it will only translate into outcomes if institutions move at the speed the crisis demands — citizens, homeowners, communities, industries, and policy, all moving together. The competition creates urgency; the systems around it need to act on and use the innovations being delivered.
So stay tuned for more conversations with people actually making sustainability happen, and I hope you’ll check out our archive of more than 540 episodes. There’s something worth sharing with anyone you know. Writing a review on your favorite podcast platform will help your neighbors find us — because, folks, you are the amplifiers that spread ideas to create less waste. Please tell your friends, your family, your co-workers, and the people you meet on the street that they can find Sustainability In Your Ear on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible, or wherever they get their podcast goodness.
Thank you for your support. I’m Mitch Ratcliffe. This is Sustainability In Your Ear, and we will be back with another innovator interview soon. In the meantime, folks — take care of yourself, take care of one another, and let’s all take care of this beautiful planet of ours. Have a green day.
The post Sustainability In Your Ear: The XPRIZE Wildfire Competition Heats Up appeared first on Earth911.
https://earth911.com/podcast/sustainability-in-your-ear-the-xprize-wildfire-competition-heats-up/
-
Greenhouse Gases7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change7 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿：满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits
-
Renewable Energy5 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?