Connect with us

Published

on

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.

Andrea Santy, program director of XPRIZE Wildfire, is our guest on Sustainability In Your Ear.

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.

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/

Continue Reading

Green Living

Earth911 Inspiration: What Provides Survives — Simon M. Lamb

Published

on

Today’s quote is from writer, businessman, and conservationist Simon M. Lamb. In his book, Junglenomics: Nature’s Solutions to the World Environment Crisis, he suggests that nature provides solutions to help us reform our environmentally destructive economic practices.

Lamb writes, “As in nature, so in economics — what provides survives.”

Earth911 inspirations. Post them, share your desire to help people think of the planet first, every day. Click the poster to get a larger image.

"As in nature, so in economics -- what provides, survives." --Simon M. Lamb

Editor’s Note: This poster was originally published on March 27, 2020.

The post Earth911 Inspiration: What Provides Survives — Simon M. Lamb appeared first on Earth911.

https://earth911.com/inspire/earth911-inspiration-what-provides-survives-simon-m-lamb/

Continue Reading

Green Living

Stop the Summer Reading Slide With Eco-Themed Kids’ Books

Published

on

Summer is a time for playing outside and enjoying the environment. At least one study has shown that playing outside as a child is an important predictor of protecting the environment as an adult. But parents need to ensure kids keep up their reading skills, which often slide over the summer.

These books with environmental themes, sorted by reading level, will improve both your kids’ literacy and their environmental awareness. We suggest reading them in a treehouse or on a picnic blanket in the sun.

Earth911 teams up with affiliate marketing partners to help fund our Recycling Directory. If you purchase an item through one of the affiliate links in this post, we will receive a small commission.

Picture Books

A Leaf Can Be …

by Laura Purdie Salas

A leaf can be a … shade spiller, mouth filler, tree topper, rain stopper. Find out about the many roles leaves play in this poetic exploration of leaves throughout the year. Pair it with the companion volumes A Rock Can Be … and Water Can Be … for a full nature-cycle set.

The Tantrum That Saved the World

by Megan Herbert and Michael E. Mann

A little girl inherits a huge problem she didn’t ask for — and then channels strong emotions into positive action. Co-written by climate scientist Michael E. Mann, the second half explains the science of climate change in age-appropriate language and closes with a kid-friendly action plan.

Seeds of Change: Wangari’s Gift to the World

by Jen Cullerton Johnson

It’s never too early for children to see examples of strong women who make the world a better place. This picture-book biography of Nobel Peace Prize winner Wangari Maathai illustrates the often-overlooked intersection between ecology and justice, which makes this example even better.

We Are Water Protectors

by Carole Lindstrom, illustrated by Michaela Goade

New to this list. Winner of the 2021 Caldecott Medal, the first awarded to a Native American illustrator, this lyrical, gorgeously painted book follows an Ojibwe girl who rallies her community to defend the water against a “black snake” pipeline. It introduces the youngest readers to Indigenous environmental stewardship and the idea that water is life.

Books for Younger Middle Grade

The Magic School Bus and the Climate Challenge

by Joanna Cole

Trust the beloved kids’ science series Magic School Bus to explain the facts of global warming in ways kids understand, and to give them ideas about how they can help. Ms. Frizzle takes the class from the Arctic to the equator to see the signs of a warming planet firsthand.

The Last Bear

by Hannah Gold

New to this list. There are no polar bears left on Bear Island, or so April’s father tells her when his research takes them to a remote Arctic outpost. Then April spots one: hungry, lonely, and far from home. Hannah Gold’s award-winning debut (a Waterstones Children’s Book Prize and Blue Peter Book Award winner) pairs a tender friendship story with a clear-eyed look at melting sea ice, illustrated throughout by Levi Pinfold.

Operation Redwood

by S. Terrell French

The environmental movement is too often associated with white people. In Operation Redwood, a biracial boy challenges his rich relatives to look past the profit motive and protect an old-growth redwood grove on property they own.

Books for Middle-Grade Tweens

Two Degrees

by Alan Gratz

New to this list. From the #1 New York Times bestselling author of Refugee, this fast-moving novel braids together three kids facing three climate disasters — a California wildfire, stranded polar bears in Manitoba, and a Florida hurricane — into one connected story. It won the 2023 Green Earth Young Adult Book Award and reads like a thriller, which makes it a strong pick for reluctant readers.

Gorilla Dawn

by Gill Lewis

Two children living in the Congo’s war zone risk everything to protect a captured baby gorilla from a life in captivity. Although not graphic, this book is intense. It addresses the impact of violence on children and wildlife and reveals the connection between the rare-earth minerals in consumer electronics and devastating destruction in Africa.

Squirm

by Carl Hiaasen

While not as overtly environmentalist as the well-known Hoot, Hiaasen’s eco-adventure features tween protagonists who care about animals and appreciate the natural world more than the adults around them — here, a Florida kid who heads to Montana to find his father and ends up tangling with poachers, a spy drone, and a grizzly. His characteristic irreverent humor is on full display.

The Last Wild

by Piers Torday

A boy who can talk to animals — but not people — fights against extinction in a world where a virus has wiped out nearly all wildlife. The first book in a gripping trilogy, it’s a natural conversation-starter about biodiversity loss and what a landscape looks like once the wild things are gone.

The Casket of Time

by Andri Snær Magnason

From poetry to nonfiction, books by Icelandic author Andri Snær Magnason are unified by environmental concern. Now available in English, his 2013 novel for tweens and teens, The Casket of Time, tells the story of Sigrun, a teenager whose TimeBox® opens too early. Her family entered the TimeBoxes to sleep out “the situation,” but now she finds herself among the few who are left awake to fix the world. Younger readers will enjoy his first children’s book, The Story of the Blue Planet.

Make the Most of Summer Reading

A few simple habits help these books do double duty — building reading stamina and environmental awareness at the same time:

  1. Read outside. Pairing a nature story with time in a backyard, park, or trail reinforces the connection the research points to between outdoor play and lifelong environmental care.
  2. Borrow before you buy. Most of these titles are available through your local library or its e-book app, which keeps reading low-cost and low-waste. Buy the keepers your kids want to read again.
  3. Talk about the action steps. Several of these books — The Tantrum That Saved the World, Two Degrees, Old Enough-style activist stories — end with concrete things kids can do. Pick one and try it together.
  4. Pass them on. When your family outgrows a book, donate it to a school, Little Free Library, or shelter so it keeps circulating instead of heading to the recycling bin.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by Gemma Alexander on May 10, 2019, and was most recently updated with new titles in June 2026.

The post Stop the Summer Reading Slide With Eco-Themed Kids’ Books appeared first on Earth911.

https://earth911.com/inspire/eco-themed-kids-books/

Continue Reading

Green Living

How Clean Is Your Toothpaste?

Published

on

In 2025, independent lab testing found that roughly 90% of the toothpastes it examined contained detectable lead. The brands implicated were not fringe products, including household names like Crest, Colgate, Sensodyne, and Tom’s of Maine, along with dozens of formulas marketed for children and many sold as “natural” or “green.”

That headline rattled a lot of medicine cabinets, and it deserves a careful look rather than a panic. Toothpaste is, after all, a cleaner we put in our mouths twice a day for a lifetime. Knowing what’s in it, what the science says about the risk, and which ingredients raise legitimate environmental and health questions is worth a few minutes. Here’s where the evidence stands now.

Toothpaste, a History

The history of oral hygiene dates back nearly 7,000 years to an abrasive powder made from materials like eggshells, pumice stone, or ox hoof ashes. Egyptians would wet the powder and rub it on their teeth. Later the Romans and Chinese sought to improve the flavor of their abrasive powders with herbal ingredients like mint and ginseng. Not much changed until the 1800s, when inventors added soap and chalk to the powder.

The first toothpaste tube, which was made of lead, was introduced in the 1890s. (Yes, lead has a long and unfortunate history with this product.) It was the first of many changes that followed in the 20th century, as a host of new chemicals both increased the effectiveness and the environmental and health risks of toothpaste. In 1955, Procter and Gamble released the first stannous fluoride cavity-preventing toothpaste. Fluoride remains the most common active ingredient in toothpaste today.

Personal care products of all kinds were largely homemade until the last century, and that is still an option today. You can make your own toothpaste and mouthwash at home using simple ingredients you already have in your kitchen. Talk to your dentist before giving up fluoride, though, which is proven to deter cavities.

toothpaste on toothbrush on sink
Are there troublesome ingredients in your favorite brand of toothpaste?

The Heavy Metals Question

The 2025 lead findings came from Lead Safe Mama, a consumer-advocacy operation run by lead-poisoning-prevention activist Tamara Rubin. Its program crowdfunds samples and sends them to an independent, third-party lab. Across roughly 51 toothpastes and a few tooth powders, about 90% tested positive for lead, 65% for arsenic, just under half for mercury, and about a third for cadmium. All four are toxic; lead and arsenic are particularly concerning for children’s developing brains.

That sounds alarming, and the contamination is real. But context matters enormously here.

Where the metals come from

The contamination appears to be unintentional, traced to naturally sourced ingredients that carry trace metals when they aren’t purified: hydroxyapatite (often derived from animal bone or mineral sources), calcium carbonate (an abrasive), and especially bentonite clay, a natural “detoxifying” ingredient that was a recurring culprit in the highest-contamination products.

Rubin’s ingredient testing found the raw materials themselves were contaminated, which points to a supply-chain and sourcing problem rather than one or more bad actors.

The regulatory gap

None of the tested products exceeded the FDA’s federal limit for lead in toothpaste, which is 10,000 parts per billion (ppb) for fluoride-free pastes and 20,000 ppb for fluoride pastes. However, those thresholds are substantially higher than the limits set for food. By comparison, California caps lead in baby food at 6 ppb, and the proposed federal Baby Food Safety Act would set 10 ppb, neither of which covers toothpaste. Most tested pastes cleared the baby-food bar by a wide margin but sit far below the cosmetic ceiling.

Washington State has moved to close part of that gap. Its Toxic-Free Cosmetics Act set a 1,000 ppb lead limit for cosmetics, including toothpaste. A handful of products in the testing exceeded it, with the worst offender, a brand called Primal, containing 7,800 ppb. Companies have been given time to come into compliance.

What an independent risk assessment found

After the headlines, toxicologists reviewed the Lead Safe Mama results. A peer-reviewed screening-level risk assessment published in Public Health Toxicology in 2025 used Lead Safe Mama’s own data and deliberately conservative assumptions, including the worst-case scenario that a child swallows a full smear of toothpaste at every brushing. The conclusion: for cadmium and mercury, exposures fell below health-guidance values across the board. For lead and arsenic, on the other hand, a handful of products exceeded the most protective guidance levels under heavy-use scenarios, but the doses were still several times to several orders of magnitude lower than what children and adults already get from food, household dust, and soil.

The researchers’ assessment concluded that the heavy metals detected “are not anticipated to increase health risk” through typical use, and that a normal pea-sized amount is safe. That doesn’t make the contamination acceptable; no level of lead exposure is considered safe, and unnecessary exposure is still worth avoiding. But it reframes the story from “your toothpaste is poisoning you” to “your toothpaste is one more avoidable trace source in a world that has too many.”

A small set of products came back as free of all four metals, proving cleaner sourcing is achievable. They included Dr. Brown’s Baby Toothpaste, Spry Kids’ tooth gel, Orajel Training Toothpaste, and Miessence. (Earth911 will receive a small fee if you make a purchase through these links.) As of mid-2025, Lead Safe Mama listed seven products meeting its non-detect threshold.

Other Ingredients Worth Watching

Heavy metals aren’t the only thing in the tube that draws scrutiny. A few others come up repeatedly:

  • Titanium dioxide. This white pigment (listed as CI 77891) does nothing for your teeth; it’s purely cosmetic, there to make the paste look bright white. The EU banned it as a food additive in 2022 over genotoxicity concerns, and the EU’s Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety has said a mutagenic effect from oral cosmetic use can’t be ruled out. It remains legal in toothpaste in both the EU and the US, and the FDA still permits it, but many manufacturers are dropping it voluntarily. Since it has no functional benefit, it’s an easy one to skip.
  • Sulfates (SLS). Sodium lauryl sulfate, the foaming agent, is not linked to cancer despite a persistent internet rumor. It can be a skin and tissue irritant for sensitive people and has been associated with canker sores. SLS-free options are widely available if you’re prone to either.
  • The sodium pyrophosphate used to prevent tartar can pass through wastewater treatment and feed algal blooms and create dead zones in waterways. Phosphates aren’t in every paste, and some mainstream brands offer phosphate-free formulas.

The Fluoride Debate Got Louder

Fluoride remains the most studied and most effective cavity-preventing ingredient in toothpaste, and major dental and pediatric organizations continue to recommend it. But the politics around it shifted sharply in 2025.

In May 2025, the FDA began action to pull ingestible fluoride supplements (drops and tablets that are swallowed) for children off the market, citing concerns about the gut microbiome and finalizing the move that October. It’s important to read what that action covers: the FDA explicitly distinguished swallowed supplements from topical fluoride in toothpaste and rinses, which you spit out and which it did not move against. The American Academy of Pediatrics and American Dental Association both pushed back hard, warning the broader anti-fluoride momentum could drive up tooth decay.

The underlying science is genuinely unsettled at the edges. A 2025 JAMA Pediatrics meta-analysis found an inverse association between fluoride exposure and children’s IQ, but mostly at exposure levels well above US water-fluoridation concentrations, with the dose-response uncertain at lower levels. The takeaway for toothpaste users is narrow: spitting out a topical fluoride paste is a different exposure than swallowing a concentrated supplement, and the evidence against topical use remains thin. If your water is already fluoridated and you’d rather avoid it, that’s a reasonable personal choice, and there’s now a better-supported alternative than there used to be.

Hydroxyapatite: The Fluoride Alternative That’s Earning Its Claims

Nano-hydroxyapatite is a synthetic version of the mineral that makes up tooth enamel, and has moved from niche fluoride alternative to credible option. A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis in the Journal of Dentistry concluded that hydroxyapatite toothpaste can be an effective alternative to fluoride for preventing caries progression and remineralizing early lesions, with the added pitch of strong biocompatibility. A 2025 narrative review of recent clinical trials reached a similar conclusion, calling it a safe and effective option, especially for children or anyone at risk of fluoride overexposure, with possible added benefits for tooth sensitivity.

While the data is piling up fast, research on hydroxyapatite is earlier and thinner than fluoride’s decades of data, and some trials are industry-funded. Second — and this is the irony — hydroxyapatite is one of the ingredients flagged as a potential heavy-metals vector when it’s not well purified. The lesson isn’t to avoid it; it’s to favor brands that publish third-party purity testing.

Animal Welfare

It may surprise you that some toothpastes contain animal products. Propolis is sourced from bees. Unless specified otherwise, calcium phosphate and glycerin can be derived from animal bone and fat. If you’d rather not brush with animal byproducts, look for vegan-certified products.

Even toothpastes without animal ingredients may have been tested on animals. To avoid those, look for Leaping Bunny certified products. Vegan and cruelty-free aren’t the same thing, so a product can carry one certification without the other.

Packaging

Toothbrushes and toothpaste tubes can be recycled, but it’s not as simple as tossing them in the curbside bin. Most tubes are multi-layer plastic that local programs can’t process. That’s slowly changing: Tom’s of Maine, Colgate (though Bloomberg found the company’s recyclability claims aren’t well supported), and other brands are transitioning to recyclable plastic tubes.

Tube-free products sidestep the packaging problem entirely. Toothpaste tablets and chewables come in glass or metal-tin packaging, tooth powders ship in tins or jars, and some brands now use aluminum pods.

Sorting the Concerns by How Much They Matter

Not every flagged ingredient carries the same weight. Here’s a plain-language triage based on current evidence:

 
Concern What the evidence says What to do
Heavy metals (lead, arsenic) Real but small relative to diet and dust; below federal limits, above some state and baby-food limits. No safe level of lead exists. Use a pea-sized amount; favor brands publishing purity testing; supervise kids’ brushing.
Titanium dioxide Cosmetic only, no dental benefit; EU genotoxicity concerns; still legal in toothpaste. Easy to skip — it does nothing for your teeth. Check the label for CI 77891.
Phosphates Mainly an environmental concern (algal blooms), not a personal-health one. Choose phosphate-free if available; not in every brand.
SLS (sulfates) Not carcinogenic; can irritate sensitive tissue and trigger canker sores. Go SLS-free only if you get canker sores or have sensitivity.
Fluoride Topical use (spit out) remains well supported; concerns center on swallowed supplements at high doses. Keep using it, or switch to clinically supported hydroxyapatite if you prefer fluoride-free.

What You Can Do

You don’t need to throw out your toothpaste. A few practical moves address the real concerns without overcorrecting for the overblown ones:

  • Use a pea-sized amount. It’s the single most effective step for cutting any ingredient exposure. The risk assessment found it erases most heavy-metal concerns, and it make the tube last longer, which reduces waste.
  • Supervise young kids’ brushing. Children swallow more toothpaste than adults, so they’re the most relevant group for any ingestion concern. Use a rice-grain smear for under-3s and a pea for older kids.
  • Favor transparency. Choose brands that publish third-party testing for heavy-metal purity, especially if your paste contains hydroxyapatite, calcium carbonate, or bentonite clay.
  • Skip the purely cosmetic stuff. Titanium dioxide adds whiteness and nothing else. Check the ingredient list for “CI 77891” and pick a formula without it.
  • Keep brushing with an effective active. Fluoride (spit it out) or clinically supported hydroxyapatite both prevent cavities. Don’t trade a proven benefit for an unproven fear.
  • Ditch the tube where you can. Tablets, powders, and tinned formats avoid multi-layer plastic.
  • Don’t run the tap. Leaving the water running while you brush can waste up to four gallons of fresh water each time, even with a low-flow faucet.

Toothpaste is cleaner than the scariest headlines suggest and messier than the industry would like to admit. The contamination is real, the regulatory ceiling is too high, and the fixes are simple. Brush well, use less, read the label, and don’t let the noise talk you out of caring for your teeth.

Related Reading

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published by Gemma Alexander on January 3, 2022, and was substantially updated in June 2026, when we added the 2025 findings on heavy-metal contamination, the FDA’s fluoride-supplement action, titanium dioxide regulation, and clinical evidence on hydroxyapatite.

The post How Clean Is Your Toothpaste? appeared first on Earth911.

https://earth911.com/health/how-clean-is-your-toothpaste/

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2022 BreakingClimateChange.com