Since the 1970s, categorical exclusions (CEs) within the National Environmental Policy Act have applied only to activities that have been consistently and scientifically reported to not have a significant effect on the environment. The thinning of forest and woodland density of areas up to 5,000 acres, a significant increase from the current 70 acre limit, would undoubtedly have a significant impact on the environment, as demonstrated by the large repertoire of scientific research highlighting the critical role of forests in storing atmospheric carbon. Furthermore, the forest ecosystem has become increasingly vulnerable to wildfire due to human activity and climate change. Wildfires present extreme threats to human health, with over 15,000 deaths being attributed to wildfire particulate matter over the last 15 years. Even without any major escalation in the deterioration of our forests, the scale and impact of wildfire smoke on human health is projected to increase.
Altered fire regimes based on the principles of wildfire suppression, which this proposed revision uses in its justification, do not recognize the natural benefit of fire and have been shown to exacerbate fire-associated emissions. With such a critical issue at hand, the consultation of scientists and local communities is imperative, which is not reflected in this proposal. Thus, Woodwell strongly opposes the broadening of this CE for the Bureau of Land Management.
Scientific Objection to the Categorical Exclusion for Forest and Woodland Density Management
The proposed revision of this CE is based on the strategy of mechanical thinning. However, there is little to no scientific evidence concluding that the act of mechanical thinning alone universally lessens the risk of wildfire, as integrated fire management strategies are extremely dependent on the context of the ecosystem in which it is deployed. Woodwell research has found that without tailoring the wildfire strategies to their specific environment and pairing it with other more traditional wildfire management methods, these actions may have adverse consequences.
Under conditions of increased temperatures, which would be further amplified by increased carbon emissions driven by deforestation, burned area is expected to increase. With the incredible danger that wildfires pose to human safety, any actions that may degrade natural ecosystems and amplify wildfire impacts must be coupled with extensive environmental review, not the absence of such. By foregoing environmental review through the expansion of this CE, the Federal government is inviting the potential to further endanger our forest ecosystems and the lives of Americans.
The Critical Role of Forests in Carbon Sequestration
The proposed rule fails to recognize the integral role that forests play in carbon sequestration. BLM forests contain about 8 million acres of old growth and 13 million acres of mature forest – about ⅔ of the total area of BLM forest. Mature and old-growth forests, with their much older and larger trees, hold more carbon. Mature and old-growth forests are also more resilient and adaptive in the face of disturbances such as wildfires, which makes them a high priority for environmental protection. It is hard to imagine that these carbon-dense ecosystems would be excluded from logging under the proposed CE.
Woodwell researchers have also found that even beyond the cooling effects of sequestered carbon, forests provide biophysical cooling effects on a local and global scale. This unique quality promotes local climate stability, reducing extreme temperatures year round.
Since 2001, forest fire carbon emissions have increased by 60%. It is projected that by mid-century, wildfires in the northern region of North America would alone contribute to a cumulative net source of nearly 12 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide emissions into our atmosphere, further exacerbating temperatures and subsequent wildfire ignitions.
Impacts on Climate Resilience and Risk Mitigation
While the proposal argues that expanding forest thinning will reduce wildfires, scientific research has frequently called on officials to implement natural climate solutions to increase ecosystem resilience and limit climatic threats such as wildfire.
Fire is a natural and integrally important process in the life cycle of our forest ecosystems. Woodwell scientists study and promote traditional methods of fire management of local and indigenous peoples who recognize the environmental benefits of fire via prescribed burns. Trained professionals can employ these tactics of prescribed or controlled burns to reduce the build up of natural fuels, benefiting plants and wildlife by recycling the carbon back to the earth.
Conversely, we have found that more modern fire suppression tactics have led to oversuppression, contributing to the buildup of dry fuel on the forest floor. Combined with the ever warming temperatures destabilizing atmospheric conditions, increasingly frequent lightning strikes ignite these more flammable forests.
regular fires to periodically clear out this fuel, the land has become more vulnerable to intense and widespread fires. Woodwell is especially concerned with the proposed expansion of the CE of forest and woodland density as it relies on the tactic of mechanical thinning and strives for wildfire suppression, thus risking increased rates of wildfire. In order to properly manage fires in a way that creates a healthier and safer environment, fire management must utilize fire itself.
The proposed revision’s emphasis on mechanical thinning and logging also raises concerns regarding human impact. Anthropogenic influences such as population density, a human footprint index, and roadless volume all have significant statistical correlations to fire occurrence. Previous actions, such as the rescission of the 2001 Roadless Rule, have already demonstrated the harm that logging and other commercial activities pose to forests. Recent research has shown that roads increase the likelihood of wildfire ignitions because human activities are the most common cause of wildfire; once an area becomes accessible, the probability of wildfire increases. The massive expansion from 70 acres to 5,000 acres eligible for the CE of forest and woodland density would only incite more logging activities and the
acceleration of associated fire occurrence.
Lastly, this announcement fails to elaborate on the “additional tool” which it claims will assist decision-makers in planning areas to implement fuel treatments. Without a demonstrated and sound scientific basis for this tool, the likelihood that project decisions will reflect consideration of forest values beyond timber production is cast into doubt.
Conclusion
The proposed expansion of the Categorical Exclusion rejects scientific evidence and prioritizes logging activities over the safety of American citizens. Woodwell urges the Department of the Interior to:
- Integrate the implementation of prescribed or controlled burns to lessen excess vegetation in wildfire mitigation, as opposed to suppressing fires and building flammable materials.
- Engage and consult with local communities to create collaborative and tailored fire management strategies based on the particular ecosystem in which they will be deployed.
- Provide details about the “additional tool” that will assist in designating fuel treatment areas, specifically its scientific basis and values.
- Evaluate each project for the impact of estimated carbon emissions on the broader environment.
- Maintain the CE of 70 acres for tree and woodland density so as to minimize forest disturbances and build ecosystem resilience to wildfire at minimum. Ideally, perform environmental assessments under NEPA for all projects regardless of size.
Woodwell Climate Research Center urges the Council on Environmental Quality to reconsider aspects of this Categorical Exclusion to ensure that the pursuit of efficiency does not compromise the scientific rigor and comprehensive scope necessary for effective environmental review under NEPA. Accelerating logging activities and forest deterioration via inappropriate thinning will only amplify the wildfire risk that this proposal claims to address. It is imperative that the Bureau of Land Management’s NEPA implementing procedures facilitate, rather than hinder, the full consideration of environmental impacts, cumulative effects, and health of our citizens.
Chelsea, MA, did everything right. The city had identified flooding as a major climate threat, sought out data on it, mobilized the community, and secured funding to design a solution. They were on their way to building climate resilience, until the change in federal administration forced them to regroup.
In April, 2025, the federal administration announced it was illegally canceling the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program—a FEMA initiative that funded local infrastructure projects to protect communities from hazards like flooding and wildfire—on the grounds that it was “wasteful spending.”
The Island End River Flood Resilience Project was among the projects de-funded in the sweep. The project reenvisioned the shoreline of Chelsea and neighboring Everett, MA, with the construction of a flood barrier, tidal gates, and salt marsh restoration to protect both cities from extreme flooding.
The cities are vulnerable to two forms of flooding—storm surge coming up from Boston Harbor and extreme rainfall events.
“This district is already flooding at least once a year to the extent that trucks can’t always pass down the road,” says Chelsea Housing and Community Development Deputy Director Emily Granoff.
Climate change will exacerbate this. According to a 2022 risk assessment conducted by Woodwell Climate’s Just Access program on behalf of the city and local non-profit GreenRoots, over 20% of the city will be at risk of flooding by 2050. Extreme high-intensity rainfall events could become three times as likely by mid-century and become an annual occurrence by 2080.
The irony of the cuts, Granoff says, is that this project was designed to save the cities of Chelsea and Everett millions of dollars. A cost-benefit analysis conducted for the project found that for every dollar spent on flood prevention, they would save more than $30 of repair and recovery spending in the wake of a major disaster. Several pieces of vital industrial infrastructure sit in the floodplain, including a busy commuter rail line, major truck corridors, and the New England Produce Center, which distributes fruit and vegetables to most northeastern U.S. grocery stores.
In addition to the $50 million BRIC grant, the project also lost a $20 million matching grant from the state, which was contingent on the federal funding. Without the project, the city will suffer $3.7 billion in direct damage, in addition to hundreds of millions of dollars in lost wages from employees who can’t get to work, lost sales from businesses forced to close, and health care costs from food insecurity.
“It’s important to realize how one federal program being cut like this can affect so many other things downstream,” says Eli Fenichel, director of communications and environmental policy in the office of Chelsea’s State Senator, Sal DiDomenico. “These projects are so important to protect businesses, communities, people, and save us—taxpayers, cities, states—so much money in future damage costs.”
The Island End River project was in the design phase when the BRIC grant was cancelled. After processing the loss, Granoff says project partners regrouped and identified two paths forward. The first would be completing the design and then putting it on the shelf, waiting for a more favorable funding environment. But that option comes with risks.
“The biggest risk is that we get unlucky,” says Nasser Brahim, director of climate resilience for the Mystic River Watershed Association, a partner on the project. “It’s just a matter of time before that area floods again. Every time there’s a nor’easter, every time there’s a king tide, we roll the dice. The odds are not in our favor in the long run.”
The second option would be to take a phased approach and seek out smaller chunks of funding for each stage. This strategy would still take longer to complete, but would allow the most critical flood mitigation measures to proceed—starting with a floodwall and culvert reconstruction. The later phases would bring in marsh restoration and more waterfront access.
The drawback to a phased approach is that pure infrastructure projects are less attractive to funders than nature restoration. Mystic River Watershed Association identified a possible opportunity to request funding for phase one from the Army Corps of Engineers, under the Water Resources Development Act, which is being re-authorized this year. According to Roseann Bongiovanni, executive director of the Chelsea-based community organization GreenRoots, the data in Woodwell’s Risk Assessment has helped the cities and their partners continue making the case for support for the Island End River project.
“The Woodwell report gave us the science-backed data that helped give weight to our advocacy around coastal resilience. We’ve noticed a change in the response of decision-makers since we were able to provide data about the risks,” says Bongiovanni.
Whether the project takes a phased approach or waits for full funding, the federal cuts represent a delay to a project that could save both lives and money.
“Every year we go without completing this project is another year where our people and critical infrastructure are at risk,” says Bongiovanni.
While natural and managed ecosystems like wetlands, forests, and agricultural fields often receive credit for emitting or absorbing carbon, there is an equally important yet largely overlooked contributor, acting within these ecosystems. Microbes, tiny single-celled organisms that live everywhere on Earth, are a powerhouse of carbon exchange, capable of absorbing and storing greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane. Woodwell Climate researchers are studying both forests and fields to understand how natural microbial communities might be optimized into “climate heroes”, enhancing the carbon absorption capacity of natural and managed ecosystems.
One project leading the charge on this is Boreal Biosequester. Led by Associate Scientist Dr. Jennifer Watts and Senior Research Scientist Kathleen Savage along with collaborators at Arizona State University and the University of Maine Orono, this project is studying a particular class of microbe that “eats” methane, called methanotrophs.
Methane is 28 times as adept at trapping heat in the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. Today, atmospheric methane is around 2.6 times higher than during pre-industrial times. While some of these emissions are due to human sources, such as landfills and fossil fuels, around one-third of global methane emissions come from wetlands, and approximately 20-35% of wetlands are found in boreal and northern temperate forests. As a potent greenhouse gas, removal of atmospheric methane is a key natural climate solution that would help mitigate climate warming. The Boreal Biosequester team seeks to optimize the power of methane-eating microbes present in and on trees to turn methane-emitting landscapes into methane absorbers.
With funding from CarbonFix, a philanthropic organization dedicated to funding potential climate solutions, the Boreal Biosequester team has begun the first phase of the project: identifying microbial species present in the tree bark and foliage of Maine’s Howland Research Forest and studying their behavior. The researchers are investigating how trees in this northern forested wetland absorb and emit methane and how this capacity changes with environmental conditions like light, soil moisture, acidity, and temperature, to determine optimal environmental conditions for methane absorption
Much of this data is gathered from 30-meter-tall towers in the Howland Research Forest that measure methane and other gases being emitted and absorbed from this northern forest landscape. Howland boasts one of the longest global records of carbon dioxide and methane fluxes; these tower observations are paired with data collected directly from tree trunks and canopies to complete a comprehensive picture of microbial methane activity across the landscape.
“The different types of organisms that are in the trees absorbing methane have different sensitivities to temperature and how much nitrogen or sulfur or other [nutrients are] available to them,” says Watts. “What we really don’t know is: How do they live in the same space? Are there shared resources? We want to know what those preferences are.”
Boreal Biosequester team member Dr. Hinsby Cadillo-Quiroz, an ecology of microorganisms and ecosystems professor at Arizona State University, is leading the effort to isolate and study methanotrophs, sequencing their RNA and DNA to learn more about who they are and where they “like to live” in the forest.
“Plant surfaces host methanotrophs undoubtedly, although at low apparent density, so a critical question in this project is to figure out where, when, and how plant methanotrophs have the highest activity and potential to maximize their work,” says Cadillo-Quiroz. He is currently testing this question in sites around the world, including Howland.
The next phase of the Boreal Biosequester project will apply the knowledge gained from this early work to look at how the identified optimal environmental conditions can be “harnessed” to maximize methane absorption from trees using controlled greenhouse experiments.
“With greenhouse experiments, we can manipulate their environments and different tree species and then see how those microbes respond, so we can get a better sense of what those microbes like versus not, and how to optimize their behavior,” Savage says.
The final research phase of this project focuses on inoculating a forested wetland with “hardy” natural versions of these methane-eating microbes and tracing the response in landscape methane uptake. “If we can start to cultivate them successfully in the lab, we can start to select populations through natural selection,” Watts says. “We don’t want to do any direct genetic modification, but [we want to] grow the microbes that are a little bit more hardy.”
This work could yield natural climate solutions that are cost-effective and scalable for use by governments and land managers, and provide multiple benefits for carbon removal in restored or regenerating forests.
“If we understand what drives the natural activity of methanotrophs, it can inform the industry practices and plans,” Cadillo-Quiroz says.
Microbes could also be a powerful natural climate “ally” in other human-managed systems, like agricultural fields. Microbes in agricultural fields function as active climate engines by converting plant-derived carbon into stable carbon in soil, a process that could be optimized by using different land-management practices. According to Woodwell, soil microbial ecologist and biogeochemist, Dr. Taniya RoyChowdhury, properly managed croplands have the potential to become major carbon sinks.
“Global croplands have the theoretical capacity to sequester up to 2.6 gigatonnes of CO2 (carbon dioxide) annually,” RoyChowdhury says. “The research being pursued at Woodwell Climate is the critical link in the chain, providing the data needed to shift soil carbon storage from a ‘theoretical’ possibility into a ‘verifiable’ climate solution.”
RoyChowdhury is studying how regenerative agriculture practices like cover cropping could enhance a process called “necromass formation,” where carbon absorbed from the atmosphere by plants is consumed by soil microbes that then die. This carbon-rich “necromass” is then stored more permanently in the soil. This process is unique to microbes, so RoyChowdhury wants to understand how altering agricultural management practices, like cover cropping, could alter microbial activity in our favor.
“We’re trying to look at what the cover crop actually does to the microbial community. We’re genetically sequencing the microbial community in its totality and also looking at their functions,” says RoyChowdhury.
She says that working with microbes could also have co-benefits beyond carbon removal.
“Nature-based solutions [like microbes] are critical because they are the only tools we have that address the triple crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss, and food insecurity simultaneously,” says RoyChowdhury.
The other benefit of using natural climate solutions like microbes across ecosystems, RoyChowdhury says, is that once they are established, they manage themselves.
“Rightly managed natural systems are self-sustaining; once a wetland is restored or a forest is established, it continues to remove or sequester carbon and provide ecosystem services with minimal human intervention, making it a suitable strategy for long-term planetary stability,” RoyChowdhury says.
In a new paper, published today in Science, climate scientists from Woodwell Climate Research Center and leading research institutions across the world propose the creation of a new, global methane observation system to track methane emissions from natural ecosystems in near real-time and inform mitigation strategies and global climate policy.
Methane’s powerful near-term warming effects–80 times that of carbon dioxide–position methane mitigation as an urgent and important target for actionable global climate policy. Over the past decade, scientists and policymakers have made important strides in tracking methane emissions from anthropogenic sources, including fossil fuels, livestock, agriculture, waste management, and integrating those emissions in international climate policy and mitigation strategies. However, escalating methane emissions stemming from natural ecosystems driven by global temperature increases and climate feedbacks, such as tropical wetlands and thawing permafrost, make up more than one-third of the global methane budget, and yet remain largely omitted from global methane budgets and decisionmaking due to gaps in monitoring.
“As the planet warms, methane emissions from these natural systems, including permafrost, lakes, and wetlands, are rising quickly, bringing the potential for increased frequency and impact of extreme weather events like flooding, drought, wildfire, and extreme heat. Our ability to track and detect these emissions will be critical to informing solutions to the climate crisis,” said Dr. Jennifer Watts, Scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center and lead author of this paper. “We are calling on national governments, international institutions, philanthropies, the private sector, and other partners to invest in adequate infrastructure to detect and monitor temperature-driven methane emissions from ecosystems to guide solutions that curb the impacts of methane and the climate crisis.”
This paper grew out of a multi-day convening of more than 30 leading methane scientists, modelers, and policy experts held in Aspen, Colorado in October 2025, organized through the Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI). Co-chaired by scientists from Woodwell Climate Research Center/Permafrost Pathways, Stanford University, Arizona State University, and Spark Climate Solutions, the workshop brought together participants from universities, federal agencies, and research institutions spanning six continents to identify critical gaps in natural methane monitoring and chart a course for an integrated global observation system. The findings and recommendations in this paper reflect the collective expertise of that broader scientific community.
As global leaders in methane science, policy, and innovation prepare to gather at Methane 250 in Italy next week to chart a path forward for methane mitigation, this paper makes the case for investing in the development of an integrated Global Ecosystem Methane-Observation System to inform future Global Methane Pledges and action. Specifically, this system would close gaps in methane monitoring by securing and expanding ground-based networks of greenhouse gas observing towers, including flux towers, across underrepresented regions including rapidly thawing Arctic permafrost and wetlands in the tropics.
“Through Permafrost Pathways, we’ve seen firsthand how critical it is to fill the monitoring gaps in the Arctic, where thawing permafrost releases methane across landscapes so vast and varied that our current observation systems cannot fully capture them,” said paper co-lead and workshop co-organizer, Dr. Sue Natali, Senior Scientist at Woodwell Climate and lead of Permafrost Pathways. “This paper charts a path toward the integrated, global monitoring infrastructure we need to account for these emissions in climate policy before they outpace our ability to act.”
“Methane from natural systems is one of the biggest emerging climate risks,” said Dr. Danie Potocek, paper co-author and scientist at Spark Climate Solutions. “And right now, we simply don’t have the monitoring infrastructure to fully understand what we are up against. The global community has made real progress in building systems to track methane from human sources. Now we need to extend that to the rest of the methane challenge.”
Flooding is a hallmark of the climate-changed world. Rising sea levels, extreme rainfall, and aging infrastructure systems have left communities across the U.S. facing increasing damages from flooding, making flood insurance an expensive necessity for more and more Americans.
But U.S. flood insurance policy was created on the assumption of a more stable and predictable climate and has struggled to keep up with the rapid pace of change. Two new papers led by Research Associate Dominick Dusseau shine a light on vulnerabilities within the American flood insurance system that will only be exacerbated as climate change advances.
You may be paying for your neighbor’s discount
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a program of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), was created to help property owners secure affordable flood insurance and encourage communities to manage their flood risk.
One of the ways the NFIP encourages floodplain management is through the Community Rating System. The system rewards communities with discounts on their premiums for implementing certain actions. These actions range from building up the elevation of ground within a floodplain to making local flood maps publicly accessible. Actions are assigned points and the number of points determines how much of a discount the community will receive.
This reduction in price is not a true discount, however, because the NFIP adjusts state-wide premiums to make up the difference. The NFIP calculates the average percentage discount for the entire state and increases all premiums by that amount. This means policyholders in towns that are not even participating in the Community Rating System may be paying more than their risk level requires to subsidize their neighbor’s discounts.
“It’s basically a way for the NFIP to actuarially pay for the Community Rating System,” says Dusseau. “Because otherwise they’d be foregoing that revenue from the discounts. To recoup the lost income they do this cross-subsidization by putting it back into each policy by state. ”
Climate change will exacerbate inequalities
A study from Dusseau, published in the journal One Earth, shows that through the Community Rating System, roughly half of NFIP policyholders subsidize the discounts of the other half. In theory, subsidization ensures the NFIP is collecting enough revenue to pay out all their future obligations. But in reality, this framework presents two flaws. First, not all Community Rating System actions—publishing flood maps, for example— reduce damages. While the action may be beneficial to community awareness, it doesn’t translate directly to dollars saved.
Additionally, existing disparities between communities result in unequal distribution of the burden of subsidization.
“One of the big takeaways that we found was that it’s largely under-resourced rural counties that are subsidizing the more affluent, well-resourced urban counties,” says Dusseau.
Even though many rural communities would be eligible for discounts themselves, they may not have the capacity available to take advantage of them.
“There’s a bureaucracy involved here. There’s paperwork. You have to document all of these things that you’re doing. You have to submit the application. You need someone that’s a certified floodplain manager,” says Dusseau. “Not every town has that capacity, so it just falls through the cracks.”
This means that already resource-strapped communities may be paying more than required for their true risk level.
Dusseau’s study points out that these inequalities will be exacerbated by climate change. The NFIP has long underpriced policies. The rising sea levels and more extreme precipitation caused by climate change has only widened the gap between the program’s revenue and obligated pay-outs. In 2021, FEMA implemented a new framework, called Risk Rating 2.0, that takes the impacts of climate change to date into account, gradually raising premiums year over year to more closely align with the actual risk of damages.
“And what we see is that states with the greatest level of inequality now will experience even worse disparities in the future,” says Dusseau.
How accurate are flood models?
In addition to inequity, flood insurance suffers from a frustrating lack of transparency, with each company and the NFIP employing a proprietary combination of models to decide premium prices. A second paper led by Dusseau, published in the Journal of Catastrophe Risk and Resilience in February, generates some much needed transparency around the data underlying the insurance industries assumptions.
One type of model employed by insurers is called a catastrophe model. These models can estimate the likely damages from both natural and man-made hazard events like wildfires, terror attacks, and hurricanes. Dusseau’s study evaluated the accuracy of seven flood-specific catastrophe models, including three commonly used by the NFIP.
“Insurers rely heavily on these models that have historically been very ‘black-box’—nearly impossible to evaluate their methods,” says Assistant Scientist Zachary Zobel, a co-author on the paper. “Without proper independent review of these models, insurers will continue to misrepresent the risk catastrophes pose on local communities.”
The study found that model accuracy varied widely. Some models overestimated flood losses, while others underestimated losses—by up to 13 times in the most extreme case. This has major implications for the ultimate cost of flood insurance.
“There is a non-trivial difference in the premiums that would be passed on to consumers based on these assumptions,” says Dusseau.
Catastrophe models are also still based upon historical data. Many have not been updated to account for the impacts of climate change, let alone cast forward to how flood risk may change in the future.
“The insurance industry drives using only the rearview mirror. Yesterday’s data to price tomorrow’s risks doesn’t work in a world of more extremes, says Vice President of Science Dr. Christopher Schwalm, who also contributed to the paper. “The past is no longer a reliable guide for the future. To stay ahead, we have to stop guessing based on what happened years ago and start modeling the ‘new extremes’ we are seeing right now.”
Informing policies that protect people
Dusseau along with Woodwell’s risk and policy experts have made science-backed contributions to conversations about improving flood insurance. Dusseau and Senior Policy Analyst Jamie Cummings authored a policy brief last April that advocates for NFIP reforms that help property owners access affordable flood protection, including the creation of a standard national catastrophe model. Dusseau has also briefed congressional staff, highlighting areas where Congress could play a role in bolstering the long-term resilience and insurability of communities.
However, aligning pricing more closely with the realities of climate change is much more complicated—and for many property owners, emotional—than simply incorporating the right data. The increases brought on by Risk Rating 2.0 have already pushed flood insurance out of the range of affordability for many policyholders, forcing them to drop their coverage. The pricing framework is a sticking point in lawmakers’ debates over reauthorizing the NFIP in the long term. The program is currently funded through September 30, 2026.
“How do you balance updating policies to reflect true climate risk with affordability, in a political context? Yes, you want people to know that they’re in a flood zone, but if you price them out of the market, are you really helping them?” says Woodwell Climate Vice President of Policy and Government Relations Laura Uttley. “That’s why the work Woodwell’s risk team does is so vital. The science and modeling they provide adds context for the development and implementation of new policies. We are very pragmatic about the ways we recommend change.”
Additionally, federal policy changes happen much slower than climate ones, making it a challenge to build policy that is both durable and versatile.
“Policy change at the federal level can be incredibly slow. We need to consider policy proposals that build durable systems that enable adaptability, recognizing the urgency posed by rapidly changing conditions,” says Uttley.
Woodwell Climate has been involved in advocacy around the inclusion of flooding from extreme rainfall— called pluvial flooding—in FEMA’s regulatory maps. These maps identify “flood hazard zones” in which property owners are required to have flood insurance. Currently they only represent coastal and riverine flooding hazards. This has led many property owners to mistakenly believe their homes are not at risk.
Though improved data and transparency might ultimately translate to higher costs for some, Dusseau says the alternative, not knowing, hurts people in the long run.
“If people don’t know that they’re at high risk, they won’t know what to do about it so they won’t do anything about it,” says Dusseau.
The decision to repeal the 2009 Endangerment Finding is a dangerous attack on the United States’ ability to reduce air pollution harmful to human health. The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) final rule rejects decades of rigorous science and inhibits urgently-needed action to mitigate and adapt to the climate crisis. Now is the time to double down on science-based solutions that will protect the health and wellbeing of our communities and our environment–the intended mission of the EPA–not roll them back.
As we experience increasingly violent storms, destructive flooding, catastrophic wildfires, and record-breaking temperatures, it is clear that climate change is already creating dangerous conditions across the country. Deregulating greenhouse gas emissions will exacerbate these impacts and lead to increased costs for resilience and public health.
The Endangerment Finding is the foundation of U.S. efforts to fight climate change, and, as a Woodwell-led scientific review in 2018 found, ‘the case for endangerment, which was already overwhelming in 2009, is even more strongly justified.’ Woodwell remains deeply committed to advancing rigorous science and conducting the highest quality research to enable solutions at the nexus of climate, people, and nature, across the United States as well as globally.
Sometimes it only takes a small push to start gathering momentum. That’s the idea behind the Fund for Climate Solutions (FCS) at Woodwell Climate. Launched in 2018, FCS is a competitive internal grant program that funds Woodwell Climate scientists to explore research projects that test out innovative ideas for climate solutions. Though each individual project starts small, nearly all FCS projects lead to new lines of inquiry, and a few have grown from their initial seed funding into some of our biggest research projects. From carbon monitoring to wildfire management to thawing permafrost, these three projects exemplify the surprising power of starting small.
1. Monitoring Rangeland Carbon
Rangelands represent a massive untapped natural climate solution, making up more than 30% of the land in the United States and holding 30% of the global soil carbon stock. Conservation practices, including adaptive livestock management, have the potential to enhance that carbon storage— but data was limited on just how grazing systems would respond to different techniques. Senior scientist Dr. Jon Sanderman and Associate Scientist Dr. Jennifer Watts applied for an FCS grant in 2019 to expand scientific understanding in a way that would prove useful for making management decisions.
That first project was successful, and today, Woodwell’s studies of rangeland carbon and other ecological co-benefits have expanded into a multifaceted research project that has received several subsequent grants. Watts and Sanderman are building tools that map and model carbon storage and the overall ecological health of rangelands across the U.S. and show how that storage could change under different management practices. Those tools have been adopted by both conservation groups and corporate partners to better understand the climate benefits of improved range management. They have continued engagement with ranchers and conservation communities across the American West, hosting workshops that bring land managers together to discuss the benefits—both environmental and economic—of improving carbon storage on rangelands.
2. Planning for Intensifying Wildfires
In Summer of 2018, Senior Scientist Dr. Brendan Rogers received an FCS grant to explore the possibility of fire management to mitigate carbon emissions from boreal wildfire. Though fires are a natural part of the northern landscape, wildfires in Alaska and Canada have been growing more frequent and intense as the Arctic rapidly warms. Left unchecked, these northern fires represent a large and broadly unaccounted for threat to emissions reduction goals.
Bringing fires under control as a climate mitigation tactic is now one of the Center’s core scientific goals. Collaborations with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the Alaska Fire Service are underway to pilot fire suppression as a cost-effective method to keep carbon from entering the atmosphere. Senior Arctic Lead, Edward Alexander, has joined the Center to elevate Indigenous mitigation practices as practical policy solutions to address accelerating northern fires, and strategies are being shared across geographies to inform fire management in temperate and tropical forests as well. Woodwell Climate has also now joined Google’s AI Collaborative on Wildfires and has become an early adopter for the FireSat program led by EarthFire Alliance.
3. Permafrost Pathways
In the summer of 2018 Senior scientists, Drs. Sue Natali, Rogers, Linda Deegan, and Sanderman received an FCS grant to start work on an Arctic change and carbon observatory. Natali observed that while the Arctic was warming at a rapid pace, causing typically-frozen permafrost soils to thaw and erode, actual measurements of carbon emissions from thawing permafrost were sparse. She proposed constructing new carbon-monitoring towers to fill data gaps, starting with a field site in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta.
From there, the project gained momentum, and in 2022, Natali was awarded a $41 million grant from the TED Audacious Project to launch Permafrost Pathways. The expanded project not only continued and enhanced carbon monitoring across the Arctic, but also partnered with 10 Alaska Native Tribes and policy experts to advocate for change. Permafrost Pathways supports community-led environmental monitoring of permafrost thaw to help tribes develop a long-term adaptation plan, including relocation. In addition, project experts have been working to influence international policy and get permafrost emissions factored into global emissions models.
In a new study released this week in Nature Communications Earth & Environment, researchers assess the impact of a warming Arctic on global carbon emissions and find that carbon emissions from abrupt permafrost thaw and wildfire will substantially limit our ability to keep global temperature increase below 1.5° or 2° Celsius. When accounting for carbon emissions from abrupt permafrost thaw and intensifying wildfire regimes, the remaining carbon budgets to keep global temperatures below 1.5°C were reduced by about one quarter and by nearly one fifth for 2°C.
Abrupt thaw mainly occurs in ice-rich permafrost landscapes, where rapid thawing can cause the ground to collapse. This exposes deep carbon-rich soils to warmer temperatures, allowing large amounts of previously frozen carbon to be released over a short period of time and amplifying climate warming. At the same time, intensifying wildfires are emitting carbon to the atmosphere at the time of burning and further accelerating permafrost thaw by removing the insulating organic layer at the soil surface.
While existing research has recently led to the critical inclusion of projected carbon emissions from gradual permafrost thawing in global carbon budgets, the impact of abrupt thaw processes and wildfires are both largely missing from Earth System Models, hindering our ability to set sufficiently ambitious and accurate mitigation solutions. The study, which was led by Permafrost Pathways researchers at the Woodwell Climate Research Center and co-authored with the University of Colorado, Boulder and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) in Austria, calculates that these total permafrost thaw and wildfire carbon emissions could reach 63 Pg C for every degree Celsius of further global temperature increase. This is over double what is currently included in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects. To put it another way, by the end of this century, these projected annual permafrost emissions could reach or exceed the current total annual emissions of a high-emitting nation such as the United States.
“Accurately accounting for land-based emissions directly affects whether remaining carbon budgets, as established by the Paris Agreement, are effective in restricting the planet’s temperature increase to below the 1.5°C and 2°C thresholds,” said Dr. Christina Schädel, lead author of the paper and Senior Research Scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center. “As the Arctic continues to warm more rapidly than anywhere else on the planet, we must continue to research and support science-based solutions in the Arctic in order to mitigate the impacts of climate change on communities across the globe.”
“Estimates of remaining carbon budgets will continue to underestimate emissions unless the impacts of permafrost thaw and wildfire are fully included,” said Dr. Susan Natali, Senior Scientist and lead of Permafrost Pathways at Woodwell Climate Research Center. “Given the urgency of the climate crisis, and our rapidly shrinking window to limit its impacts and to respond to accelerating climate hazards, the global community must move quickly towards fully informed climate policy and accurate temperature goals.”
This study was funded by One Earth Philanthropy, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Quadrature Climate Fund, and with funding catalyzed through the Audacious Project. The full study can be found here.
