A message from President & CEO Dr. Max Holmes

George Woodwell was never shy about speaking his mind.

I can’t help but smile as I write that sentence. If you knew George, I suspect you are smiling too, recognizing that it is a significant understatement.

George founded this organization to do cutting-edge science, and then to apply that knowledge to influence policy and decisionmaking. In other words, to make a difference. He understood instinctively that a finding locked away in a journal, accessible only to specialists, was a finding that wouldn’t change the world—at least not quickly enough. Science had to travel. It had to reach the people making decisions, shaping policy, and holding the purse strings of both governments and philanthropies. It had to matter beyond the confines of the ivory tower.

George’s original vision continues to guide us today.

But vision requires execution. And execution, in our moment, requires something George could not have fully anticipated when he founded Woodwell more than forty years ago: the ability to compete for attention in an era of relentless noise. Science has never been more urgent. There are more ways than ever to communicate, yet the challenge of being heard has never been greater. These realities have led us to make two investments I am excited to share with you.

First, I am thrilled to announce that Dave Nagel has joined Woodwell as our new Vice President of Marketing and Communications. Dave has spent most of his career in the private sector, and now brings the skills he developed there to Woodwell. His charge is ambitious: to significantly expand the reach of our work, connecting our science to policymakers, business leaders, engaged citizens, and philanthropists.

That last category matters enormously, now more than ever. Woodwell’s ability to do the work George envisioned—rigorous, independent, urgent—depends increasingly on philanthropic support as government support dwindles. We are sustained by people who believe, as George did, that science in service of the planet is worth fighting for. Growing that community has never been more important—it is essential to allow us to boldly follow the path George charted more than four decades ago. Dave’s leadership will be central to that effort, and I could not be more pleased to have him on board.

Second, I want to introduce you to a project that is bursting with potential: Woodwell’s first podcast, Not a Climate Scientist. Hosted by Dr. Heather Goldstone, the show engages everyday people whose lives and livelihoods are being impacted by climate change in surprising ways. Not climate scientists, but people like firefighters and therapists and ranchers—people who are confronting climate change not because they choose to but because they have to. In the process, they demonstrate that sometimes the most important ways to become involved are simply to do more of what you do best. You can find Not A Climate Scientist on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, iHeart and Amazon Music. So please give it a listen, and share it with your networks.

Taken together, Dave’s arrival and Heather’s podcast represent something I think George would recognize immediately: a refusal to be satisfied with good work that goes unheard. He didn’t found this place to whisper. He built it to be heard.

The science we produce has never been more consequential. The news coming out of DC has never been more threatening for science or for climate action, and the window for action has never been narrower. And so, with a nod to the man who never had any trouble making himself heard, we are turning up the volume.

I think he’d approve.

Onward,

Max signature

Today on Earth Day, Woodwell Climate Research Center is launching a podcast for everyone who is not a scientist, but is worried about the effects of climate change and wants to understand how others are taking action in their daily work and lives. As the consequences of the climate crisis increasingly impact our economy, infrastructure, public health, and communities, Not a Climate Scientist will provide listeners with a window into how industry leaders and everyday individuals are working to adapt and plan for the future. 

“Science provides critical information about how fast our climate is changing, what’s driving that, and how we can change course. But scientists alone can’t solve this problem,” said Dr. R. Max Holmes, President and CEO of Woodwell Climate Research Center. “Climate action is for everyone, whatever your passion or profession. Not a Climate Scientist provides examples of people who have figured that out, and can help others find their first step.” 

New episodes will be released every other week on YouTube, Spotify, Apple, Amazon, and iHeartRadio. The first three episodes are available now and feature:

The podcast is hosted by Dr. Heather Goldstone, Senior Fellow at Woodwell Climate. Goldstone joined Woodwell Climate in 2020 after nearly a decade at GBH, where she founded and hosted a weekly science-focused radio show, Living Lab Radio. Her science and environmental reporting has appeared in a range of outlets, including the Cape Cod Times, Commercial Fishery News, NPR’s Morning Edition, The Takeaway, and PBS NewsHour.

“Climate change is not just a distant threat or political flash point, it’s a reality that is showing up in people’s lives and jobs across the U.S. on a daily basis,” said Goldstone, executive producer and host of Not a Climate Scientist. “The vast majority of Americans are worried about climate change, but relatively few are talking about it. This podcast brings this looming issue down to earth and opens up conversations that are personal, relatable, and actionable — an antidote to the doom and gloom so many people are trying to avoid.”

For 40 years, Woodwell Climate Research Center has led groundbreaking scientific research and solutions to help leaders, communities, and policymakers across the world respond to the climate crisis. Not a Climate Scientist will notably talk to everyone except climate scientists, highlighting the ways in which we all, regardless of profession, geography, or socioeconomic status, can be part of shaping a more positive climate future. 

Follow Not a Climate Scientist on TikTok and Instagram @NotAClimateScientist.

A message from President & CEO Dr. R. Max Holmes

Last week, I sat on two panels at CERAWeek in Houston—the world’s premier energy conference, attended by thousands of energy executives but also several climate scientists. One panel focused on nature-based climate solutions: the management and conservation of forests, soils, and other natural systems to harness their extraordinary capacity to draw carbon out of the atmosphere and store it. That is Woodwell’s home territory, and a topic I can discuss with the confidence of decades of institutional science behind me. 

The second panel was on a topic many serious climate scientists have considered almost too hot to handle: that we may need to think carefully about intentionally reflecting sunlight away from Earth to slow global warming.

Woodwell has never shied away from science that challenges comfortable assumptions. If the status quo of climate action is insufficient to meet this moment—and it is—then expanding what we are willing to seriously examine is not a departure from our mission. It is an expression of it.

Let me start with what we know. The most important things society must do to address climate change remain exactly what they have always been: slash greenhouse gas emissions, draw carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere (most immediately through nature-based climate solutions), and prepare communities for the disruption already baked into the system. Woodwell’s science and policy work is built on that foundation, and nothing about our consideration of solar radiation management (SRM) changes it.

But we also have to be honest with ourselves about where we are. Despite decades of warnings from climate scientists, emissions continue to rise. We are on a trajectory to blow past the Paris Agreement’s temperature targets, likely in the next few years. Our own research underscores the danger: thawing Arctic permafrost, warming feedbacks from wetlands, and the potential dieback of Amazonian rainforest could accelerate emissions in ways that overwhelm even our best efforts. In that context, responsible science demands that we examine every possible option, including ones that make us deeply uncomfortable.

Solar radiation management refers to proposed approaches that would cool the Earth by reflecting a portion of incoming sunlight back into space. The most-discussed approach, stratospheric aerosol injection, would involve releasing reflective particles into the upper atmosphere via aircraft—mimicking the temporary cooling effect of large volcanic eruptions. Research suggests that if deployed, SRM could reduce surface temperatures and potentially limit the risk of crossing dangerous climate tipping points.

To be very clear, Woodwell is not advocating for deployment. SRM would do nothing to address the root causes of climate change, nor harmful consequences of rising carbon dioxide levels like ocean acidification. It carries real and poorly understood risks, including uncertain effects on rainfall patterns, crop yields, and ecosystems. And it raises profound questions of fairness and governance: who decides, and on whose behalf, to alter the global climate system? What happens if deployment begins and then stops abruptly, triggering “termination shock,” a rapid and dangerous rebound in warming?

These are exactly the questions that responsible research needs to answer. Woodwell believes that research on SRM must tackle priority scientific and ethical questions; must be international in scope, with meaningful participation from Global South nations and Indigenous communities; and must be well-governed, with robust standards. Our concerns include the Arctic, where the stakes of rapid warming are especially dire, consideration of SRM is increasing, and governance frameworks for SRM research are lacking.

There has been a temptation in the climate community to treat SRM, indeed, climate engineering more broadly, as a forbidden subject, to worry that even discussing it signals a surrender on mitigation, or opens the door to reckless deployment by actors unwilling to do the hard work of decarbonization. Those are legitimate concerns, and I share them. But the answer to the risks of SRM is not to ignore them. If deployment were to happen, whether carefully governed or not, we would be far worse off without the science to understand what was coming.

SRM is no longer a fringe conversation. It is being considered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), taken up in government research programs, in philanthropic investment decisions, and (whether we like it or not) in the ambitions of private actors operating with little to no oversight. Woodwell’s role is not to champion solar geoengineering. Rather, our mission is to provide science-based guardrails to ensure that as this conversation accelerates, it is shaped by rigorous science, ethical seriousness, and a commitment to effective and equitable governance.

This topic is not new to Woodwell. In 2023, we issued a policy brief on the need for research and governance of SRM and this past August, Woodwell awarded a grant through our Fund for Climate Solutions program to investigate whether Woodwell should further responsibly-governed SRM research. Led by Senior Science Policy Advisor Dr. Peter Frumhoff, a longtime thought leader on SRM governance, the project will bring together subject matter experts, NGOs, Arctic community thought leaders, and philanthropists to help inform future work in this space.

I had plenty of time to think about the challenges of SRM governance on my way home from CERAWeek. Flying out of Houston on Friday, I waited over four hours in a TSA screening line. Funding TSA would seem to be a relatively simple task, a core function of government. 

Now consider governing a planetary intervention that would alter rainfall patterns, growing seasons, and temperatures across every nation on Earth, requiring sustained international cooperation among countries with profoundly different interests and vulnerabilities. The governance of SRM may in fact be a far greater challenge than the science of SRM.

Nature-based climate solutions will always remain central to Woodwell’s work. But we also recognize that they alone are not enough, and will not shy away from uncomfortable conversations about other approaches that may someday be necessary. Given the current reality of accelerating climate change impacts and relatively modest climate action, it may be that the only thing crazier than talking about solar radiation management is not talking about it.

Onward,

Max signature

A message from President & CEO Dr. R. Max Holmes

In 1963, at Wembley Stadium in London, a young Muhammad Ali (then Cassius Clay) was dropped hard by Henry Cooper. Cooper’s left hook sent him to the canvas, and for a moment, the crowd believed the fight was over. But Ali shook off the fog, regained his feet, and the fight went on.

Recent headlines describing efforts to dismantle U.S. climate regulation have the same dramatic tone. Moves targeting the government’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases are framed as a “knockout punch.” At first glance, it feels decisive—game over.

But the larger trajectory is unmistakable. Renewable energy wins. Fossil fuels lose. The only question is timing: does the fight go the distance, or do renewables deliver a knockout of their own before the final bell?

For those striving to preserve the dominance of fossil fuels, the economics are unrelenting. Solar and wind are already among the cheapest forms of new electricity generation in much of the world. Battery storage continues to improve. Electric vehicles are scaling rapidly. Once renewable infrastructure is in place, its fuel is free, whereas fossil fuels must be continually extracted, shipped, and burned.

In that context, recent efforts by the executive branch of the federal government to block the energy transition—repealing the Endangerment Finding, forcing the military to secure long-term contracts to purchase coal-generated power, halting solar and offshore wind projects—do not signal strength. Quite the opposite. If fossil fuels were winning cleanly on cost and performance, they would not require extraordinary policy intervention to preserve demand. The need to mandate purchases or block competing technologies suggests an industry struggling to keep pace with cheaper, faster-growing alternatives. It is starting to look less like dominance and more like desperation.

Yes, political setbacks can slow the clean-energy transition, and slower progress carries real costs. But delay is not defeat. States, cities, corporations, investors, and global markets continue pushing forward. Ultimately, the energy transition will be won not by regulation, but by technological advantage and economic reality. And by all of us.

For those who want to fight back, there is much that you can do. Voice your support for pro-climate policies and interventions. Engage at the state and local level, where many crucial decisions are made. Electrify your homes and vehicles when you make your next purchasing decision. Improve efficiency. Reduce personal fossil-fuel demand where practical. In all these ways, in all our lives, we can punch back.

Just as important is strengthening climate’s corner team. Supporting research and science-based organizations such as Woodwell Climate Research Center ensures that rigorous climate science remains visible, actionable, and influential. Data, analysis, and public engagement are the equivalent of coaching between rounds.

Ali went on to win that 1963 fight, scoring a technical knockout in the very next round. And we—those striving for an equitable, healthy, and sustainable world—will assuredly win as well. So pick yourself up, shake off the fog, and push forward.

Today’s headlines may sound like a final blow. They are not.

Onward,

Max signature

A message from President & CEO Dr. Max Holmes

As the calendar flips from one year to the next, I find myself reflecting not only on the many challenges faced in 2025, but also on lessons learned during difficult moments further in the past. One such time was more than a decade ago, deep in the Siberian Arctic, when weather threatened to delay the conclusion of a weeks-long research expedition. As I wrote on July 23, 2012:

“I’m sitting on the barge, drinking a cup of coffee, watching snow whip across the Panteleikha River. More than 24 hours of rain and snow have turned the dirt runway in Cherskiy to mud, threatening to delay our trip home (which is supposed to begin later today as we fly from Cherskiy to Yakutsk, and then to Moscow). A delayed flight out of Cherskiy would have many ripple effects (lots of rebooking of flights, hotels, buses, etc.; lots of disappointment as our reunions with family and friends are postponed; and lots of additional expenses).

There are many easier things to do in life than to lead a group of 33 people to the Siberian Arctic, so why do I do this? I’ve been asking myself that question this morning, intertwined with thoughts about missing my 6-year-old son and 3-year-old daughter, and facing the prospect of missing my wife’s 40th birthday.

Fortunately, there is an easy answer: This is the most important thing I can imagine doing. I’ll keep hoping that our flight departs as scheduled this afternoon, but if not, I–and the larger group–will rally and use our extra time here to pry a few more secrets from this remarkable, challenging, critical, and beautiful environment.”

As it turned out, our flight out of Cherskiy was canceled, we had to spend an additional $30,000 on plane tickets, and I missed my wife’s 40th birthday. Experiences like this are not unusual when working in challenging environments such as the Arctic, and Woodwell scientists have long been tested by such obstacles.

Fast forward to 2025 and all of the challenges it brought. And yes, as in 2012, there have been moments when I’ve asked myself that same question:
“Why do I do this?”

My answer remains exactly what it was then:
“This is the most important thing I can imagine doing.”

I know that most Woodwell staff feel the same way. This is hard work, and at times, there are more losses than wins. But it is essential work, and we will continue to forge ahead.

I’m certain that 2026 will bring new challenges, but I am confident that Woodwell Climate Research Center will continue to stand tall, doing our science, using our voice, and staying focused on charting a course toward a positive future, no matter the obstacles in our way.

In fact, we are doing much more than simply holding our own; we are forging ahead. In the coming months, you’ll hear about Woodwell’s new office in Washington, DC; our new scientific impact strategy; and how we are continuing to pursue our highest priorities without being beholden to federal government agendas.

Thank you to all our friends, supporters, collaborators, and partners. This is a true team effort. We wouldn’t be able to continue to stand tall without you.

Onward.
Max signature

On January 5, Woodwell Climate submitted public comment to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (Army Corps) proposed rule to update the definition of “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

As a result of climate change, flood risk is projected to increase for Leominster. The probability of the historical 100-year rainfall event, a useful indicator of flood risk, is expected to almost triple by mid-century and be more than five times as likely by the end of the century. Streamflow for the North Nashua River is also estimated to rise throughout this century with an increase of 12.2% by 2050 and an additional 12.5% by 2080. Both increases in streamflow and heavier rainfall will translate into greater flood depths and extent for Leominster. The vulnerability of Leominster’s stormwater system was evaluated under the present and future 100-year rainfall event. Here we present our findings on extreme precipitation and flooding to help Leominster in its plans to create a more resilient future for all residents.

As a result of climate change, flood risk is projected to increase for New Bedford. The probability of the historical 100-year rainfall event, a useful indicator of flood risk, is expected to double by mid-century and be more than three times more likely by the end of the century. Heavier rainfall will translate into slightly greater flood depths and extent for New Bedford. Making changes to the land elevation and culverts will help alleviate some of the flooding near Terry Lane and Chaffee Street. Here we present our findings on extreme precipitation and flooding to help New Bedford in its plans to create a more resilient future for all residents.