A message from President & CEO Dr. Max Holmes
As I write this at the end of a week spent in Alaska with Woodwell colleagues, board members, and supporters learning about our permafrost work, I keep returning to one thought: how fortunate we are to have Edward Alexander on our staff.
Edward, Woodwell’s Senior Arctic Lead, is Gwich’in. He is from Fort Yukon, the largest Gwich’in community in Alaska. To spend even a short time with Edward is to understand that for him, leadership is not a title but a way of moving through the world.
The record speaks plainly. Appointed by the Chiefs of Alaska, he represented the Gwich’in internationally as Co-Chair of the Gwich’in Council International for five terms, and served as Head of Delegation to the Senior Arctic Officials and to the Arctic Council’s working groups on Conservation of Arctic Flora and Fauna and Emergency Prevention, Preparedness, and Response. He has represented Gwich’in interests at the highest levels of international diplomacy, across the table from figures like Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken. He co-chaired the Arctic Council’s Chairship Initiative on Wildland Fire, served for seven years as 2nd Chief of the Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich’in, and was appointed by the United Nations to represent the Arctic on the International Indigenous-Led Fire Adaptation Network. He is also a wildland firefighter—someone who does not merely study the changing Arctic but who confronts it directly.
That combination is rare. At Woodwell, Edward works with the Permafrost Pathways team on the climate impacts of wildland fire and the abrupt permafrost thaw that follows it, weaving together scientific analysis, Indigenous Knowledge, and Indigenous management practice. He pairs a scientist’s rigor with a diplomat’s fluency and a firefighter’s pragmatic approach. He is, quite simply, a natural leader, and I count him an inspiration.
It helps to know where this comes from. I had the privilege of meeting Edward’s father, Clarence Alexander, in 2007 at the Yukon River Inter-Tribal Watershed Council Summit in St. Mary’s, Alaska. Clarence, a former Grand Chief of the Gwich’in and longtime First Chief of Fort Yukon, helped found the YRITWC, an alliance of some seventy Tribes and First Nations dedicated to protecting the waters of the Yukon River Watershed. In 2011, he received the Presidential Citizens Medal from President Obama for a lifetime of environmental and tribal-rights leadership. Edward carries that inheritance forward, charting his own path but continuing to honor that legacy.
Why does this matter so much for Woodwell? Because the questions at the center of our permafrost science are not only physical questions. They are also questions of justice. The Arctic is warming four times faster than the global average, and the people who have stewarded these lands for millennia are on the front lines of that change. Edward embodies the truth that rigorous climate science and Indigenous leadership are not separate enterprises, but instead are strongest when joined together.
That leads me to the question I keep asking: what can I do to support Edward so he can have the greatest impact? The challenge is not to overly direct someone of Edward’s caliber but to clear the path, to give him the resources and the trust to bring his full self and his community’s wisdom to our shared work. If we get that right, Woodwell will be better for it, our science will be better for it, and the world will be better for it.
We talk often about the urgency of our mission. Edward reminds me that the mission is also about people, about whose knowledge counts, whose future is at stake, and whose leadership we are wise enough to follow.
Onward.
Disappearing lakes and AI are helping scientists map Arctic permafrost thaw in near‑real time
Florida gets a lot of attention for its sinkholes, especially when they swallow cars and entire houses. But its sinkhole risk has nothing on Alaska’s.
Much of Alaska’s soil is permafrost – ground that remains below 32 degrees Fahrenheit (0 degrees Celsius) for at least two consecutive years. It is often rich with ice, but when that ice melts, the ground can collapse. As temperatures rise, that’s happening more often across the Arctic.
The consequences are the same as in Florida: substantial property damage as the land that buildings, roads and pipes were built on sinks.
Continue reading on The Conversation.
A global gathering to tackle the planet’s soil crisis is underway in Mongolia
This year’s Convention to Combat Desertification focuses on rangelands and attempts to address an overlooked solution to climate change.
In Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, policy makers, scientists and global negotiators are gathering to convey an urgent message: The world’s rangelands, which make up about half of Earth’s land surface, are in trouble. But these same lands offer an opportunity. If, collectively, farmers and land users restore rangelands and soils, they can combat drought and preserve a major global carbon sink.
Unlike the burning of fossil fuels, everyone seems to agree that something needs to be done about them.
Read more on Inside Climate News.
Woodwell Climate Research Center (Woodwell) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) notice of the NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance.
For more than 40 years, Woodwell has dedicated itself to objective scientific analysis for the benefit and safety of people and nature. The science we conduct seeks to mitigate and adapt to the amplified threats of extreme weather events, wildfire, food insecurity, and others due to our changing climate. These threats pose immense economic consequences. Thus, not only do we have traditional STEM scientists, but also economic experts that ensure accessible and applied research. We understand the direct economic and societal impacts that our research has on the American people, and we understand that these benefits extend not only from the subject matter of our organization but from all scientific exploration and innovation in the fields of foundational science, technology, and engineering, amongst others.
Woodwell strongly opposes NSF’s notice of NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance, and specifically the sections outlined below (Guide 2 Sections A and C, Guide 8 Section F, Guide 9 Section D, Guide 12 Section A, and Guide 25 Section A). The proposal claims to align with the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, which explicitly states the NSF’s mission and purpose as “To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…” However, the draft of NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance explicitly states, and continually reiterates, that the document revisions defer to the proposed revisions to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Uniform Guidance as outlined in 91 FR 32198. The overriding of the bedrock peer-review process of federal grantmaking with the decisions of political appointees outlined in this OMB proposal directly contradicts NSF’s mission. The space of federally funded scientific research is already heavily regulated, and this proposed revision threatens to suffocate it beyond recovery. This increase in faulty, politically motivated science would negatively impact American livelihoods, the economy, and national security.
Guide 9 Section D – Reconsideration for proposals declined or returned without review
Guide 9 Section D aligns with provision §200.202 of 2 CFR 200 of the OMB Federal Financial Assistance proposed rule. Section D states “the scientific and technical merits may be examined within the context of budget availability and program priorities” in the context of a fair and reasonable NSF review. The OMB proposal requires every grant program to be designed so its goals “align with administration policies and priorities.” Taken together, it is clear the Administration seeks to align research with its own interest areas, manipulating scientific investment for partisan priorities. Tying federal financial assistance to the shifting priorities of any given political administration inherently threatens the continuity of essential, objective research and risks defunding critical studies based on partisan agendas. Subordinating independent, data-driven scientific inquiry to political mandates undermines scientific integrity, jeopardizes vital longitudinal datasets, and ultimately deprives policymakers and the public of the unbiased evidence necessary to effectively combat the very real escalating, evolving, and emerging concerns related to climate, public health, biomedical research, technology, and others that may be inconvenient for an administration’s agenda.
Guide 2 Section A – Categories of Funding Opportunities
Guide 2 Section A corresponds to provision §200.204 of 2 CFR 200 of the OMB Federal Financial Assistance proposed rule. Section A outlines “targeted solicitations” that are beyond the scope of the NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance, and lists 2 CFR 200 as an authority that governs Guide 2. By allowing for exceptions to not post grant opportunities on Grants.gov under the condition that the head of an agency subjectively deems the opportunity as serving the “national interest,” this provision in the OMB proposed rule sows distrust within the scientific community and the general public. Transparency is an underpinning of scientific integrity. In order to best serve the national interest, the selection process should be open to competition. Candidates hand-picked by the agency will create grantees who are subject to the political whim of the Administration, rather than to the true “national interest” of the American people. Moreover, this provision fundamentally contradicts the “aim to ensure that basic American principles of equality and equal opportunity are upheld throughout all stages of the award making process” that is advertised in the OMB proposed rule, as all applicants are not equitably provided the opportunity to apply for these specific grants.
Guide 8 Section F – Funding Recommendation, Award Decision, and Pre-Award Review
Guide 8 Section F corresponds to provision §200.205 of 2 CFR 200 of the OMB Federal Financial Assistance proposed rule. Section F “describes how NSF program directors make funding recommendations that are reviewed by NSF leadership.” Granting political appointees the authority to review and potentially cancel federal grants introduces dangerous partisan bias into the scientific process, threatening to derail critical, long-term research that may be politically inconvenient but is vital for national and global security. This section fundamentally undermines scientific independence, degrades the integrity of federal financial assistance, and jeopardizes our nation’s ability to respond to evolving and emerging threats, like the climate crisis, with unbiased, data-driven solutions.
Guide 25 Section A – Suspensions and Terminations
Guide 25 Section A corresponds to provision §200.340 of 2 CFR 200 of the OMB Federal Financial Assistance proposed rule. This section outlines that NSF may suspend or terminate an award for various reasons, including “changes in priorities.” Complex scientific inquiry inherently requires multi-year planning, continuous data collection, and significant, sustained resource investment. Broadening federal agencies’ and political appointees’ authority to unilaterally terminate grants for reasons unrelated to grantee performance or compliance, such as shifting administrative priorities, introduces uncertainty into the research ecosystem. Similar attempts to freeze grants for subjects and institutions disliked by and unaligned with the Administration throughout 2025 resulted not only in tremendous economic losses and waste of previously approved investments, but also a critical loss of scientific knowledge.
By subjecting researchers to the whim of the Administration, scientists will hesitate to publish findings important to the American people that challenge the status quo and may inform necessary scientific revisions to long-term policies. By suffocating any hint of scientific dissension, the Administration will promote faulty science that will put America’s scientific reputation, as well as American lives, in harm’s way. To preserve the continuity, stability, and global competitiveness of American scientific innovation, we urge the removal of these expanded termination powers to ensure that merit-based research is protected from abrupt and unwarranted cancellations.
Guide 12, Section A – Basic Considerations (Cost Principles and Allowability)
Guide 12 Section A corresponds to provisions §200.432, §200.454, and §200.461 of 2 CFR 200 of the OMB Federal Financial Assistance proposed rule. To determine if a cost is allowable, the NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance directs the applicant to “confirm that the cost is consistent with 2 CFR 200.” These revisions significantly limit, or openly ban, the use of federal grant funding to cover the vitally important indirect costs of conference attendance, journal subscriptions, and publications, among others. Woodwell strongly opposes the NSF’s deference to the outlined preference towards institutions with lower indirect cost rates in the OMB proposed rule. These costs support the competitive nature of a project through the maintenance of necessary equipment and facilities, as well as public-facing collaboration and debate.
Without the opportunity to share research with other experts and the general public, researchers lose out on vital knowledge and feedback that leads to improved and more legitimate scientific conclusions. Without the financial ability to publish findings, a scientific experiment may never be reproduced and thus not be seen as a legitimate basis on which to conduct additional research on complicated topics. The myriad of indirect costs necessary for a successful project present extraordinary financial barriers that will make the federally funded research landscape inherently inequitable, shutting out scientists and institutions who would not otherwise be able to afford these assets.
Guide 2 Section C – Eligibility
Guide 2 Section C corresponds to provision §200.220 of 2 CFR 200 of the OMB Federal Financial Assistance proposed rule. This section generally prohibits the spending of federal funds in relation to foreign collaboration, and outlines the extensive process by which applicants must justify foreign collaboration if their project requires it. These restrictions, including on travel or indirect costs, would severely inhibit the ability of the United States to scientifically compete on a global scale and to work with international counterparts who often have specific skills or resources that facilitate and amplify scientific outcomes and innovation. The most pressing scientific challenges of our time, from tracking global climate patterns and biodiversity loss to mitigating public health crises, are global and rely on the exchange of data, resources, and expertise across nations.
Prohibiting federally funded researchers from partnering with international colleagues would isolate the American scientific community, deny experts access to vital global datasets and specialized facilities, and severely stifle innovation. Such a restrictive mandate threatens to dismantle decades of cooperative progress and will inevitably force the United States to cede its position as a global leader in scientific discovery.
The range of countries that fall under this provision of banned collaboration under the label of “Foreign Country of Concern” is exceptionally wide and highly variable over time: the qualifying characteristics are those countries considered foreign adversaries or those subject to sanctions or restrictions related to national security, defense, or intelligence activities. Under the OMB proposed rules, even the 17 European Union countries subjected to semiconductor export restrictions at the end of the Biden Administration would be banned from scientific collaboration. While protecting national security remains an integral priority as researchers navigate foreign partnerships, this proposed rule oversteps its bounds. Woodwell encourages the NSF to carefully weigh the considerations of each partnership, rather than implement this blanket rule. The limited outlined exceptions, as dictated by a political appointee, are not sufficient to protect international collaboration.
These revisions would override the existing processes to prevent undue influence or security threats, as well as the processes for granting exceptions. Specifically, the restrictions would disqualify federally-funded research from the fundamental research exclusion. This exclusion has long exempted basic or applied research from export control regulations to allow for the free exchange and publication of research results. Instead, researchers would need to apply for licenses at the State Department and the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security. The proposed changes would significantly increase the costs, timelines, and workloads of international collaboration for these researchers as well as these federal agencies.
Impacts on Climate Resilience and Risk Mitigation
In the field of climate science and risk mitigation, this proposed NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance would have exceptionally deep impacts. Although research activities such as extreme weather tracking and preparedness, affordable livelihoods, and critical infrastructure are all vital to the lives of everyday Americans, this Administration has a documented history of repressing these efforts, including the proposed dismantling of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the attempted dismantling of the Ocean Observatories Initiative, and the defunding of the Arctic Research Commission.
Over the last two decades, arctic air temperatures have increased at a rate nearly twice the global average, accelerating the degradation of permafrost and glacial ice. Woodwell research has found that regional impacts include habitat loss, degraded water supplies, disruptions to the cultural traditions and livelihoods of northern communities, and population displacement. The negative effects also extend well beyond Arctic communities, as sea level rise, disrupted hydrological cycles, and infrastructural damage threaten the national security of the entire country. Further, the Arctic region operates as a carbon sink, storing massive amounts of greenhouse gases in its soil. As the region experiences higher temperatures and the thawing of its soils, the rate of greenhouse gas emissions increases, further accelerating the rate of permafrost thaw and the resulting negative impacts. All of these effects are compounded by higher rates of wildfire in the Arctic-boreal region due to rising temperatures, more frequent lightning storms, and increasingly dry climatic conditions.
Like most climate sciences, permafrost thaw is not constrained by political boundaries. This means that international collaboration is critical to our work at Woodwell. This is especially true of our Arctic partnerships with communities across Alaska, Canada, Mongolia, and more as we study traditional wildfire mitigation tactics and permafrost thaw across the Arctic region. Under intermediate to high emissions scenarios respectively, Woodwell research estimates future infrastructural damage from permafrost thaw at $37 billion to $51 billion in the state of Alaska alone. The potential economic payoff of exploring alternative solutions is only one example of the startling economic benefits of wide-reaching scientific research. Given the Administration’s previous threats to atmospheric and Arctic science, it can be assumed that the proposed NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance would bolster further degradation of this area of research.
The Critical Role of Federal Financial Assistance to Economic and Global Competitiveness
The NSF grants so far frozen or terminated since 2025 have resulted in economic loss across the United States estimated at $1.7 billion. The total job loss is estimated at more than 9,000. Texas faces the greatest economic loss of $162 million and more than 800 jobs lost. Massachusetts faces an estimated $62.2 million in economic losses and 327 jobs lost.
Government-wide, no institution is safe from these financial threats: two-thirds of land-grant universities and nearly half of all Historically Black Colleges and Universities have been affected. Even community colleges have had funding targeted for termination. Public universities and colleges suffered the steepest losses, with financial losses from grant disruptions totalling to an estimated $2.1 billion. According to NSF data, the cancelled grants disproportionately affected early career researchers, women, people of color, and those with disabilities.
Private funders cannot step in to fill this funding gap. Basic research generates knowledge that diffuses beyond its original source and the current time, ultimately benefiting competitors. This “knowledge spillover” is great for the broader economy and thus broader population, but bad for companies trying to capture a return on their investment, leading the private sector to underinvest.
Government investments in scientific research and development are, and have historically been, an integral part of our nation’s economy, with returns estimated between 150% and 300% since World War II. In 2024, the knowledge and technology industries in the United States produced $3.3 trillion in added value, accounting for 11% of the U.S. GDP. From 2017 to 2024, the field’s financial contributions to the economy grew faster than the domestic U.S. non-farm economy as a whole.
Federally funded research not only yields financial returns, but also provides for increases in our standard of living via biomedical advancements, a more favorable startup environment with increased job opportunities, and enhanced national security through the creation of advanced defense technologies. Economy-wide, long term returns are calculated at $5 for every $1 invested in research and development. Further, $1 of public investment in research and development has been found to yield an additional $3 in follow-on private research and development investment. Economic researchers have concluded that the United States should invest much more in science and innovation than it does currently, especially given findings that federally funded research and development yields substantially higher returns than other forms of federal investment, including even physical infrastructure.
In cutting federal funding for scientific innovation, the United States puts its status of technological dominance in jeopardy. China’s annual research and development growth rate has rapidly outpaced that of the United States, by more than 200%, for over two decades. In 2024, the United States and China were neck and neck as the top producers of knowledge and technological industry, with $3.3 trillion and $2.9 trillion, respectively. However, that same year, China topped the U.S. as the largest knowledge and technological manufacturing producer with 10% more of the global share. Under current projections, Chinese scientists will overcome U.S. dominance in the fields of AI, semiconductors, materials, and high performance computing in only 5 years. When considering the implications of these changes to NSF policies, with its many problematic and restrictive positions, it can only be assumed that China’s dominance would be more inevitable and even faster-approaching than ever before.
Conclusion
The proposed NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance abandons scientific integrity. Woodwell urges the National Science Foundation to rescind the proposed revisions of the NSF Guidance on Financial Assistance so that NSF science remains independent and free of any partisan agenda. The politicization of science is completely contrary to scientific value, and will irreparably damage America’s international reputation in this field. Most importantly, the stifling of scientific innovation will endanger American citizens through detrimental impacts on livelihoods, the economy, and national security.
Thanks to the generosity of the Woodwell donor community, the second round of 2026 Fund for Climate Solutions (FCS) awardees has been announced. The FCS supports innovative, solutions-oriented climate science through a competitive, cross-disciplinary process. With more than $10 million raised to date, donor support has already fueled 88 research grants and leveraged millions of dollars in additional research grants since the program’s launch in 2018.
This most recent round of grants is supporting Woodwell experts in building policy engagement skills, improving land managers’ preparedness for future fire seasons, and updating carbon budgets based on the newest science.
Woodwell Policy Fellowship: A Pilot Program to Advance the Internal Science to Policy Pipeline
Lead: Laura Uttley
Since the Center’s founding by Dr. George Woodwell, our leadership, scientists, and researchers have engaged with local, state, federal, and international policymakers to facilitate the development of science-based policy solutions. This project will develop an internal Policy Fellowship pilot program to amplify Woodwell Climate’s science in decision-making and better position our scientists and researchers for engagement and advocacy opportunities. A cohort of five to ten science staff will collaborate with the Policy and Government Relations team through attending monthly webinars on federal and international processes, developing policy briefs relevant to their work, and participating in either COP32 or Woodwell’s 2027 DC fly-in. This Policy Fellowship will leverage the diverse backgrounds and experiences of Woodwell Climate scientists to ensure robust climate science is complemented with compelling narratives and public policy applications.
The 2024 Amazon fire crisis: A postmortem to advance proactive management
Lead: Dr. Manoela Machado
Despite 2024’s lower-than-average deforestation rates in the Brazilian Amazon, wildfires there reached record levels. For every hectare of forest lost to deforestation, 11 hectares were affected by wildfire—an unprecedented proportion. Leaders from Prevfogo (National Center for Prevention and Combat of Forest Fire) have called for scientific evidence that can help aggregate data on burned area, land tenure, agency mandates, and resource constraints in order to reinforce requests for increased budgetary support and avoid a repeat of the 2024 season during the anticipated 2026–2027 El Niño year. The project team will create maps of the 2024 fire crisis to support proactive preparedness for future fire seasons. These maps will identify where fire risk and occurrence, institutional responsibilities, and operational capacity may be misaligned, supporting proactive planning, improving coordination, and justifying targeted funding for agencies preparing for future fire crises.
Permafrost emissions and remaining carbon budgets under peak-and-decline pathways
Lead: Dr. Christina Schӓdel
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Seventh Assessment report (AR7) is underway, and a key priority of the report is examining overshoot pathways. Overshoot, or peak-and-decline pathways, describe climate scenarios where global temperatures temporarily exceed 1.5 or 2°C before declining as a result of mitigation actions (emissions reductions and carbon dioxide removal). This project will create the first synthesis of overshoot models of permafrost emissions, and calculate how including permafrost emissions impacts global carbon budgets. Using this model synthesis, the team will develop policy-relevant visualizations, conference presentations, and a peer-reviewed manuscript to inform IPCC AR7 and UN assessments of global progress on climate goals.
Forest carbon allocation decoupling under climate extremes: Implications for carbon budgets, forecasting and forest management
Lead: Kathleen Savage
When trees capture carbon from the atmosphere, they can store it aboveground in their trunks and branches, where it can persist for a long time, or belowground in their roots, where it can return to the atmosphere more quickly. Recent studies have shown that under extreme conditions like drought, trees shift to storing more of their carbon in their roots instead of in wood growth. However, current ecosystem models don’t reflect this allocation shift. This project will study long-term forest carbon data from Howland Research Forest in Maine to better understand carbon allocation changes, how they vary across management practices, and their implications for forest management and conservation goals. The team will host a two-day workshop to present their results to forestry managers, conservation organizations, and policymakers. They will also visit Washington, D.C. to deliver insights directly to federal policymakers.
At this summer’s Esri User Conference, the world’s largest geospatial technology conference, Woodwell Climate Research Center scientists Jackie Dean and Heidi Rodenhizer were recognized with top cartography awards for maps illustrating the challenges threatening those on the front lines of climate change and the beauty of a personal cycling journey through Norwegian landscapes. This is the fourth year in a row that Woodwell has won major awards at the Esri conference.
Rising Waters, Sinking Ground: Navigating Climate Threats for Community Relocation, by Jackie Dean, was a finalist for Outstanding Spatial Analysis. Across Alaska, warming temperatures are intensifying climate risks – thawing permafrost, erosion and flooding, catastrophic ground collapse, and increasingly frequent storms – that threaten the safety of Alaska Native communities like Nunapicuaq, forcing them to consider relocation as the only option to protect their villages. The map illustrates the effects of climate change and rapid warming, as well as the factors that influence considerations and efforts to relocate. It was developed in partnership with Nunapicuaq residents Morris Alexie, Woodwell’s Community Engagement Specialist, and Vincent Wassillie, Permafrost Pathways Liaison for Nunapicuaq, to support the community’s chosen site and identify more suitable, higher ground their community could safely and viably move to.
“It is incredibly important to build maps in collaboration with Indigenous communities on the front lines of the climate crisis right now, to share their reality and the intricacies and adversities that they are being faced with,” said Jackie Dean, research assistant at Woodwell Climate Research Center. “Without serious intervention, climate change will only continue to impact people, and thoughtful adaptation and resilience will be increasingly critical for communities across Alaska and the globe.”
Norway By Bicycle, by Heidi Rodenhizer, received the International Cartographic Association and International Mapping Industry Association (ICA-IMIA) Recognition of Excellence in Cartography award, and illustrates the expedition Heidi and her husband undertook once they could travel safely following the global COVID-19 pandemic. The map depicts the path that took them across deep-cut fjords lined with brightly colored houses, through the alpine tundra, over bright green islands, and to the summit of Galdhøpiggen, the highest mountain in Norway.
“The map allowed me to capture the data of three months of adventure on one page as a reminder of the stunning and highly varied landscapes and topography of Norway that both inspired and, at times, impeded our tour,” said Heidi Rodenhizer, research scientist at Woodwell Climate Research Center. “Now our trip and days of travel are memorialized visually, in a display that merges Norway’s spectacular scenery with the journey we took, and allows us to revisit and share the experience with others.”
“These maps show the range of impact and narrative work that cartography is able to provide, tracking critical data for scientists solving the problems of climate change and serving as vehicles for storytelling and amplifying important lived experiences,” said Greg Fiske, Director of Geospatial Technology at Woodwell. “We are excited to continue exploring our understanding of geospatial data and sharing these complex stories in an accessible manner.”
The Esri User Conference, held annually in San Diego, hosts over 20,000 geospatial professional attendees and hundreds of maps submitted for the gallery. Woodwell Climate has developed a noteworthy partnership with Esri, the industry leader in mapping software, and has attended the conference for decades. From art exhibits to scientific journal articles, Woodwell prioritizes cartography as a means to transform complex environmental data into clear, accessible visual stories that can reach broad audiences.
To learn more, view Rising Waters, Sinking Ground here and Norway By Bicycle here
New fire satellites offer hope for Amazon and other biomes, but local barriers remain
Record wildfires devastated South America in 2024, raging out of control in biomes where fire is a natural part of the ecosystem, but also entering rainforests that had never burned before. Driven by expanding industrial agriculture, an El Niño episode, and droughts worsened by global climate change, the thick smoke from the wildfires grounded flights, shuttered schools, and caused lasting health problems.
