Canadian Wildfire Smoke is Bad for Americans., But U.S. Wildfire Smoke is Also Bad for Canadians, and Ways to Be Protected

 

     No one wants to breathe unhealthy, toxic air. Combustion in its various forms is responsible for particulate matter (PM), which is dangerous to breathe. It does not only matter how big the source is, but where one is relative to it. Sources of PM include wildfires, campfires, bonfires, wood-burning fireplaces, coal-fired power plants, biomass power plants, waste-to-energy power plants, coke plants, industrial combustion processes, diesel-burning transportation, home heating, ships, trains, jets, smoking, and many more. Wildfires can be a major and dominant force. Weather inversions can bring the smoke closer to the ground, where humans have no choice but to breathe it. This happens very often in places like California, where a significant portion of it comes from China and Southeast Asia. California consistently has some of the worst air quality in the U.S., due in no small part to its susceptibility to these weather or heat inversions. Thus, poor air quality events from wildfire smoke require two conditions: fires and a weather inversion to hold the smoke down.

     A few years ago, my car dealer’s repair shop offered a free cabin air filter replacement when Canadian wildfire smoke was present. That is one way we can protect ourselves. Another is simply staying indoors when the air quality is bad due to PM. Vulnerable people might want to wear masks or use home air purifiers. PM pollution can be dangerous, especially for vulnerable people. I wrote a detailed post on PM pollution last August.

     A group of Republican Senators just penned an angry letter to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, demanding better forest management practices in light of three consecutive years of cross-border Canadian wildfire smoke events. However, sometimes the opposite occurs when smoke from U.S. wildfires impedes Canadian air quality. The letter included the following:

"Our hospitals are once again treating children, dialysis patients, and older residents for the effects of smoke that did not originate anywhere near them."

“This is the third consecutive year we have had to write to Canadian officials about a crisis that Canada has the tools to prevent and has chosen not to."

     The pic below shows Vancouver in 2020 under a blanket of U.S. wildfire smoke.

     I don’t know whether Canada could manage its forests better to prevent fires or not. Experts have noted that there are other climate and weather factors that make fire more or less likely. According to an article in Cleveland.com:

“Canada’s forests have always experienced wildfires as part of natural ecosystems, but scientists say today’s fires are increasingly occurring under conditions that allow them to grow larger and burn longer, according to CBS. Warmer temperatures, reduced snowpack, dry vegetation and prolonged drought create landscapes where fires can ignite more easily and become more difficult to contain.”

“Forest management practices, including removing excess vegetation, conducting controlled burns and creating firebreaks, can help reduce wildfire risks in certain areas, USA TODAY reported. But experts say those tools cannot completely prevent large-scale fires, particularly when weather conditions create extreme fire behavior across millions of acres of remote forest.”

     Canada’s fires in recent years have broken records. They did not change their forest management practices that had been sufficient until the more recent fires. Perhaps they should intensify those efforts, but it’s not likely that will solve the problem.

“Scientists and wildfire specialists, however, caution that blaming forest management alone overlooks the broader forces driving today’s fire seasons. They say a combination of climate change, weather patterns, forest conditions and human decisions all contribute to the increasing frequency and intensity of wildfires.”

     Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno said he would introduce legislation to sanction Canada over the wildfire smoke, and another GOP senator from affected Michigan quipped:

“Unless you want to become the 51st state, learn to manage your forests.”

     I think the proposed sanctions and the rhetoric, including calls to enter Canada and fix the forests for them, are uncalled for, disproportionate, and an insult to our friendly neighbors.

     Moreno called for forest thinning, fuel reduction, prescribed burns, and beefed-up enforcement against arson. I don’t know how much that would help. Some major fires have been started by prescribed burns that got out of control. Detection and enforcement of arson is difficult in any case.

  

 

References:

 

When American Smoke Choked Canada: Some Republican lawmakers have blamed Canada for poor air quality in the United States and said poor forest management is to blame. But Canadians have also inhaled smoke from American wildfires. Ephrat Livni. New York Times. July 17, 2026. When American Smoke Choked Canada - The New York Times

GOP senator to introduce bill to sanction Canada over wildfire smoke. Alexander Bolton. The Hill. July 16, 2026. GOP senator to introduce bill to sanction Canada over wildfire smoke

Canada wildfires are sending smoke across U.S. - but experts say there’s more to the story. Chris Pugh. Cleveland.com. July 17, 2026. Why Canada Wildfires Aren’t Only About Forest Management - syracuse.com

Canada attacked by Republicans over wildfire smoke crossing US border. Tag24 News. July 17, 2026. Canada attacked by Republicans over wildfire smoke crossing US border

 

 

 

   

AAPG Subsurface AI Special Report: Summary & Review

     This special report was sponsored by Aspen Tech. AI in oil & gas is not new. Beginning with simple neural networks and in the past decade with large language models and generative AI, the sector is embracing AI and achieving positive results. The report cites seismic surveying, reservoir evaluation, data validation, production strategies and optimization, multidisciplinary collaboration, predictive maintenance, and drilling optimization as examples. Digital twins, or real-time digital models, have been and are being deployed in several areas. Digital twins and generative AI have already been credited with increasing production and decreasing costs. Oil & gas companies generate vast quantities of data, including 3D seismic data, well logs, drilling data, and production analysis data. Thus, they are quite amenable to AI analysis that can find hidden relationships in the data.

     The report identifies four key themes for subsurface AI in 2026.

1. Simplifying Vendor Portfolios. This is important for reducing the siloing of data and putting it all in a single system. With a single encompassing platform, AI can act as an application programming interface (API). AspenTech’s Subsurface Intelligence “brings together domain-specific agents (for geophysics, formation evaluation, petrophysics, geomodelling and reservoir engineering) using AI capabilities.”

“AI-propelled software is enabling companies to use a single platform to work with multimodal data. Data analytics software company Databricks’ Data Intelligence Platform bridges data warehouses (where structured data informs decisions, but raw data is often problematic) with data lakes (repositories for raw data). “

“Leveraging Databricks, companies standardize schemas, manage quality, and keep datasets in sync as new sources come online,” says Enterprise Solutions Specialist at DataBricks, Reagan Kennedy. “With that data they can apply AI/ML capabilities, build out analytics, and expose the data via APIs and applications so existing tools can read/write against the same data instead of maintaining their own silos.”

2. Automation of Upstream Workflows with Agentic AI. They define agentic AI systems as systems that “autonomously act, decide, and orchestrate multistep workflows.” These systems are currently moving from the pilot phase to being fully operational. Output moves from making suggestions in generative AI to initiating actions in agentic AI.

“…generative AI might suggest a reservoir model to help with well planning. Agentic AI would use automation to rapidly create the model and then query asset-wide data to understand where the next best places to drill are or to predict the outcomes of different development strategies.”

“Additionally, multi-agent frameworks can coordinate across subsurface disciplines simultaneously: One agent interprets stratigraphy, another models pore pressure, a third cross-references offset well data.”

     Agents are typically limited to what they were designed to do, such as analyze the geology of a single basin. Thus, location-specific and domain-specific validation is important. AI offers faster project analysis and better integration of data, and geologists should incorporate it smartly to save time and improve overall subsurface analysis.

3. The Open Subsurface Data Universe Launches. The Open Subsurface Data Universe (OSDU) was developed beginning in 2018 by major oil companies, including Anadarko, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Devon, Equinor, Exxon, Shell, and TotalEnergies, along with tech companies. It aimed “to create a single, open, cloud-native data platform where seismic, well log, reservoir, and production data could live, communicate, and be accessed by any application, regardless of vendor or operator.” OSDU was not without rollout problems in integrating different kinds of data, but it is still being perfected. AspenTech’s OSDU czar, Dani Alsaab, noted:

“The future is multi-vendor collaboration in the upstream ecosystem, and we see ironclad commitment to OSDU as a differentiator for the future.” 

     The report notes that OSDU is still the best framework yet devised for the standardization of subsurface data. However, it has yet to be widely adopted outside of large oil & gas companies and still has challenges with interoperability and the integration of proprietary data.

4. Using AI to Train the Next Generation of Workers. They note that new employees can be aided by better AI integration of “how-to” functions in software so that software competency is improved and employee training is advanced. Software competency is a very important skill for modern geologists. However, it should not eclipse training in geology, but ideally complement it.

“GenAI with domain guardrails is the way to transfer technical knowledge and experience to the next generation of workers,” said AspenTech’s AI CTO Heiko Claussen. “We see this as a way to give our four decades of technology leadership that has been built into our domain-specific software a new lease on life: It is an evergreen way to make future workers experts. It empowers us to add value to industry in new ways. There will be plenty of jobs, but the core skills will be how knowledge workers best leverage, interpret, and take advantage of these new AI tools.”     

     While I think this is all important, I also think that geologists should not abandon the basics of geology for AI-based approaches in all domains. We should always remember that AI functions best as a digital assistant, hopefully a remarkably competent one that can advance successful solutions to problems.

    

References:

 

AAPG Subsurface AI Special Report. Sponsored by AspenTech. 2026. AAPG_SubsurfaceAI_SpecialReport_2026.pdf

 

Lake Powell and the Colorado River System Face Continued Drought and Reduced Hydropower Output

     Lake Powell in Arizona is part of the Colorado River system. The U.S. Southwest has been undergoing a long-term drought, and water levels continue to drop, nearing critical thresholds for the Glen Canyon Dam’s ability to generate hydroelectricity. A recent water surface measurement recorded a level about 34 feet above the 3,490-foot “minimum power pool” at which Glen Canyon Dam can no longer generate hydropower. Previous projections suggested that the water level could fall that low as soon as August 2026. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) handles data for the lake and river system. There are wider potential implications of the ongoing drought. Current management involves releases from other reservoirs. 

     Newsweek’s Joe Edwards has been following the story and reports:

“The wider stakes extend well beyond the reservoir. The drought-stricken Colorado River provides municipal water to about 40 million people, supports more than 8 billion kilowatt-hours of hydropower a year—enough for about 700,000 homes—and sustains 5.5 million acres of farmland, according to USBR.”

     A second concern with the situation is the possibility of future restrictions on downstream water use.

“Glen Canyon Powerplant has eight generators with a total capacity of 1,320,000 kilowatts, according to USBR. As Lake Powell drops, the dam also loses hydraulic “head,” reducing the efficiency of power production even before turbines are fully shut off, according to reporting from the Lake Powell Chronicle.”

     In April, federal water managers issued emergency actions to shore up Lake Powell, moving water from the upstream Flaming Gorge reservoir and reducing releases to Lake Mead, amid record-low snowpack and deepening drought on the Colorado River. Releases to Lake Mead are important for residents, farmers, and customers downstream in Arizona, Nevada, and California. The reduced snowpack and prolonged drought have led to Colorado River levels at 36% of capacity. Edwards continues:

“The agency said in April it intended to add up to about 2.48 million acre-feet to Lake Powell by releasing 660,000 acre-feet to 1 million acre-feet from Flaming Gorge Reservoir and reducing Lake Powell’s annual release to Lake Mead from 7.48 million acre-feet to 6 million acre-feet through September 2026.”

“But USBR also acknowledged the trade-off: reduced releases from Lake Powell would “accelerate the downstream decline of Lake Mead,” with the potential for up to an additional 40 percent reduction in Hoover Dam hydropower generating capacity as early as this fall, it said.

     The emergency releases and withholdings issued are expected to raise Lake Powell’s water level by 54 feet to at least 3500 ft elevation by April 2027. The Flaming Gorge Reservoir was 83% full in April and is expected to drop to 59% full by next April.

     He cites a 2024 study published in Communications Earth & Environment that concluded that agriculture is responsible for 74% of all human uses of the river water and 52% of total water use. It also found that cattle-feed crops like alfalfa were responsible for 46% of the river’s direct water use. It will not be able to sustain that usage level, and some of those crops and nut orchards may have to be abandoned. 

     Recreation and tourism around the lake are likely to be affected as well. Local officials noted media headlines leading to cancellations. According to Bob Hembree of the Lake Powell Chronicle:

"The national media... has done nothing but put out sensational headlines saying there’s no water in Lake Powell, we’re going dead pool, all of the above," Franz said. She noted that these reports have a direct economic cost, mentioning that she had already heard from a business that "had four cancellations because of a headline back East."

     Hydroelectric output of the Glen Canyon Dam has long been decreasing. It used to power 40% of the nearby city of Page, but now provides only 20%, and power costs have increased.

     Current constraints on Lake Powell and the Colorado River Basin water supply are given below.

     Seven Western states and parts of Mexico share the greater Colorado River basin and must share the water resource. Thus, there will be continuing discussions in the future about how to manage it. The Dept of the Interior has indicated that it will manage the basin rather than have the states do it. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum met with Governors for the seven basin states, Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming, and their designees in April to discuss the concerning hydrology and plans for operations. He noted then:

“Interior and Reclamation continue to coordinate with the basin states, tribes, Mexico and basin stakeholders as we make the decisions necessary to operate and protect the system.”

Assistant Secretary - Water and Science, Andrea Travnicek, noted:

“As we weigh current conditions and prepare for future operations by working with states, tribal nations and stakeholders, the Department of the Interior and Reclamation remain fully committed to taking the actions necessary to reduce impacts on water deliveries, safeguard critical infrastructure, and preserve as much operational flexibility as possible.”  

 

References:

 

Lake Powell nears "dead power pool"—what it means for millions of Americans. Joe Edwards. Newsweek. July 14, 2026. Lake Powell nears "dead power pool"—what it means for millions of Americans

Reclamation Acts to Protect Colorado River System During Historic Drought: The prolonged drought combined with the lowest winter snowpack on record is requiring swift actions to protect this vital water system. Bureau of Reclamation. April 17, 2026. Reclamation Acts to Protect Colorado River System During Historic Drought

The Great Shuffle: Emergency Water Moves Aim to Save Glen Canyon Power. Bob Hembree. Lake Powell Chronical. July 16, 2026. The Great Shuffle: Emergency Water Moves Aim to Save Glen Canyon Power - Lake Powell Chronicle

Lake Powell Water Level Crisis Sparks Emergency Response. Joe Edwards. Newsweek. April 18, 2026. Lake Powell water level crisis sparks emergency response - Newsweek

The Spaceship Earth Metaphor of Resource Distribution is Outdated: A More Expansive and Dynamic Approach is Needed

     I wrote about ecological metaphors in my 2021 book, Sensible Decarbonization. One metaphor that I covered was the Spaceship Earth metaphor, where the Earth, or biosphere, is considered to be a closed system with limited, finite resources. While that is true in some sense, it is also true that the limits of resource availability change based on costs and technology. New and cheaper ways of finding and developing resources make them more available than before. While total resources are indeed finite, technically and economically recoverable resources change via technology and cost-reductions, respectively. I wrote in my book:

     Another metaphor is that of the Spaceship Earth, which suggests the biosphere is a self-contained system. A systems view is very good as it allows us to look at relationships between components of the system. Earth systems science is often how we evaluate climate science. Visionary R. Buckminster Fuller popularized the idea of spaceship earth in his 1969 book, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth.  Fuller was contemplating how to solve human problems in his works, in which he developed his conceptions. He tried to balance achieving the benefits of innovation with achieving the benefits of sustainability. Of course, humans are a part of the Earth system. We are not separate from nature, which is where some ideas put us. The Earth system involves many chemical cycles: carbon, nitrogen, etc. Oliver Morton, in his 2015 book on geoengineering, The Planet Remade: How Geoengineering Could Change the World, sees the spaceship Earth metaphor as an unnecessary separation of humans and human well-being from the Earth system. A ship has well-defined limits (the notion of “carrying capacity” came from ocean ships) and a purpose. The limits of the Earth system are much less clear, and any notion of purpose, especially some preordained one, is pure fantasy. Morton writes:

“The question is not how to ‘save the planet’ as it was, but how the planet can be remade in a way that works while respecting the rights of people living on it. It is a task that calls for imagination and compromise much more than for naval discipline. It is a task of homemaking, not ship handling.”

     I read Fuller’s book in the 90s, and it was fun and a bit fascinating. He was an interesting guy. Fracking pioneer George Mitchell was a huge fan of Fuller and tried to design his town project with Fuller’s ideas of sustainability and circularity. Fuller did write a little about metaphors, including the following mind-bending quote:

“We are prisoners of our own metaphors, metaphorically speaking.”

     Marian Tupy of HumanProgress.org wrote an essay in 2023 criticizing the spaceship earth metaphor based on David Deutsch’s book ‘The Beginning of Infinity: Explanations That Transform the World,’ which offered a detailed critique of the metaphor.

     Deutsch’s book challenges the closed-system assumption of the metaphor, citing human creativity and ingenuity as a way to exceed resource limitations. Notions of mining the moon or asteroids for materials would expand the system beyond the Earth itself.

     Deutsch cited water scarcity as being overcome by desalination technology, which can remove that scarcity where applicable by tapping resources that were previously seen as untappable.

     He cites knowledge and creativity as the means to overcome limitations and as the key drivers of human progress. Deutsch uses the example of the Green Revolution in agriculture as one way humans overcame limitations of food production to vastly improve the availability of food globally. One could also cite the development of synthetic fertilizers via the Fischer-Tropsch process. Humans excel at solving problems and making processes more efficient and economical. Another example he gives of the power of knowledge and creativity to overcome limitations is medical advancements, which enable people to live healthier and longer lives.

     Deutsch also argued that sustainability by itself is not adequate, and as noted, Fuller sought to balance it with innovation, and he does as well.

“Deutsch argues that a focus solely on sustainability is limiting. He contends that progress and growth are driven by the pursuit of new ideas, the development of knowledge, and the continuous improvement of explanations.”

     Deutsch also advocates for a pro-growth mindset as an important motivation for innovation.

“Deutsch suggests that a pro-growth mindset encourages the exploration and development of new technologies, enabling continuous improvements and expanding the possibilities for human progress.”

     Deutsch also argues that the spaceship earth metaphor is more easily associated with a pessimistic outlook, hence its adoption by catastrophists. There are even darker metaphors related to spaceship earth, such as ecologist Garrett Hardin’s idea of lifeboat ethics, a metaphor that says there is no room on the boat to help more than the boat will hold. This idea was used to argue against helping the poorest people in the world, the ones most in need of help. Deutsch suggests that an optimistic outlook can be fostered by expectations of harnessing the power of knowledge and creativity. He presents space exploration as an example of an optimistic pursuit. Being pessimistic would entail less likelihood of venturing into space at all.

“Deutsch argues that optimism fuels the pursuit of ambitious goals and drives innovation, leading to significant advancements in science and technology.”

     He favors innovation and technology rather than conservation and limits as the best means to solve environmental and resource scarcity problems. He cites strides in clean energy development as an example where innovation is having positive environmental impacts.  

     Deutsche highlights human exceptionalism, how our ability to control our environments, in detail, is unparalleled.

     Tupy offers an apt summary of Deutsch’s ideas:

“In summary, David Deutsch’s criticism of the concept of Spaceship Earth in The Beginning of Infinity challenges the prevailing view that Earth is a closed system with limited resources. Through a range of examples, including asteroid mining, water desalination, the green revolution, medical advancements, clean energy technologies, space exploration, and the eradication of smallpox, Deutsch emphasizes the potential for resource expansion, the transformative power of knowledge and creativity, the importance of a pro-growth mindset, the benefits of optimism, and the capacity for humans to address environmental challenges through sustainable solutions. By employing these examples, Deutsch invites readers to reconsider the limiting assumptions of the Spaceship Earth concept and embrace a more expansive and optimistic perspective on human potential and progress.”

 

   

 

References:

 

Reconsidering Spaceship Earth: The power of human knowledge and technology outweighs the supposed limitations of Earth's resources. Marian L. Tupy.  July 19, 2023. Reconsidering Spaceship Earth - Human Progress

Sensible Decarbonization. Regulation, Risk, and Relative Benefits in Different Approaches to Energy Use, Climate Policy, and Environmental Impact. Kent C. Stewart. Amazon Publishing. 2021.   

‘Buy, Borrow, Die’ Strategy Works for the Super-Wealthy, Despite Bezos Saying It Isn’t Real

     

     What is the ‘buy, borrow, die’ strategy to optimize wealth? According to an article in Moneywise:

“The aptly named “buy, borrow, die” strategy was developed by Professor Edward J. McCaffery in the 1990s to describe how rich people get — and stay — rich by paying less in taxes.”

“Buy, borrow, die” is a strategy in which wealthy people accumulate appreciating assets, borrow against them and use the estate to pay off the debt after they die. It works because of how taxes are assessed: Not every financial move is a taxable event.”

“Buy a car? Generally, you’ll pay taxes. Earn money? Pay taxes. Sell $62 billion in stocks? That’s a taxable event. But if you borrow money against those stocks — as Elon Musk did to buy Twitter in 2022 — that’s debt, not income and it isn’t taxed.”

“In addition to avoiding taxable events, the “buy, borrow, die” strategy also allows whatever assets you borrow against to continue to appreciate, making you even more money. And while you’ll obviously pay interest on the loan, for the uber-wealthy, the math can still work out in their favor.”

     Jeff Bezos has claimed the strategy is not real and not used by the wealthy, despite evidence to the contrary. Elon Musk and Larry Ellison are thought to use the strategy.

“The highest income tax bracket, for those earning over $640,601, is 37% (4) but interest rates on loans are typically much lower. In Musk’s case, he would likely have paid capital gains tax had he sold his stocks, which are typically taxed at around 20% (5) — still higher than most interest rates.”

     What irks me about this is that only the wealthy, and specifically the super-wealthy, can and often do benefit from this. The strategy is not available to most investors. The super-wealthy can easily provide collateral for any kind of loan and often provide it in stock. They are already significantly undertaxed, and this strategy allows them to avoid even more taxes. The strategy works best when interest rates are lower since it is interest that is paid instead of taxes. New policies, such as taxing certain loans or loan amounts, could limit the strategy, but no such policies are currently under consideration. The practice also irks me because the world’s wealthiest humans are able to increase their own wealth through this loophole and increase overall wealth inequality, which is already beyond absurd levels. It is effectively a wealth preservation strategy available exclusively to the super-wealthy. 

     Below is a Microsoft CoPilot summary of the practice:

 

References:

 

What is this 'buy, borrow, die' strategy that everyone keeps talking about — and that billionaires like Jeff Bezos deny? Aditi Ganguly. Moneywise. June 10, 2026. What is this 'buy, borrow, die' strategy that everyone keeps talking about — and that billionaires like Jeff Bezos deny?

RMI’s Five Oil & Gas Myths Regarding Methane Emissions: Since Gas Waste Drops When Prices are High, They Say Companies Capture Methane for Profit When it Benefits Them

    This article from the Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI) explains some aspects of methane emissions reductions in the oil & gas sector that are often misunderstood.

Myth 1: In terms of pollution from methane emitted during production, all oil and gas is the same. Some oil & gas fields emit more methane than others. Associated gas from oil wells is often deemed too expensive to produce along with the oil, so it is vented or flared, which results in methane and CO2 emissions, respectively.

Myth 2: Gas leaks are minimal and not too costly. Methane can leak from several different points in oil & gas systems, including valves and controllers, condensate tanks, flanges, poorly maintained flares, and during blowdowns of pressurized compressors. Much more gas can be recovered than is currently recovered due to economics. They estimate Texas is losing $1 billion in annual revenue due to methane leakage.

Myth 3: Gas loss and methane emissions are inevitable and impossible to prevent. They state that gas loss or methane emissions are largely preventable, and the technology exists to capture that gas today. The most interesting section of this article is the graph below that shows how gas flaring and methane venting rise and fall with natural gas prices. When prices are high, more gas is recovered, and when prices are low, more gas is wasted. That clearly suggests that some companies are not doing all they can to minimize methane emissions.

Myth 4: Gas is natural and clean. They are not quite correct here. Gas is indeed natural. It often contains impurities, and some can be toxic, like hydrogen sulfide. Gas often needs to be processed from its field or natural form into a pipeline-quality product. Dry gas is generally clean and requires minimal processing. Thus, they are not quite correct here.

Myth 5: Gas supplies are reliable and prices are certain. This is true, of course. However, some regional gas prices are more predictable than others, and some supplies are more reliable than others. Geopolitical global price shocks have occurred, but some regions are protected by abundant and available low-priced gas and are less affected by global events.

References:

 

Reality Check: Clearing the Air on Methane: Five persistent oil and gas myths, busted. Deborah Gordon, Nathan Kauffman, Colm Quinn, and Laurie Stone. Rocky Mountain Institute (RMI). July 13, 2026. Reality Check: Clearing the Air on Methane - RMI

Pielke Jr. Explains the Continued Retreat from High Carbon Emissions Scenarios

   

     Climate impact scientist Roger Pielke Jr. explains the recent CMIP-7 scenario retirements due to implausibility.  CMIP-7 concluded in April that the RCP8.5, SSP5-8.5, and SSP3-7.0 scenarios were “implausible.” Since these have been included in most or all past climate science, this is big news. So-called ‘business-as-usual’ scenarios will now show much less global warming. How much less?

“The table below shows just how large these changes are in gigatons (Gt) of carbon dioxide emitted from the burning of fossil fuels to 2100 — both in terms of the highest cumulative emissions across the scenario set (in the first bullet below) and in terms of the scenarios designated as reference or current policy (second bullet below):

     The Medium scenario is considered to be most likely and in line with current projections. The low-medium scenario is possible with stronger decarbonization efforts. The carbon emissions of the most likely Medium scenario are nearly a third of those projected in the SSP 5-8.5 scenario.

     Pielke Jr. notes:

“While MEDIUM is the only scenario framed as “current policy” in the CMIP7 set — at 3C in 2100 — it sits above other “current policy projections,” which you can see in the table below. In addition, the MEDIUM-to-LOW scenario at 2.3C in 2100 is just about at the lower end of the projections that assume that national pledges are met.”

     The temperature ranges given in the different projections that are considered plausible run from 2.2 degrees Celsius to 3.0 deg. C. 

     He also explains that the High scenario should not be treated as a business-as-usual scenario, but one in which policies are adopted that increase emissions.

“Thus, the range from MEDIUM-to-LOW to MEDIUM — with medians of 2.3C to 3.0C in 2100 — can serve usefully as the equivalent of a baseline or reference range. The HIGH scenario, at ~3.4C in 2100, is explicitly designed as an exploratory scenario to illustrate a world in which policies are adopted that increase emissions. CMIP7 explains:

“Clearly, this scenario is not a “business-as-usual” scenario nor the no-policy reference scenario for the other scenarios.”

“This point needs to be emphasized. HIGH is not a baseline or reference scenario and should not be treated as such. I’m sure this warning will be ignored by some.”

     As he shows below, the most likely Medium scenario means that annual global emissions are projected to stabilize as they are currently close to doing, and begin to drop in the 2030s. That dropping is accelerated in the Low-Medium scenario. 

     With the new changes, we should see graphs in future IPCC reports that look much different. He notes that the current and pledged policies range is now below what RCP4.5 was presented as achieving with aggressive policy. Below, he gives his thoughts on the implications of the new scenario plausibility determinations, including some uncomfortable political maneuverability for those who favor more catastrophic scenarios and who want accelerated decarbonization.

 

 

References:

 

The Retreat Continues: Updated again, lower again. CMIP7's highest emissions scenario now has less than half the CO₂ of RCP8.5. Roger Pielke Jr. The Honest Broker. July 15, 2026. The Retreat Continues - by Roger Pielke Jr.

The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP7 (ScenarioMIP-CMIP7). Detlef P. Van Vuuren, Brian C. O'Neill, Claudia Tebaldi, Benjamin M. Sanderson, Louise P. Chini, Pierre Friedlingstein, Tomoko Hasegawa, Keywan Riahi, Bala Govindasamy, Nico Bauer, Veronika Eyring, Cheikh M. N. Fall, Katja Frieler, Matthew J. Gidden, Laila K. Gohar, Annika Högner, Andrew D. Jones, Jarmo Kikstra, Andrew King, Reto Knutti, Elmar Kriegler, Peter Lawrence, Chris Lennard, Jason Lowe, Camilla Mathison, Shahbaz Mehmood, Zebedee Nicholls, Luciana F. Prado, Qiang Zhang, Steven K. Rose, Alex C. Ruane, Marit Sandstad, Carl-Friedrich Schleussner, Roland Seferian, Jana Sillmann, Chris Smith, Anna A. Sörensson, Swapna Panickal, Kaoru Tachiiri, Naomi Vaughan, Saritha S. Vishwanathan, Tokuta Yokohata, Marco Zecchetto, and Tilo Ziehn. European Geosciences Union. April 7, 2026. GMD - The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project for CMIP7 (ScenarioMIP-CMIP7)

Cyanide-Free Gold Extraction and Arsenic-Capture: Quebec Chemical Company Pioneers Non-Toxic Gold Extraction and Processing

       A chemical company from Quebec has developed a cyanide-free and generally non-toxic method to extract gold from mineral ores. This could relieve companies from environmental compliance burdens associated with toxic gold extraction and processing. Dundee Sustainable Technologies is offering a patented process they call GlassLock, which safely removes and recovers arsenic from gold ore. The process can replace the current practice of utilizing cyanide leaching to remove arsenic. Both arsenic and cyanide are highly toxic. In the process, arsenic is isolated and turned into inert glass. Andy Corbley of Good News Network explains the GlassLock arsenic removal process, followed by an explanation from the company's website: 

“Mixed with common components like silica, recycled glass, and hematite, the arsenic is then vitrified into a stable and insoluble glass product that can be removed and processed far more easily.”

     Below, he explains the CLEVR gold circuit extraction process, followed by an explanation from the company's website:

“Dundee’s gold circuit process uses sodium hypochlorite and sodium hypobromite in ambient pressures and room temperature to extract gold from ore at a fraction of the time of the cyanide-in-leach method. Contact time is short, just 2 hours compared to 36 hours, and the process operates in a fully closed loop. All chemicals are recycled within the circuit for reuse.”

     They call the cyanide-free extraction process CLEVR. 

     Neither of the two processes requires tailing ponds, which also reduces environmental risks of rain, flooding, acid mine drainage, and dam breaches.

     Mining companies are testing and using the process, including Freegold Ventures Limited, which is using the GlassLock process on its Golden Summit project in Alaska.

“In tests, Freegold used GlassLock to recover 95% of the gold contained in the ore while isolating 98% of the contained arsenic as inert glass, reducing the toxicity from 7% to 0.17%. It also was able to remove the need for cyanide leaching, and the resulting gold concentrate would be direct-to-smelter quality.”

“The results of this program were extremely positive and encouraging for Freegold as it advances the project through Pre-Feasibility,” the company wrote in a press release.

     Freegold is testing GlassLock among other oxidation processes, but it looks encouraging. Freegold notes in a press release:

“Recent results from the GlassLock Process™ demonstrate an enhanced gold grade in concentrate, with no measurable gold losses during processing, resulting in the production of a saleable, direct-to-smelter concentrate that avoids the use of cyanide while significantly reducing arsenic content. The concentrate would be highly attractive to numerous end users.(Source: PR, December 16th, 2025). Ongoing trade-off studies will determine whether the additional processing and capital investment required for further treatment are warranted, or whether a simpler gravity- and CIL-based flowsheet is more cost-effective despite lower recovery rates.”

 

 

References:

 

Quebec Firm Pioneers Cyanide-Free Gold Extraction and Arsenic-Capture to Clean up Mining Industry. Andy Corbley. July 10, 2026. Quebec Firm Pioneers Cyanide-Free Gold Extraction and Arsenic-Capture to Clean up Mining Industry

Dundee Sustainable Technologies. Website. Dundee – Sustainable mineral extraction technologies

Freegold Provides an Update on its 2026 Plans. Freegold Ventures Limited. January 23, 2026. Freegold Provides an Update on its 2026 Plans | Freegold Ventures Limited

Eco Wave Power Promotes Wave Energy and AI-Driven Energy Infrastructure in Coastal Areas

      Company Eco Wave Power recently completed wave energy pilot projects. The company reported its Q1 results in May. The company reported:

“Eco Wave Power believes that its proprietary wave energy technology is uniquely positioned to support the emerging energy needs of coastal and nearshore infrastructure, including data centers, by providing a predictable and scalable source of renewable energy.”

“In parallel, the Company has initiated discussions with data center developers and infrastructure”partners to explore the integration of wave energy into AI-focused energy solutions.”

     The company was also featured during the keynote presentation delivered by NVIDIA’s CEO, Jensen Huang, at the NVIDIA GTC conference.

     Its pilot project is the EWP-EDF One project at the Port of Jaffa, on the Israeli coast. It continues to provide power for the national grid.

“During the quarter, the system demonstrated stable performance and reliability under real sea conditions, including record production levels during peak wave events. The project continues to validate the Company’s technology in real-world environments, including grid integration, durability, and cost efficiency.”

     The project continues to evaluate its wave power for powering data centers. The project includes “the integration of advanced data analytics and AI-driven optimization tools such as the Company’s planned WaveGPT platform.”

     Another pilot project was recently completed in the Port of Los Angeles, California. It validated the feasibility of deploying wave energy systems integrated into existing coastal infrastructure without seabed connections or construction.

     The company is continuing its MW-scale wave energy production project offshore Portugal. The company is developing the first wave energy project offshore Taiwan. The company is also planning a project in India and exploring the feasibility of a project in South Africa.

     The company is developing onshore and nearshore wave power that does not attach to the seabed. While offshore wave energy is higher than nearshore or onshore wave energy, the amount of that energy that is exploitable, especially nearshore, is nearly the same as offshore. In addition, it is more stable, much cheaper, easier to install, easier to insure, and safer against high wave damage. Breakwaters are proving to be ideal locations for nearshore wave power deployments. Breakwaters are permanent structures constructed in a coastal area to protect against tides, currents, waves, and storm surges. The wave power devices can be attached to breakwater structures.

     The graphic below shows the total wave power and the exploitable wave power of offshore, nearshore, and onshore environments.

     Below is a global map of wave power resources.

 

     

References:

 

Eco Wave Power Reports Q1 2026 Results and Advances Positioning in AI-Driven Energy Infrastructure. Eco Wave Poer. May 7, 2026. Eco Wave Power Reports Q1 2026 Results and Advances Positioning in AI-Driven Energy Infrastructure - Eco Wave Power