Category: The Conversation

Source: – By Adriana Costa, Assistant Professor of Sustainable Bioproducts, Mississippi State University

People dedicated to the art of grilling often choose lump charcoal – actual pieces of wood that have been turned into charcoal – over briquettes, which are compressed charcoal dust with other ingredients to keep the dust together and help it burn better.

The kinds of wood used to make lump charcoal affect how it burns and how the food tastes when grilled. Dedicated grillers are often willing to pay a premium for higher heat, no additives, particular flavors and the cleaner burn they get from particular wood species in lump charcoal.

Buyers probably expect the label to accurately report how much charcoal they are getting, what kind of wood it is, and where the wood was grown.

A spot-check I helped conduct on lump charcoal for sale in the U.S. has revealed that the information on the label does not always match what is inside the bag. Customers might not know what they are actually buying, potentially affecting their purchasing choices and even their grilling experience.

Origin matters

Charcoal is made from wood heated in a low-oxygen environment to remove water and volatile compounds. This process leaves behind a carbon-rich material that burns hotter and more cleanly than raw wood, making it ideal for grilling.

The origin of the trees used affects charcoal’s ecological sustainability. Some charcoal produced in Mexico, Paraguay and Brazil has been linked to deforestation and unsustainable logging practices. Charcoal from hardwood trees harvested in the U.S. is generally considered to be more sustainable.

We decided to investigate more deeply what consumers are actually getting when they buy a bag of lump charcoal.

We looked at a range of products, some of which were labeled as from the U.S., some from other countries and others that did not specify a country of origin.

We purchased one bag each of 15 major U.S. lump charcoal brands online. We did not identify the specific producers. Instead, we wanted to give an overall sense of the products available on the market and evaluate how closely product claims on the packaging matched what was actually in the bags.

Kinds of charcoal we found

We determined the type of wood the charcoal was made from by examining each lump under a microscope or handheld magnifying lens and matching the patterns in the wood structure with the ones in our collection.

Identifying the species allowed us to broadly infer the origin of the charcoal based on where those kinds of trees typically grow.

Nearly half of all the lump charcoal we examined was oak or mesquite, which are both hardwoods that grow in North America, including in the U.S. and Mexico.

In two out of five bags claiming their charcoal had come from the U.S., 15% or more of the material was actually tropical woods, such as ipe, which are not native to the U.S. These woods may have been harvested unsustainably. Other species we found included pine and sweet gum, which perform poorly as grilling woods.

Much of the tropical wood was in small fragments, which made us think it might have been intentionally used as cheap filler.

We found one bag that was labeled “One ingredient: Oak hardwood” that contained no oak at all. Instead, it was a mix of at least six tropical woods.

What else was in the bag?

We also discovered concerns related to product weight and the quantity of extraneous material in the bags. The Fair Packaging and Labeling Act is a U.S. law that requires product containers to carry labels that accurately describe the contents. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has specific methods for measuring and characterizing contents of packaged goods.

These requirements do allow some variations in weight, but nearly half the bags we examined were underfilled, and one-third were far enough underweight that their label claims fell outside what is legally acceptable.

Also, in every bag we found bark and tiny charcoal fragments, which burn quickly and unevenly. Six bags had rocks in them. Without those extra materials, all 15 bags were underweight, and none gave buyers as much effective grilling fuel as they promised.

So when consumers pay more for what they think is a premium charcoal product, they may, in fact, be getting nothing of the sort.

Adriana Costa has received funding from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, McIntire Stennis, USDA Agricultural Research Service, and the USDA Forest Products Laboratory. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. Government determination or policy.

– ref. Grilling with lump charcoal: Is US-grown hardwood really in that bag? – https://theconversation.com/grilling-with-lump-charcoal-is-us-grown-hardwood-really-in-that-bag-258157

Source: – By Brian J. Yanites, Associate Professor of Earth and Atmospheric Science. Professor of Surficial and Sedimentary Geology, Indiana University

Hurricane Helene lasted only a few days in September 2024, but it altered the landscape of the Southeastern U.S. in profound ways that will affect the hazards local residents face far into the future.

Mudslides buried roads and reshaped river channels. Uprooted trees left soil on hillslopes exposed to the elements. Sediment that washed into rivers changed how water flows through the landscape, leaving some areas more prone to flooding and erosion.

Helene was a powerful reminder that natural hazards don’t disappear when the skies clear – they evolve.

These transformations are part of what scientists call cascading hazards. They occur when one natural event alters the landscape in ways that lead to future hazards. A landslide triggered by a storm might clog a river, leading to downstream flooding months or years later. A wildfire can alter the soil and vegetation, setting the stage for debris flows with the next rainstorm.

I study these disasters as a geomorphologist. In a new paper in the journal Science, I and a team of scientists from 18 universities and the U.S. Geological Survey explain why hazard models – used to help communities prepare for disasters – can’t just rely on the past. Instead, they need to be nimble enough to forecast how hazards evolve in real time.

The science behind cascading hazards

Cascading hazards aren’t random. They emerge from physical processes that operate continuously across the landscape – sediment movement, weathering, erosion. Together, the atmosphere, biosphere and the earth are constantly reshaping the conditions that cause natural disasters.

For instance, earthquakes fracture rock and shake loose soil. Even if landslides don’t occur during the quake itself, the ground may be weakened, leaving it primed for failure during later rainstorms.

That’s exactly what happened after the 2008 earthquake in Sichuan Province, China, which led to a surge in debris flows long after the initial seismic event.

Earth’s surface retains a “memory” of these events. Sediment disturbed in an earthquake, wildfire or severe storm will move downslope over years or even decades, reshaping the landscape as it goes.

The 1950 Assam earthquake in India is a striking example: It triggered thousands of landslides. The sediment from these landslides gradually moved through the river system, eventually causing flooding and changing river channels in Bangladesh some 20 years later.

An intensifying threat in a changing world

These risks present challenges for everything from emergency planning to home insurance. After repeated wildfire-mudslide combinations in California, some insurers pulled out of the state entirely, citing mounting risks and rising costs among the reasons.

Cascading hazards are not new, but their impact is intensifying.

Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires, storms and extreme rainfall. At the same time, urban development continues to expand into steep, hazard-prone terrain, exposing more people and infrastructure to evolving risks.

The rising risk of interconnected climate disasters like these is overwhelming systems built for isolated events.

Yet climate change is only part of the equation. Earth processes – such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions – also trigger cascading hazards, often with long-lasting effects.

Mount St. Helens is a powerful example: More than four decades after its eruption in 1980, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers continues to manage ash and sediment from the eruption to keep it from filling river channels in ways that could increase the flood risk in downstream communities.

Rethinking risk and building resilience

Traditionally, insurance companies and disaster managers have estimated hazard risk by looking at past events.

But when the landscape has changed, the past may no longer be a reliable guide to the future. To address this, computer models based on the physics of how these events work are needed to help forecast hazard evolution in real time, much like weather models update with new atmospheric data.

Thanks to advances in Earth observation technology, such as satellite imagery, drone and lidar, which is similar to radar but uses light, scientists can now track how hillslopes, rivers and vegetation change after disasters. These observations can feed into geomorphic models that simulate how loosened sediment moves and where hazards are likely to emerge next.

Researchers are already coupling weather forecasts with post-wildfire debris flow models. Other models simulate how sediment pulses travel through river networks.

Cascading hazards reveal that Earth’s surface is not a passive backdrop, but an active, evolving system. Each event reshapes the stage for the next.

Understanding these connections is critical for building resilience so communities can withstand future storms, earthquakes and the problems created by debris flows. Better forecasts can inform building codes, guide infrastructure design and improve how risk is priced and managed. They can help communities anticipate long-term threats and adapt before the next disaster strikes.

Most importantly, they challenge everyone to think beyond the immediate aftermath of a disaster – and to recognize the slow, quiet transformations that build toward the next.

Brian J. Yanites receives funding from the National Science Foundation.

– ref. Hurricane Helene set up future disasters, from landslides to flooding – cascading hazards like these are now upending risk models – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-helene-set-up-future-disasters-from-landslides-to-flooding-cascading-hazards-like-these-are-now-upending-risk-models-259502

Source: – By Stan Meiburg, Executive Director, Sabin Center for Environment and Sustainability, Wake Forest University

To understand the federal government’s true priorities, follow the money.

After months of saying his administration is committed to clean air and water for Americans, President Donald Trump has proposed a detailed budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for fiscal year 2026. The proposal is more consistent with his administration’s numerous recent actions and announcements that reduce protection for public health and the environment.

To us, former EPA leaders – one a longtime career employee and the other a political appointee – the budget proposal reveals a lot about what Trump and EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin want to accomplish.

According to the administration’s Budget in Brief document, total EPA funding for the fiscal year beginning October 2025 would drop from US$9.14 billion to $4.16 billion – a 54% decrease from the budget enacted by Congress for fiscal 2025 and less than half of EPA’s budget in any year of the first Trump administration.

Without taking inflation into account, this would be the smallest EPA budget since 1986. Adjusted for inflation, it would be the smallest budget since the Ford administration, even though Congress has for decades given EPA more responsibility to clean up and protect the nation’s air and water; handle hazardous chemicals and waste; protect drinking water; clean up environmental contamination; and evaluate the safety of a wide range of chemicals used in commerce and industry. These expansions reflected a bipartisan consensus that protecting public health and the environment is a national priority.

The budget process in brief

Federal budgeting is complicated, and EPA’s budget is particularly so. Here are some basics:

Each year, the president and Congress determine how much money will be spent on what things, and by which agencies. The familiar aphorism that “the president proposes, Congress disposes” captures the Constitution’s process for the federal budget, with Congress firmly holding the “power of the purse.”

EPA’s budget can be difficult to understand because individual programs may be funded from different sources. It is useful to consider it as a pie sliced into five main pieces:

• Environmental programs and management: the day-to-day work of protecting air, water and land.
• Science and technology: research on pollution, health effects and new environmental tools.
• Superfund and trust funds: cleaning up contaminated sites and responding to emergency releases of pollution.
• State and Tribal operating grants: supporting local implementation of environmental laws.
• State capitalization grants: revolving loans for water infrastructure.

The Trump administration’s budget proposals for EPA represent a striking retreat from the national goals of clean air and clean water enacted in federal laws over the past 55 years. In the budget document, the administration argues that the federal government has done enough and that the protection of gains already achieved, as well as any further progress, should not be paid for with federal money.

This budget would reduce EPA’s ability to protect public health and the environment to a bare minimum at best. Most dramatic and, in our view, most significant are the elimination of operating grants to state governments, drastic reductions in funding for science of all kinds, and elimination of EPA programs relating to climate change and environmental justice, which addresses situations of disproportionate environmental harm to vulnerable populations. It would cut regulatory and enforcement activities that the administration sees as inconsistent with fossil energy development. Other proposed changes, notably for Superfund and capitalization grants, are more nuanced.

These changes to EPA’s regular budget allocation are separate from changes to supplementary EPA funding that have also been in the news, including for projects specified in the Inflation Reduction Act and other specific laws.

Environmental programs and management

Funding for basic work to protect the environment and prevent pollution would be cut by 22%. The reductions are not spread equally, however. All activities related to climate change would be eliminated, including the Energy Star program and greenhouse gas reporting and tracking. Funding for civil and criminal enforcement of environmental laws and regulations would be cut by 69% and 50%, respectively.

The popular Brownfields program would be cut by 50%. Since 1995, $2.9 billion in federal funds have produced public and private investments totaling $42 billion for cleaning and redeveloping contaminated sites, and created more than 200,000 jobs.

A program to set standards and conduct training for safe removal of lead paint and other lead-containing materials from homes and businesses would be eliminated.

The administration has been clear that EPA will no longer do environmental justice work, such as funding to monitor toxic air emissions in low-income neighborhoods adjacent to industrial areas. This budget is consistent with that.

Science and technology

Scientific support functions would be cut by 34%. The Office of Research and Development would go from about 1,500 staff to about 500 and would be redistributed throughout the agency. This would diminish science that supports not just EPA’s work but that of organizations, industries, health care professionals and public and private researchers who benefit from EPA’s research.

Superfund and other trust funds

Superfund is by far the largest of EPA’s cleanup trust funds. It allows EPA to clean up contaminated sites. It also forces the parties responsible for the contamination to either perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-led cleanup work. When there is no viable responsible party, Superfund gives EPA the funds and authority to clean up contaminated sites.

Prior to 2021, Superfund was funded through EPA’s annual budget. In 2021 and 2022, Congress restored taxes on selected chemicals and petroleum products to help pay for Superfund. During the Biden administration, EPA reduced the Superfund’s line in the general budget, with the expectation that the Superfund tax revenues would more than make up for the reduction. Administrator Zeldin, who has said that site cleanup is a priority, is proposing to shift virtually all funding for cleanups to these new tax revenues.

There is risk in this approach, however. The Superfund tax expires in 2031 and has raised less than Treasury Department predictions in both 2023 and 2024. In fiscal year 2024, available tax receipts were predicted to be $2.5 billion, but only $1.4 billion was collected. Future funding is uncertain because it depends on the amounts of various chemicals that companies actually use. Experts disagree on whether this is significant for the Superfund program. The petrochemical industry, on whom this tax largely falls, is lobbying for its repeal.

Funds to address leaks at gas station tanks would be cut nearly in half. Funds to clean up oil and petroleum spills would be cut by 24%.

State operating grants

The budget proposal seeks to reset the EPA’s relationship with state agencies, which implement the vast majority of environmental regulations.

EPA has long delegated some of its powers to state environmental agencies, including permitting, inspections and enforcement of regulations that govern air, water and soil pollution. Since the 1970s, EPA has helped fund those activities through basic operating grants that require minimum state contributions and reward larger state investments with additional federal dollars.

The proposed budget would eliminate all of those grants to states – totaling $1 billion. The document itself explains that federal funding over decades has totaled “hundreds of billions of dollars” and has resulted in programs that “are mature or have accomplished their purpose.”

States disagree. They note that EPA has delegated 90% of the nation’s environmental protection work to state authorities, and states have accepted that workload based on the expectation of federal funding. The states say reduced funding would greatly diminish the actual work of environmental protection – site inspections, air and water monitoring, and enforcement – across the country.

State capitalization grants

Since 1987, EPA has given states money for revolving loan programs that provide low-interest loans to state and local governments to clean up waterways and provide safe drinking water. The proposed budget would cut that funding by 89%, from $2.8 billion to $305 million.

These capitalization grants were originally envisioned as seed money, with future loans available as the initial and subsequent loans were repaid. But the need for water infrastructure continues to grow, and Congress has for many years allocated additional money to the program.

In protecting the environment, you get what you pay for. In past years, Congress has refused to accept proposed drastic cuts to EPA’s budget. It remains to be seen whether this Congress will go along with these proposed rollbacks.

Stan Meiburg is a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network. He was an employee of the Environmental Protection Agency from 1977 to 2017.

i have worked at the US EPA twice. During the Obama Administration, i was first principal deputy to the Assistant Administrator of the Office of Air and Radiation and then Acting Assistant Administrator. During the Biden Administration, I was Deputy Administrator. I am also a volunteer with the Environmental Protection Network.

– ref. What Trump’s budget proposal says about his environmental values – https://theconversation.com/what-trumps-budget-proposal-says-about-his-environmental-values-258962

Source: – By Mariah Meek, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University

The largest tract of public land in the United States is a wild expanse of tundra and wetlands stretching across nearly 23 million acres of northern Alaska. It’s called the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, but despite its industrial-sounding name, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, is much more than a fuel depot.

Tens of thousands of caribou feed and breed in this area, which is the size of Maine. Migratory birds flock to its lakes in summer, and fish rely on the many rivers that crisscross the region.

The area is also vital for the health of the planet. However, its future is at risk.

The Trump administration announced a plan on June 17, 2025, to open nearly 82% of this fragile landscape to oil and gas development, including some of its most ecologically sensitive areas.

I am an ecologist, and I have been studying sensitive ecosystems and the species that depend on them for over 20 years. Disturbing this landscape and its wildlife could lead to consequences that are difficult – if not impossible – to reverse.

What is the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska?

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was originally designated in 1923 by President Warren Harding as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy.

In the 1970s, its management was transferred to the Department of Interior under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act. This congressional act requires that, in addition to managing the area for energy development, the secretary of the interior must ensure the “maximum protection” of “any significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value.”

The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for overseeing the reserve and identifying and protecting areas with important ecological or cultural values – aptly named “special areas.”

The Trump administration now plans to expand the amount of land available for drilling in the NPR-A from about 11.7 million acres to more than 18.5 million acres – including parts of those “special areas” – as part of its effort to increase U.S. oil drilling and reduce regulations on the industry.

I recently worked with scientists and scholars at The Wilderness Society to write a detailed report outlining many of the ecological and cultural values found across the reserve.

A refuge for wildlife

The reserve is a sanctuary for many Arctic wildlife, including caribou populations that have experienced sharp global declines in recent years.

The reserve’s open tundra provides critical calving, foraging, migratory and winter habitat for three of the four caribou herds on Alaska’s North Slope. These herds undertake some of the longest overland migrations on Earth. Infrastructure such as roads and industrial activity can disrupt their movement, further harming the populations’ health.

The NPR-A is also globally significant for migratory birds. Situated at the northern end of five major flyways, birds come here from all corners of the Earth, including all 50 states. It hosts some of the highest densities of breeding shorebirds anywhere on the planet.

An estimated 72% of Arctic Coastal Plain shorebirds – over 4.5 million birds – nest in the reserve. This includes the yellow-billed loon, the largest loon species in the world, with most of its U.S. breeding population concentrated in the reserve.

Expanding oil and gas development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska could threaten these birds by disrupting their habitat and adding noise to the landscape.

Many other species also depend on intact ecosystems there.

Polar bears build dens in the area, making it critical for cub survival. Wolverines, which follow caribou herds, also rely on large, connected expanses of undisturbed habitat for their dens and food. Moose browse along the Colville River, the largest river on the North Slope, while peregrine falcons, gyrfalcons and rough-legged hawks nest on the cliffs above.

A large stretch of the Colville River is currently protected as a special area, but the Trump administration’s proposed plan will remove those protections. The Teshekpuk Lake special area, critical habitat for caribou and migrating birds, would also lose protection.

Indigenous communities in the Arctic, particularly the Iñupiat people, also depend on these lands, waters and wildlife for subsistence hunting and fishing. Their livelihoods, food security, cultural identity and spiritual practices are deeply intertwined with the health of this ecosystem.

Oil and gas drilling’s impact

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is vast, and drilling won’t occur across all of it. But oil and gas operations pose far-reaching risks that extend well beyond the drill sites.

Infrastructure like roads, pipelines, airstrips and gravel pads fragment and degrade the landscape. That can alter water flow and the timing of ice melt. It can also disrupt reproduction and migration routes for wildlife that rely on large, connected habitats.

Networks of winter ice roads and the way exploration equipment compacts the land can delay spring and early summer thawing patterns on the landscape. That can upset the normal pattern of meltwater, making it harder for shore birds to nest.

ConocoPhillips’ Willow drilling project, approved by the Biden administration in 2023 on the eastern side of the reserve, provides some insight into the potential impact: An initial project plan, later scaled back, included up to 575 miles (925 kilometers) of ice roads for construction, an air strip, more than 300 miles (nearly 485 kilometers) of new pipeline, a processing facility, a gravel mine and barge transportation, in addition to five drilling sites.

Many animals will try to steer clear of noise, light and human activity. Roads and industrial operations can force them to alter their behavior, which can affect their health and how well they can reproduce. Research has shown that caribou mothers with new calves avoid infrastructure and that this impact does not lessen over time of exposure.

At Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, the largest oilfield in the U.S., decades of oil development have led to pollution, including hundreds of oil spills and leaks, and habitat loss, such as flooding and shoreline erosion, extensive permafrost thaw and damage from roads, construction and gravel mining. In short, the footprint of drilling is not confined to isolated locations — it radiates outward, undermining the ecological integrity of the region. Permafrost thaw now even threatens the stability of the oil industry’s own infrastructure.

Consequences for the climate

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the surrounding Arctic ecosystem also play an outsized role in regulating the global climate.

Vast amounts of climate-warming carbon is currently locked away in the wetlands and permafrost of the tundra, but the Arctic is warming close to three times faster than the global average.

Roads, drilling and development can increase permafrost thaw and cause coastlines to erode, releasing carbon long locked in the soil. In addition, these operations will ultimately add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, further warming the planet.

The decisions made today will shape the future of the Arctic – and one of the last wild ecosystems in the United States – for generations to come.

Mariah Meek has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and several state agencies. In addition to being a professor, she is also the director of research for The Wilderness Society, where she supervises a team of scientists doing research to understand ecological interactions in the Alaskan Arctic.

– ref. What’s at risk for Arctic wildlife if Trump expands oil drilling in the fragile National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska – https://theconversation.com/whats-at-risk-for-arctic-wildlife-if-trump-expands-oil-drilling-in-the-fragile-national-petroleum-reserve-alaska-259493

Source: – By Chris Vagasky, Meteorologist and Research Program Manager, University of Wisconsin-Madison

About 600 miles off the west coast of Africa, large clusters of thunderstorms begin organizing into tropical storms every hurricane season. They aren’t yet in range of Hurricane Hunter flights, so forecasters at the National Hurricane Center rely on weather satellites to peer down on these storms and beam back information about their location, structure and intensity.

The satellite data helps meteorologists create weather forecasts that keep planes and ships safe and prepare countries for a potential hurricane landfall.

Now, meteorologists are about to lose access to three of those satellites.

On June 25, 2025, the Trump administration issued a service change notice announcing that the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, DMSP, and the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center would terminate data collection, processing and distribution of all DMSP data no later than June 30. The data termination was postponed until July 31 following a request from the head of NASA’s Earth Science Division.

I am a meteorologist who studies lightning in hurricanes and helps train other meteorologists to monitor and forecast tropical cyclones. Here is how meteorologists use the DMSP data and why they are concerned about it going dark.

Looking inside the clouds

At its most basic, a weather satellite is a high-resolution digital camera in space that takes pictures of clouds in the atmosphere.

These are the satellite images you see on most TV weather broadcasts. They let meteorologists see the location and some details of a hurricane’s structure, but only during daylight hours.

Meteorologists can use infrared satellite data, similar to a thermal imaging camera, at all hours of the day to find the coldest cloud-top temperatures, highlighting areas where the highest wind speeds and rainfall rates are found.

But while visible and infrared satellite imagery are valuable tools for hurricane forecasters, they provide only a basic picture of the storm. It’s like a doctor diagnosing a patient after a visual exam and checking their temperature.

For more accurate diagnoses, meteorologists rely on the DMSP satellites.

The three satellites orbit Earth 14 times per day with special sensor microwave imager/sounder instruments, or SSMIS. These let meteorologists look inside the clouds, similar to how an MRI in a hospital looks inside a human body. With these instruments, meteorologists can pinpoint the storm’s low-pressure center and identify signs of intensification.

Precisely locating the center of a hurricane improves forecasts of the storm’s future track. This lets meteorologists produce more accurate hurricane watches, warnings and evacuations.

Hurricane track forecasts have improved by up to 75% since 1990. However, forecasting rapid intensification is still difficult, so the ability of DMPS data to identify signs of intensification is important.

About 80% of major hurricanes – those with wind speeds of at least 111 mph (179 kilometers per hour) – rapidly intensify at some point, ramping up the risks they pose to people and property on land. Finding out when storms are about to undergo intensification allows meteorologists to warn the public about these dangerous hurricanes.

Where are the defense satellites going?

NOAA’s Office of Satellite and Product Operations described the reason for turning off the flow of data as a need to mitigate “a significant cybersecurity risk.”

The three satellites have already operated for longer than planned.

The DMSP satellites were launched between 1999 and 2009 and were designed to last for five years. They have now been operating for more than 15 years. The United States Space Force recently concluded that the DMSP satellites would reach the end of their lives between 2023 and 2026, so the data would likely have gone dark soon.

Are there replacements for the DMSP satellites?

Three other satellites in orbit – NOAA-20, NOAA-21 and Suomi NPP – have a microwave instrument known as the advanced technology microwave sounder.

The advanced technology microwave sounder, or ATMS, can provide data similar to the special sensor microwave imager/sounder, or SSMIS, but at a lower resolution. It provides a more washed-out view that is less useful than the SSMIS for pinpointing a storm’s location or estimating its intensity.

The U.S. Space Force began using data from a new defense meteorology satellite, ML-1A, in late April 2025.

ML-1A is a microwave satellite that will help replace some of the DMSP satellites’ capabilities. However, the government hasn’t announced whether the ML-1A data will be available to forecasters, including those at the National Hurricane Center.

Why are satellite replacements last minute?

Satellite programs are planned over many years, even decades, and are very expensive. The current geostationary satellite program launched its first satellite in 2016 with plans to operate until 2038. Development of the planned successor for GOES-R began in 2019.

Similarly, plans for replacing the DMSP satellites have been underway since the early 2000s.

Delays in developing the satellite instruments and funding cuts caused the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and Defense Weather Satellite System to be canceled in 2010 and 2012 before any of their satellites could be launched.

The 2026 NOAA budget request includes an increase in funding for the next-generation geostationary satellite program, so it can be restructured to reuse spare parts from existing geostationary satellites. The budget also terminates contracts for ocean color, atmospheric composition and advanced lightning mapper instruments.

A busy season remains

The 2025 Atlantic hurricane season, which runs from June 1 to Nov. 30, is forecast to be above average, with six to 10 hurricanes. The most active part of the season runs from the middle of August to the middle of October, after the DMSP satellite data is set to be turned off.

Hurricane forecasters will continue to use all available tools, including satellite, radar, weather balloon and dropsonde data, to monitor the tropics and issue hurricane forecasts. But the loss of satellite data, along with other cuts to data, funding and staffing, could ultimately put more lives at risk.

Chris Vagasky is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association.

– ref. Hurricane forecasters are losing 3 key satellites ahead of peak storm season − a meteorologist explains why it matters – https://theconversation.com/hurricane-forecasters-are-losing-3-key-satellites-ahead-of-peak-storm-season-a-meteorologist-explains-why-it-matters-260190

Source: – By Daniel S. Schiff, Assistant Professor of Political Science, Purdue University

It is “the policy of the United States to promote AI literacy and proficiency among Americans,” reads an executive order President Donald Trump issued on April 23, 2025. The executive order, titled Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth, signals that advancing AI literacy is now an official national priority.

This raises a series of important questions: What exactly is AI literacy, who needs it, and how do you go about building it thoughtfully and responsibly?

The implications of AI literacy, or lack thereof, are far-reaching. They extend beyond national ambitions to remain “a global leader in this technological revolution” or even prepare an “AI-skilled workforce,” as the executive order states. Without basic literacy, citizens and consumers are not well equipped to understand the algorithmic platforms and decisions that affect so many domains of their lives: government services, privacy, lending, health care, news recommendations and more. And the lack of AI literacy risks ceding important aspects of society’s future to a handful of multinational companies.

How, then, can institutions help people understand and use – or resist – AI as individuals, workers, parents, innovators, job seekers, students, employers and citizens? We are a policy scientist and two educational researchers who study AI literacy, and we explore these issues in our research.

What AI literacy is and isn’t

At its foundation, AI literacy includes a mix of knowledge, skills and attitudes that are technical, social and ethical in nature. According to one prominent definition, AI literacy refers to “a set of competencies that enables individuals to critically evaluate AI technologies; communicate and collaborate effectively with AI; and use AI as a tool online, at home, and in the workplace.”

AI literacy is not simply programming or the mechanics of neural networks, and it is certainly not just prompt engineering – that is, the act of carefully writing prompts for chatbots. Vibe coding, or using AI to write software code, might be fun and important, but restricting the definition of literacy to the newest trend or the latest need of employers won’t cover the bases in the long term. And while a single master definition may not be needed, or even desirable, too much variation makes it tricky to decide on organizational, educational or policy strategies.

Who needs AI literacy? Everyone, including the employees and students using it, and the citizens grappling with its growing impacts. Every sector and sphere of society is now involved with AI, even if this isn’t always easy for people to see.

Exactly how much literacy everyone needs and how to get there is a much tougher question. Are a few quick HR training sessions enough, or do we need to embed AI across K-12 curricula and deliver university micro credentials and hands-on workshops? There is much that researchers don’t know, which leads to the need to measure AI literacy and the effectiveness of different training approaches.

Measuring AI literacy

While there is a growing and bipartisan consensus that AI literacy matters, there’s much less consensus on how to actually understand people’s AI literacy levels. Researchers have focused on different aspects, such as technical or ethical skills, or on different populations – for example, business managers and students – or even on subdomains like generative AI.

A recent review study identified more than a dozen questionnaires designed to measure AI literacy, the vast majority of which rely on self-reported responses to questions and statements such as “I feel confident about using AI.” There’s also a lack of testing to see whether these questionnaires work well for people from different cultural backgrounds.

Moreover, the rise of generative AI has exposed gaps and challenges: Is it possible to create a stable way to measure AI literacy when AI is itself so dynamic?

In our research collaboration, we’ve tried to help address some of these problems. In particular, we’ve focused on creating objective knowledge assessments, such as multiple-choice surveys tested with thorough statistical analyses to ensure that they accurately measure AI literacy. We’ve so far tested a multiple-choice survey in the U.S., U.K. and Germany and found that it works consistently and fairly across these three countries.

There’s a lot more work to do to create reliable and feasible testing approaches. But going forward, just asking people to self-report their AI literacy probably isn’t enough to understand where different groups of people are and what supports they need.

Approaches to building AI literacy

Governments, universities and industry are trying to advance AI literacy.

Finland launched the Elements of AI series in 2018 with the hope of educating its general public on AI. Estonia’s AI Leap initiative partners with Anthropic and OpenAI to provide access to AI tools for tens of thousands of students and thousands of teachers. And China is now requiring at least eight hours of AI education annually as early as elementary school, which goes a step beyond the new U.S. executive order. On the university level, Purdue University and the University of Pennsylvania have launched new master’s in AI programs, targeting future AI leaders.

Despite these efforts, these initiatives face an unclear and evolving understanding of AI literacy. They also face challenges to measuring effectiveness and minimal knowledge on what teaching approaches actually work. And there are long-standing issues with respect to equity − for example, reaching schools, communities, segments of the population and businesses that are stretched or under-resourced.

Next moves on AI literacy

Based on our research, experience as educators and collaboration with policymakers and technology companies, we think a few steps might be prudent.

Building AI literacy starts with recognizing it’s not just about tech: People also need to grasp the social and ethical sides of the technology. To see whether we’re getting there, we researchers and educators should use clear, reliable tests that track progress for different age groups and communities. Universities and companies can try out new teaching ideas first, then share what works through an independent hub. Educators, meanwhile, need proper training and resources, not just additional curricula, to bring AI into the classroom. And because opportunity isn’t spread evenly, partnerships that reach under-resourced schools and neighborhoods are essential so everyone can benefit.

Critically, achieving widespread AI literacy may be even harder than building digital and media literacy, so getting there will require serious investment – not cuts – to education and research.

There is widespread consensus that AI literacy is important, whether to boost AI trust and adoption or to empower citizens to challenge AI or shape its future. As with AI itself, we believe it’s important to approach AI literacy carefully, avoiding hype or an overly technical focus. The right approach can prepare students to become “active and responsible participants in the workforce of the future” and empower Americans to “thrive in an increasingly digital society,” as the AI literacy executive order calls for.

The Conversation will be hosting a free webinar on practical and safe use of AI with our tech editor and an AI expert on June 24 at 2pm ET/11am PT. Sign up to get your questions answered.

Funding from Google Research helped to support part of the authors’ research on AI literacy.

Funding from the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research under the funding code 16DHBKI051 helped to support part of the authors’ research on AI literacy.

Arne Bewersdorff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. AI literacy: What it is, what it isn’t, who needs it and why it’s hard to define – https://theconversation.com/ai-literacy-what-it-is-what-it-isnt-who-needs-it-and-why-its-hard-to-define-256061