Sarah Ruiz, Author at Woodwell Climate

Every five years, all 195 signatories of the 2015 Paris Agreement must submit updated plans to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to limit global warming. These plans, known as Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), are key components of the agreement and represent countries’ highest ambitions for emissions reductions over the next decade.

“The NDC is a pledge,” Director of International Government Relations at Woodwell Climate Dr. Matti Goldberg says. “It’s a pledge by a government to reduce their emissions by a certain amount, by a certain time frame. It can also be a pledge of taking certain types of actions. Each NDC also contains plans and measures to put it into action.”

This year, countries must submit their third NDC ahead of COP30 in Belém, Brazil.

How do NDCs fit into the Paris Agreement?

The Paris Agreement is a legally-binding international treaty under the UNFCCC. The treaty states that signatories should work together to limit global temperature increase to “well under 2°C” above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to keep the increase below 1.5°C. Nationally Determined Contributions outline how countries plan to achieve this goal and take other measures as part of the global climate effort.

Each NDC must build upon a country’s previous submission and reflect the party’s “highest possible ambition,” according to the Paris Agreement. While parties are legally required to submit an NDC and pursue actions to reach the target, they are “not legally bound to reach the target,” Goldberg says. “It’s a gigantic loophole in a way…although such flexibility is obviously necessary for countries to agree to this, and it does create a structure of pressure.”

After NDCs are submitted, the UNFCCC assesses the combined impact of countries’ NDCs on projected global emissions in a synthesis report. Parties in the Paris agreement also submit a Biennial Transparency Report (BTR) every two years, which outlines each country’s progress made towards accomplishing their NDCs.

“It’s the country’s own assessment,” Goldberg says. “But if a country announces a metric, then others can, of course, also look at whether that metric is being followed. This information creates the basis for civil society and other governments to put pressure on those governments.” Further transparency is created by a process where international experts review each country’s biennial reports.

Despite the ambitious intent of NDCs, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Simon Stiell determined last November that previous pledges fell “miles short of what’s needed to stop global heating from crippling every economy and wrecking billions of lives and livelihoods across every country.”

What is in the 2025 NDCs?

NDCs were initially due in February 2025, but with only 13 Parties submitting on time, the UNFCCC Secretariat announced a cut-off date in September to have enough time to prepare its synthesis before the start of COP30 in November. China, the United States, India, the European Union, Russia and Brazil were the world’s top emitters in 2023. Together, these six parties accounted for 62.7% of all global emissions. Of the top greenhouse gas emitters, only the U.S. and Brazil sent in their NDCs as of early September 2025.

The United States submitted its NDC in 2024 under the Biden Administration and set a target of reducing its net greenhouse gas emissions by 61 to 66% below 2005 levels in 2035. After taking office, President Trump issued an executive order announcing the U.S.’s intent to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, which will go into effect in 2026. After January 2026, the U.S. will no longer be required to submit new NDCs or Biennial Transparency Reports.

Despite the country’s withdrawal, Goldberg says the U.S. may see a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions because of its continuing transition from coal to natural gas, renewables and nuclear power — which, according to Goldberg, is driven more by economics and less by policy. Still, Dr. Christopher Schwalm, Vice President of Science at Woodwell Climate, predicts there is “no way” the United States will hit the targets set out in the NDC given the current global political climate. Even if the U.S. does reach its goals, the NDC still does not align with the global 1.5°C limit, according to the Climate Action Tracker. Schwalm calls the 1.5°C target “dead as a doornail.” To reach this goal, we would have needed global greenhouse gas emissions to peak by 2025.

Brazil’s most recent NDC states a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions 59% to 67% compared to its 2005 emissions. Goldberg calls it a “pretty ambitious” absolute target for a country classified as a developing country under the UNFCCC. However, the Brazilian climate organization Observatório do Clima states the NDC goals do not align with the global 1.5°C limit.

How could reaching targets in NDCs impact warming trajectories?

Woodwell Climate research scientist Dr. Abigail Lute wanted to see how much of a difference just two of the top-emitting countries’ NDCs could make.

“Are we moving the needle here or not?” she says. “How much are we moving the needle? Are we moving it enough to avoid 2°C? That’s the big picture, to see how ambitious these new pledges are.”

Lute modeled how both the U.S. and Brazil’s promises together could change the global warming trajectory using a “middle-of-the-road” scenario for future greenhouse gas emissions — though, at the moment, that scenario might be more optimistic than our current trajectory, she says.

For the first ten to 20 years after implementing the NDCs, temperatures will temporarily increase. This is due to the reduction in polluting gases such as sulfates that actually have a cooling effect in the atmosphere. After about a decade or two, the reduction in warming gases such as methane and carbon dioxide will cause temperatures to fall.

According to Lute’s calculations, under moderate emissions scenarios, the probability of exceeding 2°C is 25% by 2050 and 78% by 2100. If both the U.S. and Brazil reach their NDC targets, the probability of exceeding 2°C stays about the same for 2050 but drops down to 73% for 2100.

Global warming is expected to reach 1.8°C by 2050 and 2.3°C by 2100 under the medium emissions scenario. With the U.S. and Brazil’s combined NDCs, Lute expects warming to be reduced by about 0.01°C in 2050 and 0.06°C by 2100.

While these contributions may seem small, Brazil and the U.S. only represent two of the 195 parties in the Paris Agreement.

“It’s two of the larger ones for sure, but it’s only two,” Lute says. “If we extrapolate it to everybody, then it can make a meaningful difference…the story here is that everybody needs to contribute. This is a collective problem, and even one large country can’t solve it.”

From the Amazon to the Congo Basin, the largest remainder of tropical forest lies in Brazil and the Democratic Republic of Congo – taking up nearly 4 million square miles of land. As epicenters of biodiversity and carbon storage, these forests serve as the stabilizers of our climate. Yet many tropical forests around the world are disappearing as climate change and human activity drive deforestation every year.

Despite covering only 6% of the planet, tropical forests play a critical role in climate control. They prevent atmospheric warming by storing carbon, dispersing heat, releasing cooling water into the air, and helping to create clouds. They also help regulate air quality, soil health, and the water cycle. Keeping them standing is one of our best natural climate solutions.

At the 2021 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP26), over 100 world leaders pledged to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030, but deforestation has continued year over year. Under our current economic system, forests are often more valuable cut and cleared than left standing.

But this year, a new solution has appeared on the horizon: a fund to incentivize tropical forest conservation.

The tropical deforestation crisis

In 2024, the tropics lost 6.7 million hectares of primary forest – old forest that has been relatively undisturbed by humans – at a rate of 18 soccer fields per minute. It was a record-breaking year for primary forest loss and the fastest rate of primary forest deforestation on record, with much of the increase driven by wildfire.

Bolivia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo saw some of the highest levels of primary forest loss on record. But Brazil, the world’s largest tropical forest nation and home to over half of the Amazon rainforest, took the biggest hit. Over 40% of all tropical primary forest loss in 2024 occurred in Brazil.

The main forces behind forest loss worldwide are all human activities: agricultural expansion, mining, logging, and infrastructure development. Dr. Ludmila Rattis, Assistant Scientist and General Coordinator of Woodwell’s Tanguro Field Station, works on the Brazilian agricultural frontier to understand the impacts of agricultural intensification.

“Today, the number one driver of deforestation in the Amazon and Cerrado is land grabbing,” Rattis says.

Land grabbing refers to the control and clearing of large plots of land by a person or entity without clear rights to do so. In Brazil, land grabbing has been common since colonial times, when legislation restricted access to land. Today, nearly 50 million hectares of public forest in the Brazilian Amazon remains “undesignated” – meaning the land has not been formally designated by the government for a specific purpose – which leaves it highly vulnerable to grabbing.

Brazil is a major producer of agricultural commodities including beef, soybeans, and coffee. Because the country has a large amount of undesignated land with unclear regulations, land grabbing for agricultural production is profitable – and cleared forests are more financially valuable than standing ones. Brazilian law also allows the legal deforestation of some trees on private property, as long as 80% of forests on the property remain standing.

In late 2023, the Brazilian government proposed the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) as a new financial solution that would pay tropical countries to keep their forests standing. Designed to generate and distribute $4 billion each year, it would complement other sources of finance by focusing incentives on forest conservation.

How does the TFFF work?

The TFFF is a global investment fund that proposes to use finance and investment strategies to generate annual payments to tropical forest countries that conserve and restore their forests. First introduced at COP28, the fund would provide tropical forest nations with large-scale, predictable payments based on how much forest cover they maintain.

The fund will raise money from both the public and private sectors, starting with $125 billion – $25 billion from government sponsors in long-term loans and guarantees and $100 billion from long-term, low-interest bond sales to private sector investors. The money raised will be invested into bonds with a high rate of return to generate revenue. Part of the revenue will be used to pay down interest on loans from bond-holders and government sponsors, with the remaining earnings being allocated to fund annual payments to tropical forest nations.

Frances Seymour, Senior Policy Advisor at Woodwell, is working on forest finance priorities leading up to COP30 this year.

“The innovative feature is the use of public capital to reduce the risk of non-repayment to private investors,” Seymour says.

The return generated by the fund would be paid out to eligible tropical forest countries at an initial rate of $4 per hectare of forest. It would be distributed to eligible governments with a deduction applied for every hectare deforested or degraded.

In order to be eligible for the fund, a country must be a developing nation with tropical or subtropical broadleaf moist forests – forests characterized by year-round warmth, high levels of precipitation, and trees with broad, flat leaves. Additionally, the deforestation rate during the year the country adheres to the TFFF must be lower than the previous year.

To track deforestation rates, participating nations would need to use remote sensing technologies such as satellite imagery. For example, Brazil’s National Institute for Space Research (INPE) monitors tree cover loss using satellite-based systems. Countries that do not have the ability to monitor their own forests would be allowed to use approved third-party methods and data.

How many trees make a forest?

Areas eligible for forest payments must also have more than 20% canopy cover, which refers to the percentage of the upper layer of trees in a forest that obscures light passing through. But some people argue that the proposed threshold isn’t high enough.

Scientists at Woodwell Climate, including Associate Scientist Glenn Bush and Research Assistant Patrick Fedor, are pushing for higher canopy cover thresholds for the fund.

“The problem is that most of us who work in tropical forests and know them well would say that a patch of land which only has 20% of forest cover isn’t a forest anymore – it’s a field,” Bush says.

A landscape with a few large trees scattered around may have canopies that register at 20% cover despite no longer functioning as a forest. Scientists recommend increasing the canopy cover threshold to 60% or even 80% to focus on high-value intact tropical forest areas and prevent cleared areas from qualifying for TFFF benefits.

In a memo to TFFF Secretariat Andre Aquino, Bush and Fedor assessed management costs and social benefits of conserving tropical forests in Brazil and the DRC. They found that with raised canopy thresholds and adjusted payments, the TFFF could help protect more biodiverse and climate resilient forests without increasing the fund’s total budget. The counter argument, however, is that any forests below the increased threshold may face a higher risk of being permanently converted to another use rather than restored if not included in the scheme.

“The biggest thing is to increase canopy cover because we want resilient forests,” Fedor says. “We’re trying to keep forests fully intact.”

COP30 and the future of tropical forests

While the specifics of the fund aren’t fully agreed upon, the general consensus is that the global effort would make a significant positive change for tropical forest nations. By providing a source of predictable budget support for forest conservation and management, tropical forest nations could bring environmental goals to the forefront of government policy and action.

“This is a really long-term commitment to what could be potentially transformational change,” Bush says.

If successful, the model has the potential to apply to other efforts beyond forest conservation. The TFFF model, Seymour says, could be replicated to finance efforts such as girls’ education or eradicating malaria, two areas that are facing pressures from recent reductions in development aid from wealthy countries.

The proposed TFFF model also puts an emphasis on Indigenous communities and their contribution to forest conservation by requiring a minimum of 20% of annual payments to each country – a global amount totalling at least $800 million annually – to be allocated to Indigenous and local forest communities.

“The focus on Indigenous Peoples and reinforcing land rights is really critical,” Bush says. “That’s the first time a fund of this sort has actually involved Indigenous Peoples groups in its design in such an early stage.”

Research has shown that Indigenous communities are the key to protecting tropical forests. Managing over half of the world’s remaining intact forests, Indigenous tropical forest communities experience more carbon capture, less carbon loss, and less tree cover loss than other lands. When Indigenous land rights are enforced, forests thrive.

“It’s an innovative policy that’s hopefully going to promote good change and good environmental outcomes,” Fedor says. “It changes the economics of a forest’s value.”

During New York Climate Week in September, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva announced that Brazil itself would invest $1 billion in sponsor capital, challenging other governments to do their part as well. The Brazilian government plans to formally launch TFFF at COP30 in Belém, Brazil in November. With the world’s biggest climate event hosted in the world’s biggest tropical forest nation, tropical forests will feature heavily on the international agenda. Roughly 45,000 policymakers, government negotiators, scientists, activists, and Indigenous leaders will be descending on the city at the mouth of the Amazon, placing a major spotlight on one of the very regions the TFFF is designed to protect.

“If there were ever a moment when a big idea like this could get the political and financial support that it needs to get off the ground,” Seymour says, “this is it.”

Woodwell Climate Research Center is thrilled to announce the receipt of a $10 million unrestricted gift from renowned philanthropist MacKenzie Scott. At a time when scientific institutions across the United States are facing unprecedented challenges, this generous gift will support the long-term financial strength of the Center and its critical mission of conducting groundbreaking research to drive science-based solutions to the climate crisis.

Over the past three years, MacKenzie Scott has supported the Center’s Permafrost Pathways initiative through the TED Audacious Project. This new gift builds upon that tremendous support and makes it possible for the Center to leverage critical funds throughout the Center’s work across the globe.

“In a moment where climate science is under attack, this support strengthens our resolve and bolsters our confidence to act boldly and pursue our most innovative ideas,” said Dr. Max Holmes, President and CEO of Woodwell Climate. “An unrestricted gift of this size is extraordinary, and stands as a ringing endorsement of Woodwell’s mission and values from one of the world’s most influential philanthropists. We are deeply inspired by and grateful for this act of generosity and the remarkable trust it shows in our vision and impact.”

For forty years Woodwell Climate has pursued the critical work of scientific research to help leaders and communities across the country—and around the world—curb climate change and cope with the increasingly damaging impacts. With this key investment, Woodwell will continue and accelerate efforts to find climate solutions, intensify its commitment to the highest standard of science, and aspire to ever greater courage and creativity.

In a comment published in Nature Climate Change, Mark Bradford, the E.H. Harriman Professor of Soils and Ecosystem Ecology, and Yale School of the Environment research scientists Sara Kuebbing and Alexander Polussa ’25 PhD, together with colleagues Emily Oldfield ’05, ’11 MESc, ’19 PhD, of Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and Jonathan Sanderman of the Woodwell Climate Research Center, argue that the scientific evidence supporting soil carbon’s role in mitigating climate change remains too weak to meet the standards required for policy and carbon markets.

Why methane matters

Methane has been overlooked in climate discussions, which largely focus on carbon dioxide, but it’s 87 times more powerful at trapping heat over a 20 year period. Atmospheric levels of methane are now 2.6 times higher than pre-industrial levels—the highest they’ve been in 800,000 years. Crucially, methane emissions from boreal forests are expected to rise or even double as temperatures rise.

Natural environments, such as wetlands and forests, account for a large portion of global methane emissions, which is why finding nature-based solutions to bring down emissions is such an important area of research. Boreal Biosequester’s approach offers the chance to turn natural sources into sinks, while also providing co-benefits such as enhanced biodiversity, wildlife habitats, flood reduction, erosion prevention, and improved air quality.

“If the methanotrophs are there, why not learn to work with them as effectively as possible?” says Watts. “If we were to work with human technology to reduce methane, you’d have to build something energy-intensive. This is a passive way to work with the forest sustainably. If we leave a forest to grow or regenerate, or if we afforest, we can both draw down CO2 and, we hope, consume methane.”

The genesis of the project

Watts and Savage were initially looking at methane sources and sinks for the US National Science Foundation. At first, they focused on soils, which were at the time considered the primary drivers of whether forests were sources or sinks. Then a groundbreaking paper revealed trees’ crucial role in methane uptake. With microbial ecologist Dr. Hinsby Cadillo-Quiroz from Arizona State University, they decided to study methane fluxes around tree trunks and canopies as well as in the soil, and sought funding from CarbonFix to carry out this study.

“When we looked at the canopy level, we could see net consumption, but soil data were all over the place,” Watts explains. “The data showed something important happening between the soils and treetops.”

The world of methanotrophs on plant surfaces is largely uncharted. The team will isolate and study these bacteria in labs while measuring methane consumption across soils, trunks, and canopies through different seasons and climates.

“We’re really the explorers venturing into this new micro-universe,” says Watts. “We know there are microbes out there, we just need to get to know them.”

Only in the last 15 years could methane gas be measured accurately at this scale. The team is uniquely positioned at Howland Forest, which has rare historical methane flux data from eddy covariance towers (structures measuring the exchange of gases) dating to 2011, plus access to both pristine and harvested forest areas for direct comparison.

The Method

CarbonFix’s grant will be used for the first phase to map methanotroph behavior and measuring fluxes across forest layers across the course of a year. Once they’ve secured additional funding, the team will identify optimal conditions for methane consumption across different tree species and environments. Next, they’ll test hypotheses in greenhouse settings, demonstrating how specific tree species can convert methane-emitting wetlands into methane-consuming ecosystems.

Finally, they’ll share findings through reports and presentations targeting governments, land trusts, foresters, and carbon markets to implement these practices in forest management.

Potential impact

For now, the team will focus on working out how methanotrophs function, and the conditions in which they thrive.

“A tiny creature, like a methanotroph, can influence a tree in many ways: it can fix nitrogen, it can clean metabolites. But the true beauty of this partnership is that a single tree could host methanotrophs in many ways and a thousand trees can host methanotrophs in a million ways. We just need to figure out how to channel this partnership to remove many tons of methane molecules. Achieving that would be a major breakthrough to help gain time against climate change,” says Cadillo-Quiroz.

The findings may extend beyond forests to landfills, agriculture, logging, or fire-damaged areas — countless applications where understanding and influencing methane fluxes through bacteria could prove transformative.

What’s more, if the team’s findings show how methanotrophs can be inoculated into new forests, they could become part of every new reforestation project.

Reforestation is urgently needed: between 2001-2023, Canada, Alaska, and the Northern US lost over 70 million hectares of forest — three times the UK’s landmass — from fire and harvest. Most of these wet soil areas are net methane emitters. Reforesting and inoculating them with methanotrophs could create carbon and methane sequestration superheroes. The team estimates targeted afforestation could remove over 10 million metric tons of methane — reducing 30-40% of high-latitude methane budgets while simultaneously sequestering CO2.

But for now, there’s lots of work to be done. The team of four are rolling up their sleeves for fieldwork and lab analysis.

“At minimum, it will be fascinating data filling knowledge gaps about methane uptake,” says Savage. “If we can remove methane short-term, we have leeway to address more challenging CO2 elements requiring extensive work.”

Watts adds: “Our group is always thinking about how what we do now will impact society later. I’m excited to develop methodologies that we can share worldwide, creating community transformation for people across the planet.”

What keeps Woodwell Climate Director of Government Relations, Laura Uttley going day to day?

Uttley leads the Center’s domestic policy advocacy, and it’s been a hard year for domestic policy. In the past, her work has involved building relationships with members of Congress, tracking climate-relevant legislation, and planning Hill visits and briefings with Center scientists. This year, it’s been all that plus an exhausting gauntlet of crisis response, as climate science falls under attack from an antagonistic presidential administration. It is a federal policy landscape that makes advancing climate research, mitigation policy, and adaptation efforts harder than perhaps at any point in U.S. history.

But waiting for easier times is not an option.

Since the start of the new presidential administration in January, federal funding and support infrastructure for science has been slashed, and many laws, court rulings, and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations that form the foundation of the U.S.’s climate and environmental policy have been targeted or overturned to make way for an agenda that prioritizes fossil fuels. Protecting as much environmental policy as possible has become an urgent priority for Uttley and the rest of the Government Relations team at Woodwell, but despite the chaos and uncertainty, they aren’t flagging.

“What gets me going on a day to day basis, is that I have a job to do,” says Uttley.

Holding back the floodwaters

At the beginning of the year, Uttley and the Government Relations team were bracing themselves for the new administration to “flood the zone.” The tactic, which involves mounting as many attempts as possible to repeal legislation, cut funding, and stymie regular governmental proceedings in a short timespan, is designed to overwhelm potential opposition and the media.

“It is done very intentionally,” says Uttley. “To distract. To exhaust. To cloud your judgment on things, and get you too focused on one area, so that you’re unaware or unable or too limited in terms of resources to work in a different space.”

And that’s exactly what newly appointed officials did—from pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement, to proposing the sale of public lands, to firing staff from key agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), to changing regulation around how the EPA implements signature environmental legislation.

The instinct, Uttley says, for individuals and organizations that care about diversity, the environment, or public funding for science, is to react to everything because every attack feels like a devastating loss. But that is exactly what drains motivation and resources the fastest.

“I don’t have the luxury of outrage right now,” says Uttley.

So she and others have had to stay focused on the most significant policy battles, concentrating resources on the areas most aligned with Woodwell Climate’s mission and expertise.

“You could make the argument that we should be in any number of fights and policy debates,” says Uttley. “But if we go too far afield, the impact of our voice changes in those dialogues that are so core to our mission. Staying focused can be really hard to do when everything feels so deeply important.”

Top Priority: The Endangerment Finding

Among the fights the Center’s Government Relations team has engaged in, protecting the infrastructure of American climate policy has been a chief priority. In July, the administration announced its intent to revoke the Endangerment Finding, which underpins the majority of U.S. climate action. This finding from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) affirms that the emission of six greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere— including carbon dioxide and methane— represents a threat to human health and wellbeing, giving the agency authority to regulate them. The decision was based on rigorous science, and was re-affirmed in a 2018 study, led by then-president of Woodwell Climate, Dr. Phil Duffy, who wrote that in the intervening years evidence in support of the finding had only accumulated.

The current administration has attempted to call into question the scientific basis of the finding by releasing a report from the Department of Energy (DOE) that challenges consensus on the damaging impacts of carbon emissions. The suggestion that regulating emissions has caused more harm than the effects of climate change, according to Dave McGlinchey, who served as Woodwell Climate’s Chief of Government Relations between 2016 and 2025, is a blatant dismissal of scientific fact.

“We built an operation here at Woodwell that is very non-partisan, but the idea that the Executive Branch of the U.S. federal government just doesn’t engage with evidence, or moves forward despite clearly contravening evidence, is a real challenge,” says McGlinchey.

It also dismisses the fact that the EPA’s ability to regulate things like tailpipe and power plant emissions has improved air quality for millions of Americans. The finding has made our skies clearer, lungs healthier, and contributed meaningfully to reducing the U.S.’s emissions.

Legal challenges to the proposed repeal began to roll in almost immediately after its announcement, and the opportunity for public comment on the rule was extended to September 22. The Woodwell Climate team developed an organizational comment in support of the Finding to throw more scientific weight behind the efforts to keep it in place.

Climate risk spans political divides

While the political landscape around climate mitigation remains contentious, opportunities to advance resilience projects on the local scale remain. Communities across the political spectrum are feeling the acute impacts of climate change and need information to protect themselves.

“Risk is a bipartisan issue,” says McGlinchey. “Unfortunately, in this country, we have repeated, catastrophic reminders of what climate change impacts look like, so people are attuned to that. They want to understand risk and they want to understand how to become more resilient.“

Andrew Condia, External Affairs Manager, leads the Center’s primary climate adaptation project, Just Access. The initiative connects climate scientists with communities both in the U.S. and around the world to provide assessments of current and future climate risks at no cost to the communities. With a better understanding of how variables like flooding, drought, heatwaves, and fires will impact their communities in the coming years, leaders in municipal governments have been able to have climate-informed conversations about planning, infrastructure, and public health. Even in overwhelmingly conservative areas.

“We work with some Democratic mayors, some Republican mayors, and they are lined up and equally as engaged in the process,” says Condia. “They understand the importance of this information and know that it’s a critical tool to help them as their communities grow and change in the future.”

The sweeping nature of cutbacks on the federal level has meant that municipalities are now one of the only places these conversations are able to move forward.

“I think local governments recognize that in the absence of federal leadership, it’s up to them to step up to make progress on these issues. It’s the only climate action in the country that is really making meaningful progress right now,” says Condia.

Bigger picture, longer term

At higher levels of government, McGlinchey says the current top priority is to maintain relationships with policymakers and lay the groundwork for long-term changes while momentum in the short term has been halted.

“We can’t look at how bleak the landscape appears to be and throw our hands up and give up. Because political winds shift frequently in this country, and fairly dramatically, and when they shift again, we don’t want to start at zero,” says McGlinchey.

For the past three years the Government Relations team has organized “fly-ins”, which bring Woodwell Climate scientists to Washington D.C. for meetings with Members of Congress and their staff. The fly-ins are key to how the Center stewards relationships on Capitol Hill and raises issues like permafrost thaw or flood insurance risk to the attention of legislators. Despite this year’s political changes, Uttley was still able to bring 12 scientists, board members, and staff for meetings with 15 congressional offices this September.

Woodwell has also remained active in coalition groups, which combine the power of many organizations to push for common goals.

“We’re engaged in the Adaptation Working Group, Friends of NOAA, the Coalition for National Science Funding, and more,” says Uttley. “From a policy perspective we have really seen the advocacy community rally together this year.”

And while the U.S. regresses on climate action, the rest of the world continues forward. Woodwell Climate is helping to propel important climate policy on the international stage, forming a delegation to the annual UN Conference of Parties (COP) in Belém, Brazil in November. Given its location, tropical forests will feature heavily on the agenda this year, and the Center will be showcasing emerging work on tropical regenerative agriculture, sustainable development in the DRC, and financing for forest protection. The Center is also collaborating with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) to provide technical support for countries submitting biennial transparency reports on their progress towards climate goals.

Momentum on climate means telling climate stories

Still, facing down the urgency and magnitude of climate change, these incremental wins and slowly unfolding plans often don’t feel like enough compared to swift federal actions. Especially for individuals who don’t have their hands on the levers of power. But Uttley says the local level is where most change has always started, and individuals can make a difference.

“While I’m working to make systemic change on the federal level, one of the most powerful things each of us can do to keep up momentum on climate is to tell stories about local impacts,” says Uttley. Whether it’s about soccer practices canceled for heat or commuting lanes flooded, stories that connect climate change to our daily lives help change minds and motivate action.

Working on climate policy in times like these is a careful balance of hope and disappointment, Uttley says, but in order to move forward hope always has to win out. Not wishful thinking, but the kind of hope that springs from facing down the obstacles and getting to work.

“I’ve been in public policy and advocacy for 15 years,” says Uttley. “If I didn’t have a strong sense of optimism and hope, I would not be able to do this job.”

Summers in the Arctic-boreal region are becoming increasingly defined by fire. In 2023, Canada endured its worst wildfire season in history, with nearly 200,000 Canadians displaced. Fast forward to summer 2025, and the country faces its second-worst wildfire season on record, with 470 outbreaks deemed “out of control” by August. Siberia and Alaska are also confronting active fire seasons.

For Arctic communities, the physical impacts of smoke exposure, the toll of evacuations and destruction, and the threats to cultural traditions compound the danger of extreme fires. But Indigenous science and cultural traditions offer a path towards justice and resilience.

Climate change and colonial histories fuel the fire

Climate change has created hotter and drier conditions in the north, increasing the frequency and intensity of Arctic-boreal wildfires. These wildfires amplify global warming, creating a feedback loop by burning deep into permafrost, a carbon-rich soil, and releasing stored carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. A recent study led by Permafrost Pathways researchers found that wildfire has contributed to the Arctic’s shift from a net absorber to a net emitter of carbon. That increase in emissions in turn fuels even more fires. Between 2003 and 2023, the Arctic-boreal region saw a sevenfold increase in extreme wildfires.

“Things have really changed in our traditional territories,” said Woodwell Climate’s Adaptation Specialist, Brooke Woods. Woods is a Tribal member from Rampart, Alaska, and she currently lives in Fairbanks, Alaska. “We had two fires close to Rampart this summer. We’ve had back-to-back fires over the past three summers. Growing up, I don’t ever recall back-to-back wildfires surrounding our communities.”

The increase is also due, in part, to increased lightning strikes, which are occurring more frequently as warming temperatures further destabilize atmospheric conditions, leading to more storms that produce lightning.

“Our summers are drier and we’re having more severe heat events as well as more intense lightning and thunderstorms now, too,” said Woods. “When we had the fire in Rampart, in the midst of this wildfire, one of the storms actually produced 1600 lightning strikes across Alaska.”

The history of colonialism in North America has also played a role in today’s extreme wildfire regimes. For millennia, Indigenous Peoples across the Arctic practiced cultural burning—using small, controlled fires to manage the land, reduce dry fuel buildup, and prevent large, catastrophic wildfires. These practices not only protected ecosystems but also supported biodiversity and were deeply rooted in cultural knowledge and tradition. However, colonization disrupted these systems as Indigenous communities were forcibly removed from their lands, and cultural burning was often banned and criminalized altogether.

“Elders risked jail time for burning,” Dr. Amy Cardinal Christianson told Chatelaine Magazine. Christianson is a Metis wildfire expert and Policy Advisor for the Indigenous Leadership Initiative who co-hosts the podcast Good Fire and serves on the board of the International Association of Wildland Fire. “That’s how badly they knew that the land needed to burn.”

This erasure, combined with colonial fire suppression tactics, has led to the accumulation of flammable undergrowth that makes the land more vulnerable to intense and widespread fires.

Smoke, displacement, and cultural survival

Increasingly active Arctic-boreal wildfires are not just environmental disasters, they’re also cultural and human crises.

Wildfire smoke—which can contain soot and high levels of mercury— threatens the health of Arctic communities and can put vulnerable groups, like elders, young children, and those with pre-existing health conditions, at prolonged risk well after the fires have gone out.

“In my baby’s first year of life in 2023, we had such bad air quality [in Fairbanks]. It impacted his respiratory system, and it was just so hard for him to be able to nurse,” said Woods. “I was even considering driving 300 miles to the next urban area to get him to clean, healthy air because there was also a fire in Rampart. It impacted our safety in both of the places that we call home.”

The mental toll of wildfires can also be just as devastating as the physical impacts, as communities must navigate evacuation logistics, loss, and displacement with very little governmental support.

“Communities are thinking about how the wildfire crisis is real—it’s driven them from their home and maybe destroyed their home—they’re thinking ‘what else am I going to lose’?” said Edward Alexander, Senior Arctic Lead at the Woodwell Climate Research Center, Chair of Gwich’in Council International, and Co-Chair of the Arctic Council’s Expert Group on Wildland Fire. “Then, becoming unhoused… people lose their jobs, their businesses, or their investments. They lose forward momentum in their life.”

In addition, evacuation is far more complicated in the Arctic. Many remote communities and villages in Alaska and Canada either have only one main road or aren’t connected to road systems at all, making them accessible only by plane or boat, which presents a logistical and financial challenge for mass evacuation. The combined impacts of smoke, heat, and economic insecurity can also present impossible choices.

“If you look at not only the health disparities but your income, what can you afford to keep yourself healthy?” said Woods. “Can you afford air filters for your home? Can you afford and have access to air conditioners with filters? Because not only are you battling the smoke, but you’re also battling this heat. So just navigating those at different income levels can be very complex.”

Fire doesn’t just destroy infrastructure and threaten health and well-being, it also disrupts Indigenous ways of life, cultural connections to land, intergenerational knowledge sharing, language revitalization, and cultural history tied to specific places like hunting trails, fish camps, and seasonal migration.

“When we were still able to subsistence fish in Alaska, and had wildfires at the same time, there were community members in Rampart that were not able to meet all of their subsistence needs due to wildfires,” Woods said.

Traditional solutions for modern problems: A return to cultural burning

In Good Fire, Christianson discusses ways to restore the modern world’s broken relationship with fire and the need to integrate systems that not only respond appropriately but are also proactive and predicated on Indigenous Knowledge and expertise. This is where cultural burning offers a way forward—a way to view fire not as a threat, but as a critical tool for keeping land healthy and communities safe.

The First Nations Emergency Services Society (FNESS) and the Indigenous Leadership Initiative (ILI) recently released the “Create a Cultural Burn Pathway” workbook to support Indigenous communities in creating cultural burn programs to reduce wildfire risk and maintain healthy connections to the land.

“Fire doesn’t have to be scary,” said Christianson in a video produced by the Indigenous Leadership Initiative. “It doesn’t have to be something we live in fear of every summer. We can have a better relationship with fire that can have really important benefits.”

Traditional burning is a culturally grounded, community-empowered, and ecologically practical approach to managing and mitigating wildfire risk in the North, born from generations of Traditional Ecological Knowledge. Unlike conventional fire suppression, which often seeks to eliminate fire altogether, cultural burning is a proactive, place-based practice rooted in Indigenous governance, values, and ecological understanding. These approaches aren’t about fighting fire—they’re about embracing it to foster sovereignty, revitalize knowledge, and deepen connection to the land.

Beyond the health of the land and forests, cultural fire also contributes to cultural resilience and maintains Indigenous connections to land and community. Cultural burns ensure practices are guided by traditional protocols and adapted to local ecosystems. Community members, including youth, are involved—passing knowledge between generations and restoring cultural roles that were disrupted by colonization.

Which is why, according to Alexander, placing the emphasis on the health of the forest, ecosystems, and community overall, rather than on controlling fire, should be the real goal.

“We should be thinking a little differently,” Alexander said. “Cultural fire is a tool, but fire is not the emphasis. It’s the health of the forest, it’s the health of the land, it’s the health of the animals and birds, it’s the health of our peoples and communities. That’s the emphasis.”

From ‘wildfire to mildfire,’ Indigenous fire stewardship as a path forward

Cultural burning is just one part of the solution, which will involve moving away from colonial fire suppression methods altogether and supporting Indigenous-led fire stewardship models with meaningful changes in policy and funding. Woods says she’d like to see Indigenous-led fire programs represented as part of a broader recognition of Indigenous sovereignty in the North.

“I’d like to see more local people leading the work rather than just renting out their equipment or hiring them as boat captains,” Woods said. There are more opportunities for Indigenous People to help their own communities. I feel there’s always time to course correct and really acknowledge and honor the 229 Tribes of Alaska and their practices that have maintained very healthy land and ecosystems for so long.”

In Alaska, Indigenous-led wildfire initiatives—like the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Emergency Firefighter (EFF) program—create opportunities for local members of Alaska Native communities to join crews and integrate their traditional knowledge and expertise of the land to help keep their communities safe. In Canada, Fire Guardian programs—which Dr. Christianson has long been advocating for—aim to get good fire back on the land through Indigenous stewardship and traditional practices.

Alexander says he hopes recognizing cultural burning and other forms of Indigenous Knowledge as legitimate science will help prioritize them in land management.

“It’s critically important science that we need to help us manage the wildland fire crisis in the circumpolar north,” said Alexander.

Alexander imagines a future where wildfire becomes mildfire. Where communities in the north are adequately resourced and wildfire management becomes proactive and rooted in Indigenous Knowledge and expertise, while prioritizing and supporting sovereignty.

“Indigenous fire management looks like a vibrant landscape where you don’t have severe wildland fire, but you have increased biodiversity, where the vegetation is more nutritious for the plants and animals, and that permafrost and other hugely important resources are protected,” Alexander said. “I also think that it’s an integral part of respecting the sovereignty of Indigenous Peoples, of respecting the self-determination of Indigenous Peoples to manage our territories how we see fit, and I think that it’s a really critical approach that we need to all be listening to. Our collective future really depends on it.”