Why AI’s environmental footprint won’t disappear into orbit

What could possibly go wrong?

Peter Howson, Northumbria University, Newcastle

AI companies increasingly want to move their operations into space. Elon Musk’s SpaceX has applied to launch over a million AI data centre satellites and ultimately build them on the moon.

Jeff Bezos, Google, OpenAI and others have similar plans. The idea is to harness 24/7 solar energy and, in Bezos’s vision at least, to move all polluting industries off-world, re-zoning Earth for humans and nature.

It’s an intriguing plan. But once you factor in the whole life cycle, from water and rocket fuel used to launch these satellites into space, to keeping them cool and eventually disposing of old satellites, the environmental case becomes less clear.

Outer space, out of mind

Off-worlding polluting industries is not a new idea. In the 1970s, when the last Iranian oil crisis caused rocketing fuel prices, Nasa kicked off a plan to build huge solar plants in space. The idea flopped when the oil began to flow again.

Nasa also explored the prospect of storing nuclear materials on the moon and blasting hazardous waste at the sun. These plans may have been feasible from an engineering perspective but were politically impossible due to the risk of radioactive particles eventually falling back to earth.

A concept image from Nasa’s 1978 proposal for a
10km-wide ‘satellite power system’. The space-based
solar farm is visible top right, while the energy would
be beamed down to a ‘rectenna farm’ on earth,
in the center of the image.
Nasa / US DoE / Satellite Power System (SPS)
Concept Development and Evaluation Program Plan, 1978.

Since data centers need so much energy, much of it for AI, such astronomical ideas are back on the table. Regular Earth-based data centers were responsible for around 5% of all electricity used in the US last year, for instance, mostly using fossil fuels. Their share of US power demand will likely triple by 2028.

The fragile frontier

That’s why the cold vacuum of space, with its endless supply of solar energy, is being pitched as a more sustainable alternative to big, noisy, hot data centers in our back yards.

Meanwhile, a recent petition from environmental law charity Earthjustice, is calling for a comprehensive review. They argue these proposals fail to acknowledge any environmental impact. “This is not just poor planning and a missed opportunity”, the petition states, “it violates federal law”.

Indeed, SpaceX’s planning applications come with assurances of no meaningful environmental impact. “It’s always sunny in space,” according to Musk, who says orbital data centers are “obviously the only way to scale”.

Yet data centers in space would be even more prone to overheating than those on earth. That’s because, like a Thermos flask, space keeps things hot. There’s no water or air to carry excess heat away. Instead, keeping powerful AI chips cool in orbit requires massive ammonia-filled radiators that let heat escape as infrared radiation. This isn’t very efficient and those radiators are much larger than the computers they cool. Lifting these huge structures to orbit would require a lot of rocket fuel.

Rhode Island energy costs are soaring. So are political tensions.

Does not hold RI Energy responsible

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

 (Photo by Nancy Lavin/Rhode Island Current)

In declaring a state of emergency over rising energy prices, Gov. Dan McKee simultaneously declared war on the environmental groups, lawmakers and state regulators who he alleges are standing in the way of relief for struggling families.

“Anybody who tells you that what we’re proposing is not helping people pay their utility bills, they’re basically advocating for their own personal self interests,” McKee said at a press conference at United Way of Rhode Island’s Providence office on Thursday.

He wasn’t talking about the cluster of social service agency leaders who surrounded him, cheering as he signed an executive order, authorizing $28 million in proceeds from the state’s gas cap-and-trade program to offset winter electricity bills for Rhode Island Energy customers. 

Instead, McKee was referring in broad terms to the people who spoke out during the 2026 legislative session against his proposed energy affordability plan. The proposal, which was largely dismantled by lawmakers in the final fiscal 2027 budget, sought to save ratepayers $1 billion on energy bills over five years in part by weakening state programs meant to promote renewable energy and energy efficiency.

Environmental groups, solar developers, and Democratic lawmakers all cited concerns with McKee’s plan, arguing that the short-term savings came with long-term costs to climate change, energy independence and ratepayer savings. In signing the fiscal 2027 budget, which did not include these contested components, in June, McKee praised lawmakers for acknowledging many of his priorities, including energy affordability.

Six weeks later, barreling toward a contested Democratic primary against challenger Helena Buonanno Foulkes, the governor was quick to point fingers at the people who dismantled his energy plans.

“This was an all-out effort to water down the plan I put in place,” McKee said. “Anybody who was testifying and pushing back against energy savings that are needed right now, they are part of the cohort that said ‘let them pay more.’”

McKee declined to name who specifically made this statement or when.

Larry Chretien, executive director at Green Energy Consumers Alliance, which was one of the groups opposed to McKee’s energy proposal, said in an interview he was “shocked and saddened” by McKee’s accusations.

Chretien stressed the merits of maintaining the state’s path to decarbonization, in turn protecting ratepayers from seasonal price volatility, refusing to play the blame game.

“He’s zigging while the rest of the world is moving toward this direction of renewables and energy efficiency,” Chretien said of McKee. “Look at what happened with the Strait of Hormuz. There’s no better example of why we need to have alternatives.”

This bill by local state Senators Victoria Gu and Sue Sosnowski would have capped RI Energy profits while McKee's administration currently guarantees RI Energy a 9.275% profit margin. This bill did not pass

Attorney General Neronha: Don't trust Rhode Island Energy

We are wholly the captive of one fossil fuel company

Steve Ahlquist

“Donald Trump is, without question, the greatest threat to clean energy,” said Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Neronha during a press conference in Providence. “I agree with my federal colleagues that an affinity and affiliation with fossil fuel companies drives this. There’s no question about that. There’s only one way to deal with Donald Trump when he breaks the law and harms Rhode Islanders and Americans, and that’s to take him to court. 

"It’s the only forum where we can get immediate results, as we consistently have, including on clean energy, and we’re going to continue to do that. The Attorney General’s office in Rhode Island has never been more important. 

"Donald Trump is a threat to us in so many ways, from our elections to clean energy, that fighting on all these fronts is critically important. But the fight isn’t just with Donald Trump. We can’t forget how important it is to make and keep good energy policy here at home. We can’t blame Donald Trump for everything that goes sideways with our energy policy.”

Here’s the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjflShvYusk

Attorney General Neronha has twice successfully sued the Trump Administration over illegal work stoppages issued against Revolution Wind. On Thursday, his office announced, with five other state Attorneys General, its intention to sue the Administration over its unprecedented use of the Treasury Department’s Judgment Fund to make $2.7 billion in payouts to companies to vacate their offshore wind leases, in exchange for fossil fuel development. 

On Thursday, AG Neronha joined a coalition of 18 attorneys general in moving to intervene in a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth for unlawfully freezing routine reviews of land-based wind energy projects across the country.

Why did energy-saving tips disappear from the Energy Department website?

Spite

Kate Yoder, Senior Staff Writer

"This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here."

If you wanted to save some money by learning how to check your home for air leaks, poor insulation, and power-hungry lightbulbs, the Department of Energy’s website was ready to help. And if you needed an expert, the site guided you to another page for help lining up a professional energy assessment, a well-established first step to cut utility bills and curb pollution at the same time. 

That is, until this summer, when both of those resources vanished from the agency’s site, each now redirecting to “Page not found.” They were taken down by July 3, around the same time that the Department of Energy deleted more than 1,600 pages from the Energy Saver section of its site, gutting a resource for people looking to conserve energy and lower bills.

“I can’t remember another time that, with DOE specifically, we’ve seen an entire domain go down the way that [it] has been reported on now,” said Izzy Pacenza, who monitors government websites for the Environmental Data and Governance Initiative. Over a 30-day span this summer, as swaths of the country suffered under heat waves, more than 300 of the webpages had received 160,000 page views, according to an analysis from The Guardian.

The news coverage of the missing websites has focused on the disappearance of one recommendation in particular. Ahead of a heat wave that roasted New York City with 100-degree temperatures earlier this month, Mayor Zohran Mamdani asked businesses and residents to set their AC to 78 degrees to conserve energy, drawing the ire of Republicans who mocked the restrictions as “socialism.” 

Internet sleuths were quick to notice that similar guidance had vanished from the Department of Energy’s website, which used to direct people to keep their thermostat between 75 and 78 degrees. The timing suggested that the agency might have removed the pages as a rebuke to Mamdani’s advice.

The purge looked suspiciously timed for another reason:  On July 2, the Energy Department announced a proposed rule to make it harder for future administrations to approve energy efficiency standards for household appliances, saying it would “permanently end Green New Scam appliance mandates.” The move was part of the Trump administration’s broader attack on energy efficiency requirements.

Energy costs are high and unaffordable

What utilities, governments, communities and you can do to help cut energy costs

Sanya Carley, University of Pennsylvania; Alexandra Klass, University of Michigan; Alison L. Knasin, University of Pennsylvania; David Konisky, Indiana University, and Shelley Welton, University of Pennsylvania

For many Americans, energy bills are becoming increasingly unaffordable.

Energy prices increased approximately 30% on average from 2021 to 2026. In some places, the rates of increase have been much steeper. In the Mid-Atlantic and eastern Midwest region where several of us live, the regional electricity grid is run by PJM Interconnection, and power prices in the first quarter of 2026 were 76% higher than the same period in 2025.

These rising utility costs are a shock to many people, including those already having a hard time paying for the energy they need. In 2024, 1 in 3 American households reported struggling to pay their energy bills, and 15.1 million homes were disconnected from their electricity or gas services because the residents couldn’t pay their bill. Energy insecurity is a pervasive and potentially dangerous predicament for these millions of households, and a growing challenge for America as energy bills rise.

Energy markets, which we study, are famously complex. But many parties in these marketplaces, from the federal government to individual consumers, have opportunities to help provide Americans with affordable energy. Some may not be obvious to the casual observer, or even to savvy energy wonks.

Feds restore home energy rebates, but with a catch

Among other things, heat pumps take a hit

By Dan Gearino

Major new limits on eligibility

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Federal energy efficiency rebate programs will no longer cover a switch from fossil fuels to electricity for heating, according to long-awaited guidance from the Department of Energy.

The department published an update on how it will implement consumer programs with $8.8 billion in funding. The new provisions include eliminating use of diversity, equity and inclusion considerations, among other changes.

This follows legal challenges after Donald Trump issued an executive order last year, upon returning to office, canceling the release of funds from President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, including rebates for home energy efficiency. A coalition of states successfully sued to restore the funding, obtaining an injunction in March 2025.

States have been waiting for the Department of Energy to reopen funding, a process that begins with this latest publication.

Clean energy and environmental advocates said the guidance was overdue and severely flawed.

What ever happening to the Green New Deal (besides Donald Trump)?

The Green New Deal has evolved. Now it’s all about ‘affordability.’

Kate Yoder, Senior Staff Writer

This story was originally published by Grist. Sign up for Grist's weekly newsletter here.

Eight years ago, three little words took hold of the environmental movement: Green New Deal. Part popular slogan, part political philosophy, the phrase described a sweeping agenda to create jobs, advance social justice, and combat climate change through major public investment inspired by the New Deal of the 1930s. 

The term made its way from hats and protest signs to the halls of power, where it shaped local and national policy. Progressives even pressured future president Joe Biden to adopt plans to address the crisis in the lead-up to the 2020 election.

Congress eventually whittled his ambitions down to the Inflation Reduction Act, a package of green tax credits and incentives that became the nation’s first comprehensive climate policy. That is, until Republicans dismantled the law last year. 

Under Donald Trump, the national policy wins Democrats had scored by leveraging the Green New Deal’s momentum all but vanished. The party was left soul-searching, wondering how it should talk about climate change, or if those calling for solutions should even talk about it at all.

Progressives seem to have settled on an answer: Make everything about affordability. A new climate agenda released by the Climate and Community Institute, a left-leaning think tank, aims to lower costs for everyday people through home insurance rate caps, bans on utility shutoffs, and other measures. 

It promotes “green economic populism,” a framework to provide relief for the working class through policies that also happen to cut carbon emissions (such as free transit or a moratorium on data centers), while regulating the corporations contributing to climate change and the cost-of-living crisis. 

The architects of the so-called “working-class climate agenda” say they’ve learned lessons from the Green New Deal and the Inflation Reduction Act: One lacked political will, while the other failed to deliver tangible results to working-class voters quickly enough. 

New federal figures reveal 1 in 3 US households struggle to pay energy bills

The reality is likely even worse

Diana Hernández, Columbia University

Americans’ concerns about being able to afford electricity and home heating fuel are elevated since the beginning of the Iran war. But newly released nationwide data shows that even before the war began, these concerns were widespread, long-standing and getting worse faster than the data can reflect.

The new information is from preliminary reports based on the Residential Energy Consumption Survey, a representative survey of U.S. households conducted every four to five years by the U.S. Energy Information Administration. These early results show that energy insecurity, a hidden hardship defined as the inability to adequately meet household energy needs, affects millions of American households and is worsening quickly.

As a scholar who has spent years sitting in hundreds of homes around the country, hearing firsthand accounts about energy insecurity, I turn to this survey data to quantify the suffering I have witnessed up close.

The latest tranche of data was collected in 2024 and released in March 2026, but full results won’t be available for some time. The preceding survey was taken in 2020, but results weren’t finalized until August 2025.

Though that data is incomplete and slow to emerge, the picture is unambiguous: Even households once confident they could afford energy costs are at risk of falling behind on bills, making hard trade-offs to keep the lights on and living in homes they can’t afford to properly heat and cool.

Good job, Jack Reed

Starting April 17, Amazon will add a 3.5% delivery charge to pay for increased fuel costs due to Trump’s Iran War.

Along with big price increases for gas, diesel and heating oil, Trump’s War Tax continues to grow

Brad Reed for Common Dreams

Americans having been paying more for gasoline since the start of Donald Trump’s illegal war with Iran, and now it seems the war’s costs are spreading to other areas of the economy.

Amazon announced on Thursday that, beginning April 17, it would add a “3.5% fuel and logistics-related surcharge” to vendors that use its Fulfillment by Amazon (FBA) service in the US and Canada.

The company said that it needed to add the surcharge due to “elevated costs in fulfillment and logistics” that “have increased the cost of operating across the industry.”

“We have absorbed these increased costs so far,” Amazon said. “However, similar to other major carriers, when costs remain elevated, we implement temporary surcharges on our fulfillment fees to recover a portion of the actual cost increases we are experiencing.”

Foulkes Releases Plan to Lower Utility Bills and Advance Clean Energy

No False Choices

News release from the Foulkes campaign

As energy bills in Rhode Island soar and Rhode Islanders see the effects of climate change every day, Governor McKee has walked back the climate goal that he celebrated just four years ago. Lacking a plan, the governor is creating a false choice between affordable energy and taking action to meet our climate goals. Helena Buonanno Foulkes has outlined her plan to lower energy costs for Rhode Islanders while addressing climate change and advancing renewable energy in the Ocean State. 

“Choosing between lower energy costs and addressing climate change is a false choice that Rhode Island cannot afford to make,” said Helena. “As governor, I’ll focus on cost-effective sources of renewable energy to meet our climate goals while working to lower costs for Rhode Islanders. Today, I’m outlining my plan to do exactly that.”

Last year, 89% of Rhode Island’s electricity came from natural gas, and our state ranks 44th in energy affordability. Meanwhile, renewable energy sources are consistently the cheapest energy options available to meet rising demand. Helena’s plan focuses on increasing clean energy generation in Rhode Island and taking basic steps to hold our for-profit utility accountable to lower costs for Rhode Islanders.

Ensuring lower rates for Rhode Islanders starts with holding the utility accountable for proposed rate increases. The McKee Administration has allowed Rhode Island Energy and its parent company Pennsylvania Power & Light broad latitude to pass more and more costs on to Rhode Island ratepayers. Thankfully, our AG has fought to hold them accountable to the tune of tens of millions of saved ratepayer dollars. 

Helena’s plan, titled No False Choices, rejects the premise that clean energy and lower costs are at odds. As governor, Helena will: 

Let's go!

Sen. Gu, Rep. Cotter introduce bills to cap electric and gas utilities’ profits

Protecting consumers from price-gouging utilities

If only this was real

Sen. Victoria Gu and Rep. Megan Cotter have introduced legislation to limit the profits of utilities distributing electricity and natural gas to “just and reasonable” rates.

“One very important reason our utility bills are so high is that in Rhode Island, as in many places across the country, utilities are making unreasonable profits that exceed a reasonable rate of return, reflected locally in the nearly $12 million Rhode Island Energy’s parent company CEO made in 2023, ” said Senator Gu (D-Dist. 38, Westerly, Charlestown, South Kingstown). 

“Utilities are regulated monopolies, and they don’t operate like a normal business. If they spend $100 million on a project, they get 9.275% back from ratepayers. If they spend $200 million on the same project, they still get 9.275% back and they double their profits. There’s no incentive to control costs.”

Said Representative Cotter (D-Dist. 39, Exeter, Richmond, Hopkinton), “While billion-dollar utility companies post record profits, families and seniors in our community are sitting at their kitchen tables trying to figure out how to pay their electric bills. That’s just not right. Our profit cap bills are about protecting working families who are choosing between heat and groceries and making sure seniors on fixed incomes don’t have to live in the cold. Utilities are a necessity, not a luxury, and we have a responsibility to make sure they are fair, affordable and accountable to the people they serve.”

War in Middle East brings uncertainty and higher energy costs to already weakening US economy

Trump continues to torpedo the economy now with an unnecessary war

Michael Klein, Tufts University

The “fog of war” refers to confusion and uncertainty on the battlefield and the attendant possibility of fatal error. 

This principle has a parallel when it comes to the economic consequences of wars as well, especially when they occur in a region that is a chokepoint for the production and shipment of one-fifth of the world’s oil and a third of its natural gas.

Trump wearing his tacky, disrespectful campaign cap

Although no one really knows how deeply the ripple effects of the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran will impair the global economy, the Gulf kingdom of Qatar issued a dire warning on March 6, 2026, that reflects those concerns: “This will bring down the economies of the world,” Qatar’s energy minister said.

As for the U.S. economy, it was already showing signs of weakness. Data released on March 6 showed an unexpected loss in jobs in February.

As an economist, I expect the biggest economic risks of this war to be inflationary pressures and slowing growth due to the rising price of oil. In addition, uncertainty from the “economic fog of war” could make consumers reticent to spend and businesses hesitant about hiring and investing. These conditions will make it challenging for policymakers to steer the economy.

Uncertainty and risks

There is currently, and likely to be for some time, great uncertainty about the length of the war in Iran, the range of countries involved and its costs. All of these factors will determine how much the war hurts economies in the U.S. and across the globe.

We do know there will be disruptions to the supply of oil and liquefied natural gas, which is difficult to ship through the Strait of Hormuz, and from the fiscal costs associated with this military action.

The price of crude oil has jumped by about 25% since the U.S. and Israel began bombing Iran on Feb. 28, which has driven up gasoline prices across the U.S. The majority of oil and liquefied natural gas produced in the Middle East travels through the Strait of Hormuz – but the threat of attack has made travel through this waterway uninsurable, which has brought shipping through this vital passage to a virtual halt.

This is also an expensive military campaign for the United States, which has already seen the loss of aircraft and a depletion of its stock of missiles. Early estimates of the cost of the war were nearly US$1 billion a day.

Prices at the pump are already way up.

How Will the War in Iran Affect Your Utility Bills?

By Kiley Bense

Trump's planned ballroom seems to be holding
Trump's attention more than the war he started
with Iran

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine set off a global energy crisis in 2022, sending prices for oil and gas skyrocketing in Europe and the U.S. for months on end. Many Americans struggled to keep up with their bills, and disconnections—when utility companies shut off power or heat because of nonpayment—spiked. 

Now, energy experts fear the Trump administration’s decision to attack Iran could trigger a similar sequence of events. Qatar has shut down production at the world’s largest liquefied natural gas facility. Liquefying natural gas allows it to be stored and moved over longer distances than pipelines can accommodate. Shipments through a critical trade route, the Strait of Hormuz, have been cut off. Fifteen percent of the global oil supply and 20 percent of global LNG normally pass through this waterway.

In response, oil, gasoline and diesel prices are up, and natural gas prices in Europe are surging. The conflict is “wreaking havoc with global gas and LNG markets, even more so than oil,” according to analysts at Wood Mackenzie, the global energy and natural resources consulting firm. Asian markets “are the most exposed,” but “Europe is also in panic mode,” the analysts said.

The world hasn’t yet seen disruption on the scale of what happened at the start of Russia’s years-long attack on Ukraine, but that’s where we could be headed. 

“If this continues for a full week, that’s the kind of trajectory that we might be on,” said Clark Williams-Derry, energy finance analyst for the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. “The longer this conflict lasts, the more likely we are to see higher prices that people are paying for natural gas.”

The Ukraine war, he warned, led to “a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary households, people who are paying utility bills, to the people who are providing them with fossil fuels.”

The immediate fallout from the war with Iran illustrates the problems with ramping up U.S. exports of liquefied natural gas without any policy guardrails, he said. The more LNG that America exports, the more domestic natural gas prices are tied to swings in the global market. “It’s U.S. consumers who are bidding against global consumers for the same gas,” he said.

The real cause of skyrocketing electric bills in Rhode Island

Gov. McKee is gaslighting Rhode Island energy consumers

By Bill Ibelle, Rhode Island Current

Gov. Dan McKee and Rhode Island Energy want you to believe that the cause of your soaring energy bills is clean energy. But let me ask you a common sense question: If 10% of the state’s energy is produced by wind and solar and 87% is produced by natural gas, which one do you think is responsible for our state having the fourth-highest rates in the country?

Right. It’s the elephant in the room that’s going to trample you, not the gerbil. 

But the governor and our for-profit utility want you to pay attention to the gerbil, even though the real problem is our overdependence on natural gas. 

Save now, pay later: Critics warn McKee’s plan to ease energy bills comes with a tab

Why?

The governor is in the fight of his political life and needs a quick fix to win back support. That’s why he wants to roll back state renewable and energy efficiency programs to save ratepayers money on their monthly bills. It doesn’t matter that his quick fix doesn’t fix anything. It just has to save you a few dollars this election year. 

McKee goes all in on fossil fuels with executive order [possibly] delaying renewable energy and plastic industry CEOs standing behind him

Looks like he's written off the Green vote

Steve Ahlquist

Update: Acadia Center, Climate Action RI, Clean Water Action & Green Energy Consumers Alliance respond:

“Governor McKee continues to pin the blame of escalating energy prices on the very tools that serve to protect Rhode Island ratepayers from volatile supply costs and rising delivery costs,” said Emily Koo, Rhode Island Program Director for Acadia Center. “It is a glaring omission to report the costs of clean energy while ignoring all of the cost savings, one of the primary reasons for undertaking the energy transition in the first place. I would be surprised if the local businesses featured at tomorrow/today’s event have not themselves leveraged energy efficiency and solar to lower their energy usage and stabilize their energy supply costs – these are best practices, and they benefit all ratepayers.”

Rhode Island Governor Daniel McKee is responding to the climate denialism and dangerous energy policies of the Trump Administration not by pushing back against fossil fuels and championing renewable energy, but by embracing the logic coming out of D.C. and advancing policies that undermine Rhode Island’s historic 2021 Act on Climate legislation.

Rhode Islanders received a preview of Governor McKee’s new direction (which is not, truthfully, all that new) in his FY2027 Budget proposal. As Acadia Center [pointed out in a recent press release:

“At a moment when federal clean energy support is eroding, Rhode Island should be doubling down on the tools still firmly within the state’s control. Instead, Governor McKee’s FY 2027 budget sadly mirrors the short-sighted policies of the Trump Administration, cutting renewables and energy efficiency and delivering what would be a major blow to Rhode Island’s clean energy economy.”

Read Acadia Center’s analysis here: Acadia Center responds to severe clean energy rollbacks in Governor McKee’s proposed FY2027 budget

Winter storms don’t have to be deadly

Winter is not over - be prepared for the next big storm

Brett Robertson, University of South Carolina

A powerful winter storm that left hundreds of thousands of people across the U.S. without power for days in freezing temperatures in late January 2026 has been linked to more than 80 deaths, and the cold weather is forecast to continue into February. Several East Coast states are also facing a new winter storm, forecast to bring several inches of snow the weekend of Jan. 31.

The causes of the deaths and injuries have varied. Some people died from exposure to cold inside their homes. Others fell outside or suffered heart attacks while shoveling snow. Three young brothers died after falling through ice on a Texas pond. Dozens of children were treated for carbon monoxide poisoning from improperly used generators or heaters.

These tragedies and others share a common theme: Winter storms pose multiple dangers at once, and people often underestimate how quickly conditions can become life-threatening.

I’m the associate director of the Hazards Vulnerability and Resilience Institute at the University of South Carolina, where we work on ways to improve emergency preparedness and response. Here is what people need to know to reduce their risk of injury during severe winter weather.

Prepare before the storm arrives

Preparation makes the biggest difference when temperatures drop, and services fail. Many winter storm injuries happen after power outages knock out heat, lighting or medical equipment.

Start by assembling a basic emergency kit. The Federal Emergency Management Agency recommends having water, food that does not require cooking, a flashlight, a battery-powered radio, extra batteries and a first-aid kit, at minimum.

In addition to these basics, a winter emergency kit should have plenty of warm clothes and snacks to provide energy to produce body heat. National Institute of Aging

In wintertime, you’ll also need warm clothing, blankets, hats and gloves. When you go out, even in a vehicle, make sure you dress for the weather. Keep a blanket in the car in case you get stranded, as hundreds of people did for hours overnight on a Mississippi highway on Jan. 27 in freezing, snowy weather.

Portable phone chargers matter more than many people realize. During emergencies, phones become lifelines for updates, help and contact with family. Keep devices charged ahead of the storm and conserve battery power once the storm begins.

If anyone in your home depends on electrically powered medical equipment, make a plan now. Know where you can go if the power goes out for an extended period. Contact your utility provider in advance to ask about outage planning, including whether they offer priority restoration or guidance for customers who rely on powered medical equipment.

Save now, pay later: Critics warn McKee’s plan to ease energy bills comes with a tab

McKee plays the energy card to boost his re-election chances

By Nancy Lavin, Rhode Island Current

Gov. Dan McKee framed his proposed rollbacks of green energy incentives around affordability — saving Rhode Island ratepayers $1 billion in their energy bills over the next five years, according to analysis by the state budget office.

Tina Munter, Rhode Island policy advocate for Green Energy Consumers Alliance, offered a different summation of the governor’s fiscal 2027 budget proposal on energy bill charges.

“It’s mind-boggling,” Munter said in a recent interview. “Rhode Island’s reliance on natural gas for heating and electricity is what keeps the region in flux with energy prices. The longer we rely on natural gas, the longer we’re stuck in a cycle of seeing [energy] bills spike, seeing ratepayers be confused and shocked and surprised, versus having more stability.”

This logic persuaded lawmakers in 2022 to enact the most ambitious renewable electricity timeline of any state in the nation. The Renewable Energy Standard law, heralded by McKee at the time of its passage, required Rhode Island to gradually transition to entirely renewable energy sources for its electricity needs, reaching 100% by 2033. 

Now, McKee wants to push the deadline to 2050, which is the same deadline for the state to achieve net-zero emissions overall under the separate Act on Climate law. The proposed 17-year postponement, with immediate relaxation of existing incremental benchmarks, accounts for more than half of the $1 billion projected savings to Rhode Island ratepayers, cutting nearly $64 million from bills in 2027, and $572 million over the next five years, according to the state Office of Management and Budget.

What is it that Trump wants to steal from Greenland?

The Danish territory holds significant stores of oil, gas and minerals. But regulations and the extreme environment have kept the vast majority in the ground.

By Nicholas Kusnetz

This article originally appeared on Inside Climate News, a nonprofit, non-partisan news organization that covers climate, energy and the environment. Sign up for their newsletter here.

Even before U.S. forces seized Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, President Donald Trump reiterated his long-stated desire to take control of Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory.

“We need Greenland for national security,” Trump said publicly last month.

Those comments took on new urgency after the military intervention in Venezuela. Within a day, Trump was again speaking of seizing control of Greenland. Now European leaders appear to be taking the president’s comments seriously.

The leaders of Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain and the United Kingdom issued a joint statement saying that security in the Arctic should be achieved through cooperation by NATO allies, and reiterating the territory’s sovereignty.

“Greenland belongs to its people,” the statement said. “It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland.” 

Despite that statement, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Wednesday that the administration was currently discussing how it might buy Greenland. In response to a question about military involvement, Leavitt said, “all options are always on the table.”

While Trump last month stressed that his interest in the Arctic island was driven by security, “not minerals,” members of his administration had previously listed Greenland’s mineral wealth as a reason to gain control.