Friday, March 06, 2026

Federal Offshore Oil And Gas Lease Sale In Alaska’s Cook Inlet Basin Draws No Bids

Cook Inlet near Clam Gulch is seen on Oct. 23, 2025.

(Photo by Yereth Rosen/Alaska Beacon)

March 6, 2026
Alaska Beacon
By Yereth Rosen

(Alaska Beacon) — The first in a series of newly mandated oil and gas lease sales for federal waters of Alaska’s Cook Inlet received no bids, agency officials said on Wednesday.

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, which oversees oil and gas leasing in federal offshore territory, made the announcement on its website. The federal sale is the first in a series of sales mandated by the 2025 tax and budget bill called the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”

“At this time, no bids have been received. In accordance with OBBBA, we will continue to hold leasing opportunities for Cook Inlet so that industry has a regular, predictable federal leasing schedule that ensures we achieve President Trump’s American Energy Dominance Agenda,” said the announcement.

The auction, which offered about 1 million acres, is one of six Cook Inlet sales mandated through 2032 under the bill.

A statement released by the Department of the Interior, which oversees BOEM, said it is important to keep holding Cook Inlet lease sales, despite the results of this one.

“Regular, predictable federal leasing is the foundation for maintaining domestic energy production. Even when a sale receives no bids, maintaining a transparent, congressionally mandated schedule keeps Cook Inlet opportunities available for future investment, strengthens national readiness and supports Alaska’s role in meeting America’s energy needs,” the statement said.

Industry response to a state Cook Inlet lease sale conducted at the same time was little better, continuing a streak of lackluster industry interest in auctions for that basin.

The Alaska Division of Oil and Gas’ annual areawide Cook Inlet sale, which offered 2.9 million acres of state-managed offshore and onshore territory, drew only one bid, according to results released Wednesday.

The sole bid, for a 20-acre tract, was submitted by a company called Three Mountain Oil LLC and totaled $600, according to the division. That is a low amount compared to bids submitted in past state Cook Inlet lease sales, which were typically in the tens of thousands of dollars per tract, and sometimes more.

An areawide lease sale for state territory on the Alaska Peninsula, held at the same time, also drew a single bid. It was the first time since 2014 that anyone had bid in the annual Alaska Peninsula sale. The bid was $800 for a 160-acre parcel, and it was submitted by an individual named Teresa Gouch.
Little historic interest for controversial sales

The federal Cook Inlet lease sale, like the 2022 sale that preceded it, was controversial.

The sale was targeted for legal action over its environmental impacts. A coalition of conservation and Native organizations last week sent the Department of the Interior a notice of intent to sue over what it characterized as inadequate environmental review preceding the sale.

Wednesday’s results bolstered the argument that this and other planned federal Cook Inlet lease sales are unnecessary, said a statement released by Earthjustice, the environmental law firm representing the plaintiffs.

“We are glad to see no companies bid in this unlawful lease sale. This is great news for all who live in and around the Inlet, and particularly critically endangered Cook Inlet beluga whales,” Earthjustice attorney Hannah Payne-Foster said in the statement.

She noted that in addition to the six sales planned under the tax bill, there are additional Cook Inlet sales proposed by the Trump administration in its pending five-year outer continental shelf leasing plan. “As this result reflects, holding these sales is a waste of government resources and a distraction from real energy solutions like a much-needed transition for Alaska to renewable energy,” she said.

Cooper Freeman, Alaska director for the Center for Biological Diversity, said the response to Wednesday’s lease sale could not be attributed to Biden administration disincentives for oil investment as pro-development organizations have claimed in the past.

“This is the Trump sale. This is their sale. It completely flopped. It’s embarrassing. And it’s also a big relief to Cook Inlet fish and wildlife,” Freeman said.

The lack of bids fits the historic pattern for federal lease sales in Cook Inlet stretching back to the Reagan administration.

A controversial lease sale held at the end of 2022 drew only a single bid, which was submitted by Hilcorp, the dominant operator in Cook Inlet. Earlier that year, Sen. Lisa Murkowski and Sen. Dan Sullivan, both R-Alaska, criticized the Biden administration for canceling the lease sale for lack of industry interest. In a joint statement, Sullivan said President Joe Biden and officials in his administration were “blatantly lying” about lack of industry interest in the sale.

The sale wound up being resurrected by Congress, but a lawsuit resulted in a court mandate for a new environmental study. That study is now completed.

A 2017 federal Cook Inlet lease sale drew 14 bids, also from Hilcorp. Only half remain active. A 2004 federal Cook Inlet lease sale drew no bid. A 1997 lease sale drew two bids. A 1982 sale drew no bids. Other Cook Inlet leases sales were canceled in 2011 and 2007 for lack of interest.

The absence of bids in the latest federal Cook Inlet sale happened despite claims by Sullivan that the multiple Cook Inlet auctions, along with mandated auctions in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, would stimulate broad development.

Sullivan has used multiple public appearances to tout last year’s tax and budget bill as a bonanza for the state, and he emphasized the mandated lease sales during a brief Fox News interview last July, shortly after President Donald Trump signed the bill.

“This is going to be boom time in Alaska for jobs and American energy,” Sullivan said on the Fox Business show Varney & Co. “American energy dominance runs through my great state.”

As is the case with federal Cook Inlet lease sales, recent state Cook Inlet sales have drawn only limited industry interest. From 2016 to 2025, each of the state areawide Cook Inlet lease sales drew between zero and eight bids, according to Division of Oil and Gas records.

Alaska Beacon

Alaska Beacon is an independent, nonpartisan news organization focused on connecting Alaskans to their state government. Alaska, like many states, has seen a decline in the coverage of state news. We aim to reverse that.

Forest Damage Could Double: How Fires, Storms, And Bark Beetles Will Shape The Future Of Europe’s Forests

Tree trunks with clearly visible bark beetle damage. CREDIT: Rupert Seidl / TUM
March 6, 2026
By Eurasia Review
Wildfires, storms, and bark beetles have a major impact on forests and the benefits they provide for people and the environment. For the first time, a large international team led by researchers at the Technical University of Munich (TUM) has calculated how disturbances could transform Europe’s forests by 2100. Even in the most optimistic scenario, the team foresees a substantial increase in damaged forest area—in the most pessimistic case, disturbances could even double.

Tree mortality is not new; it is a part of natural forest dynamics—where old trees die, young trees regenerate and form the next generation of canopy trees. What is new is the scale at which wildfires, storms, and bark beetles—fueled by climate change—are reshaping forests. Recent years have already shown dramatic levels of forest damage in Central Europe, but until now it was unclear how much forest area might be affected by disturbances in the future. Disturbances determine how much carbon forests can store, how much timber they can provide, and which species they provide habitat for—making the findings highly relevant for policymakers and society.

This knowledge gap has now been filled by a large team of researchers led by Rupert Seidl, Professor of Ecosystem Dynamics and Forest Management at TUM. The researchers estimate that with global warming of just over 4 degrees Celsius, the area disturbed by fires, storms, and bark beetles could more than double by 2100. As a baseline, the researchers used remotely sensed data from 1986 to 2020—a period that already saw unusually high levels of forest disturbance. Even in the best‑case scenario, with warming limited to roughly 2 degrees Celsius, the researchers expect more forest damage in the future than during this reference period.

Regional differences

The team used an AI‑based simulation model trained on 135 million data points from forest simulations across 13,000 European locations in combination with multi-decadal satellite data on forest disturbances. This allowed them to simulate future forest development and the occurrence and impacts of disturbances down to the level of a single hectare, yielding highly precise insights into regional differences in future forest disturbance trajectories.

According to the study, forests in Southern and Western Europe will be particularly affected and will undergo the strongest changes in forest disturbance. Northern Europe is expected to be less severely impacted overall, though hotspots of future forest damage are also likely to emerge there. “Disturbances are increasingly becoming a cross‑regional issue, disrupting timber markets across Europe and threatening the ecosystem services forests provide for society,” says Rupert Seidl.

The authors of the study therefore see an urgent need for forest policy and management to account for increasing disturbance levels: “We need to be prepared for significant forest damage in the coming years. On one hand, this means we must prepare for and buffer against stronger fluctuations in the services forests provide. On the other hand, disturbances also offer the opportunity to establish new, climate‑resilient forests—they act as catalysts for change. Forestry must address both the risks and opportunities of rising disturbance levels, supported by new scientific methods and insights,” Seidl explains.

Scientists sound alarm over Europe's forests as 216,000 hectares at risk - even if warming halts

By Liam Gilliver

Published on 05/03/2026 - EURONEWS

More than 200,000 hectares of European forests could be disturbed annually by 2100, according to a new study.

Forest damage in Europe is projected to rise by 20 per cent by 2100 compared to recent decades, even if the world sticks to ambitious climate measures

A new international study published in the journal Science, with contributions from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, warns that wildfires, storms and bark beetle outbreaks – all of which are fuelled by climate change – are putting crucial carbon sources at risk.

Even in a scenario with global warming limited to roughly 2℃, researchers found that annually disturbed forest area could rise from 180,000 to roughly 216,000 hectares per year by the end of the century compared to the “already unprecedented levels of disturbance” from 1986 to 2020.

However, in a scenario where fossil fuel use continues to increase – pushing temperatures even higher – almost 370,000 hectares could be disturbed every year by the end of the century.

Europe’s forests are under threat

The study warns that forests in Southern and Western Europe will be particularly affected and will undergo the ‘strongest changes’ in forest disturbance.

While Northern Europe is expected to be less severely impacted overall, researchers highlight that hotspots of future forest damage are still likely to emerge.

Last year, more than 1,800 forest fires were declared in the EU, emitting around 38 million tonnes of CO2. Scientists say many of these fires occurred where climate anomalies showed much drier and warmer than average conditions.

Summer 2025 was particularly bad for Portugal and Spain, which both witnessed record-breaking wildfires that accounted for more than two-thirds of EU devastation.

According to the World Weather Attribution (WWA), these deadly blazes were around 40 times more likely due to climate change.

Why are forests so important in the fight against climate change?

Europe is among the most forested regions of the world, with around 40 per cent of its land area covered by forests.

Not only do these areas host most of the terrestrial species of animals, plants, and fungi native to the continent – they are also a vital carbon sink that absorbs CO2 from the air and helps fight climate change.

Forests also play an important role in providing clean water, reducing the risk of flooding, and enhancing food security.

However, Christopher Reyer, a scientist at PIK and co-author of the study, says Europe’s forests are likely to absorb less carbon in the future.

“If forests take up less carbon, or potentially even release more than they absorb, this increases pressure on other sectors such as transport and agriculture to reduce their emissions more rapidly,” he adds.

“At the same time, forest management needs to focus more strongly on building resilient forests.”

Is the EU planting enough trees?

In 2010, the EU launched its three billion trees initiative, a milestone that could remove a staggering 15 million tonnes of CO2 from the air per year by 2050.

However, according to an online tool set up by the Commission, less than 38 million trees have been planted in the EU so far.

It means that the EU has only completed around 1.26 per cent of its goal six years into the initiative. Unless planting rates increase dramatically, achieving three billion new trees by 2030 will be unlikely.

A Commission official tells Euronews Green that the initiative is a “voluntary commitment” which aims to mobilise organisations and individuals active in tree planting to report their work – and not a mandatory commitment.

It is planning to launch an award next year to recognise “innovative and impactful tree-planting” in hopes of making large gains towards the goal.

Climate change is bad news for EV batteries. Can technology outsmart rising temperatures?

By Liam Gilliver

Published on 04/03/2026 - EURONEWS

Warmer temperatures accelerate the degradation of batteries in EVs, posing a “make-or-break” for people considering making the switch.

Climate change has created a “catch-22” for the electric vehicle (EV) transition – but advancements in battery technology could outsmart rising temperatures.

Environmental concerns have motivated many to switch to EVs in recent years. According to data from the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), sales of fully electric cars surpassed those of petrol-only vehicles in the EU for the first time in December 2025.

Despite the EU having softened its 2035 car emissions ban, the bloc registered more hybrid electric cars last year too, signalling a substantial shift. By the end of 2025 petrol car registrations fell by 18.7 per cent, with all major markets seeing declines.

However, one of the main “make-or-break” factors putting people off switching to an EV is their ability to cope with extreme weather.

Is our warming world hindering EV sales?

2025 was the third-hottest year globally and in Europe, with average global temperatures hitting 1.5℃ above pre-industrial levels.

According to Copernicus’ weather monitoring service, the spike was attributed to a build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and rising sea-surface temperatures – both of which are amplified by human activity.

A 2025 study by What Car? found that EVs can lose as much as 44 per cent of their claimed ranges when faced with temperatures ranging from 32 to 44℃.

Electric performance carmaker Polestar states that temperature has a “big impact” on battery degradation since it affects the chemical reactions inside the battery.

“Just like cold temperatures slow everything down, higher temperatures can create faster reactions, which can lead to unwanted ones that make your battery degrade faster,” the company adds.

However, a study from the University of Michigan found that recent improvements to EV battery technology could already be outmatching degradation from climate change.

Researchers analysed the endurance of old EV batteries made between 2010–2018 with new batteries made between 2019–2023.

In a scenario where the planet warmed by an average of 2℃, EVs with batteries made between 2010 and 2018 would see their lifetimes decline by up to 30 per cent.

But, for new batteries, researchers found that the average lifetime drop is just three per cent, with a maximum drop of 10 per cent.

‘More confidence’ in EVs, but only in certain countries

“Thanks to technological improvements, consumers should have more confidence in their EV batteries, even in a warmer future,” says Haochi Wu, lead author of the study, which has been published in the journal Nature.

Senior author Michael Craig points out that the study has one main caveat: the team only used two representative EVs for their work. This was the Tesla Model 3 and the Volkswagen ID.3.

“In regions like Europe and the US, we feel like we’ve got a good handle on the battery technology that’s available in those regions,” Craig says.

“But when we’re looking at cities in India or sub-Saharan Africa, for example, they may have very different vehicle fleets – and they almost certainly do. So our results may be optimistic for those regions.”

Many of these regions will feel the wrath of climate change the worst, which researchers say shows how inequalities are made worse by global warming.

Trump Tracker: Why we're keeping count of every climate attack the POTUS unleashes in 2026

By Liam Gilliver with AP

Updated 04/03/2026 - EURONEWS

Euronews Green is holding the world's most powerful man to account, by documenting all the ways he's sabotaging climate progress this year.

In a world crippled with uncertainty, one thing is for sure: 2026 will go down in history as the year that Donald Trump single-handedly unravelled decades of climate progress.

Since his return to the White House, the POTUS and his administration have turned their back on science, ruthlessly retreating from global pledges and institutions to prioritise the profits of big polluters.

It's stripping the US – which remains the world's largest historical polluter – of any kind of accountability, while the world edges dangerously close to irreversible climate disaster.

But here's the thing: climate change and its devastating effects do not stop at country borders. What one nation does impacts us all.

That's why Euronews Green has consistently covered Trump's unwavering climate setbacks – from his "drill baby drill" attitude over Venezuela's oil reserves to repeatedly describing wind energy as a "con".

Keeping up with these fast-moving stories can be hard, which is why we've created the Trump Tracker – documenting every single action the POTUS is taking to bolster fossil fuel giants and sabotage progress.

Just two months into 2026, and we're already struggling to keep up.

March: A huge blow in the ocean

'Incredibly sadistic' attack on whales

On 3 March, the Trump administration announced plans to revoke vessel speed restrictions on the Atlantic coast that protect whales, including the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale.

Speed limits were put in place back in 2008 to align with climate-related changes in the ocean, with research showing it decreases the risk of whales being struck by ships.

But, the new notice aims to replace the speed limit rule with "unproven technological solutions" that the Centre for Biological Diversity say is not an appropriate substitute for slowing down boats.

“It’s incredibly sadistic to destroy a solution that helps shield endangered whales from being killed by speeding ships," says Rachel Rilee, oceans policy specialist at the Center for Biological Diversity.

"Trump officials are attacking one of the only protections North Atlantic right whales have against extinction. This is a brutal blow to right whales, who need and are legally entitled to far more help than they’ve been getting. I’m disgusted to see the Trump administration going after these beloved animals.”

February: More retreat and less science

'Beautiful clean coal power'

On 11 February, Trump signed an executive order directing the defence department to buy more electricity generated by coal – which is considered the dirtiest, most polluting way of producing energy.

"When burnt, coal releases more carbon dioxide than oil or gas, so it’s by far the worst fuel when it comes to climate change," says Greenpeace. "Coal also produces toxic elements like mercury and arsenic, and small particles of soot which contribute to air pollution."

The executive order does not mention climate change or the environmental impacts of burning coal. Instead, it is referred to as "beautiful clean coal power".

Repeal of the endangerment finding

On 12 February, the Trump Administration formally rescinded a scientific finding that has long been the central basis for US action to regulate heat-trapping gasses and fight climate change.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule revoking a 2009 government declaration known as the endangerment finding. This Obama-era policy determined that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

The endangerment finding is the legal underpinning of nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet. It is used to justify regulations, such as auto emissions standards, intended to protect against threats made increasingly severe by climate change – deadly floods, extreme heat waves, catastrophic wildfires and other natural disasters in the US and around the world.

“The Trump administration is abandoning its core responsibility to keep us safe from extreme weather and accelerating climate change,'' says Abigail Dillen, president of the nonprofit law firm Earthjustice.

“There is no way to reconcile EPA’s decision with the law, the science and the reality of disasters that are hitting us harder every year. Earthjustice and our partners will see the Trump administration in court.”

January: UN withdrawal, Venezuela's oil and legal fights

'What happened to global warming?'

In the last week of January, a dangerous winter storm swept across much of the US, leaving at least seven dead, cutting power to thousands of homes, and causing thousands of flights to be cancelled.

Trump used the weather event to cast further doubt on global warming, writing on American conservative-focused social media platform Truth Social: "Record Cold Wave expected to hit 40 states. Rarely seen anything like it before.

"Could the Environmental Insurrectionists please explain - WHATEVER HAPPENED TO GLOBAL WARMING?"

More than a dozen scientists tell news agency AP that the president’s claims are wrong. They point out that even in a warmer world, winter and cold occur, and they never said otherwise. They note that even as it is cold in the eastern United States, more of the world is warmer than average. They also stressed the difference between daily and local weather and long-term, planet-wide climate change.

Meteorologists also said that global warming over the past couple of decades may make this cold seem unprecedented and record-smashing. But government records show it has been much colder in the past.

“This social media post crams a remarkable amount of inflammatory language and factually inaccurate assertions into a very short statement,” says climate scientist Daniel Swain of the California Institute for Water Resources. “First of all, global warming continues – and has in fact been progressing at an increased rate in recent years.”

'Stupid' wind turbine rant

Speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos on 21 January, Trump made several dubious claims about Greenland, NATO and renewable energy.

In a speech that lasted over an hour, Trump claimed that China makes "almost all" of the world's wind turbines, which he continues to refer to as "windmills".

"Yet I haven’t been able to find any windfarms in China,” he said. "Did you ever think of that? It’s a good way of looking. China is very smart. They make [wind turbines].”

President Donald Trump speaks with reporters aboard Air Force One after leaving the World Economic Forum in Davos for Washington, Thursday, Jan. 22, 2026. Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved

Trump went on to argue that China sells wind turbines to other countries for a “fortune”. “They sell them to the stupid people that buy them, but don’t use them themselves,” he added.

According to energy think tank Ember, China’s wind generation in 2024 equalled 40 per cent of global wind generation. In April 2025, wind and solar power generated more than a quarter of the country's electricity.

China is also home to the world's largest wind farm, which is visible from space. Located in the vast desert region of western Gansu, construction of the Gansu Wind Farm began in 2009, with the first phase being completed just a year later. It already features more than 7,000 turbines.

Blocking clean energy grants

On 11 January, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration acted illegally when it cancelled $7.6 billion (around €6.52 billion) in clean energy grants for projects in states that voted for Kamala Harris in 2024.

The grants supported hundreds of clean energy projects in 16 different states. This includes battery plants, hydrogen technology projects, upgrades to the electric grid and efforts to capture carbon dioxide emissions.

The Energy Department says the projects were terminated after a review determined they did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs or were not economically viable. Russell Vought, the White House budget director, said on social media that “the Left’s climate agenda is being cancelled".

However, US District Judge Amit Mehta said the administration’s action violated the Constitution’s equal protection requirements.

Anne Evens, CEO of Elevate Energy, one of the groups that lost funding, said the court ruling would help keep clean energy affordable and create jobs.

She told AP: "Affordable energy should be a reality for everyone, and the restoration of these grants is an important step toward making that possible."

Trump’s interest in Greenland

Trump’s growing obsession with Greenland has triggered concerns from environmentalists over its critical mineral resources, which are seen as “essential” for the green energy transition.

A 2023 survey found that 25 of the 34 minerals deemed 'critical raw materials' by the European Commission were found in Greenland. The nation is estimated to hold between 36 and 42 million metric tons of rare earth oxides, making it the second-largest reserve after China.

Tapping into these resources could help the US reduce its dependency on China, which currently processes over 90 per cent of the world’s rare earth minerals, and empower the US as demand rises.

Since his first term, Trump has been trying to tackle this issue – passing bills to increase American mineral production and stepping up deep-sea mining within both US and international waters.

However, some experts believe Greenland’s mineral reserves could just be a smokescreen for Trump’s real motives.

New dietary guidelines

The US Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Agriculture have come under fire after releasing their 2026 dietary guidelines, which encourage American households to prioritise diets built on “whole, nutrient-dense food.”

The new food pyramid puts an image of a red steak and ground beef at the top under the “protein” section, despite beef being responsible for 20 times more greenhouse gas emissions per gram of protein than plant-based alternatives such as beans and lentils.

Neither of these foods appears on the food pyramid, but they are mentioned in the full dietary guidelines.

“While there are many ways to meet our protein needs, not all protein sources have the same impact on people or the planet,” says Raychel Santo, a food and climate researcher at the World Resources Institute (WRI).

“Beef and lamb, in particular, have some of the highest environmental costs of any protein-rich food – with significantly higher greenhouse gas emissions, land use, and water pollution per ounce of protein than most alternatives.”

Controlling Venezuela’s oil

After US special forces snatched Venezuela’s President and his wife in a lightning raid, Trump has shown a clear interest in the country’s oil reserves.

Venezuela holds the largest proven crude oil reserves in the world, sitting on an estimated 303 billion barrels (Bbbl) – outranking petrostates like Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Trump immediately confirmed the US would be “very strongly involved” in the country’s oil industry, with plans to send large US firms to fix Venezuela’s oil infrastructure and “start making money for the country”. In an interview on 8 January, he said the US could tap into Venezuela’s oil reserves for years.

“The only safe path forward is a just transition away from fossil fuels, one that protects health, safeguards ecosystems, and supports communities rather than sacrificing them for short-term profit," Christensen adds.

US pulls out of UN climate treaty

The POTUS was accused of “sinking to a new low” after pulling the US out of a key climate treatyin a sweeping withdrawal from global institutions.

In a Presidential Memorandum signed on 7 January, Trump argued it is “contrary to the interests of the US” to remain a member of, participate in, or provide support to more than 60 international organisations, treaties and conventions.

This includes the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) – which aims to stabilise greenhouse gas emissions – and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the world’s leading authority on climate science.

"At a time when rising seas, record heat, and deadly disasters demand urgent, coordinated action, the US government is choosing to retreat," says Rebecca Brown, President and CEO of the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).

"The decision to defund and withdraw from the UNFCCC does not absolve the US of its legal obligations to prevent climate change and remedy climate harm, as the world’s highest court made clear last year."

On 27 January, Trump also officially exited the Paris Agreement – a move he initially put in motion on his first day in office on 20 January 2025. It leaves the US the only country to have withdrawn from the pact, which aims to limit global warming from reaching 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Iran, Libya and Yemen are the only countries that didn't join the agreement.

Why are Europe's skies turning orange? A massive Saharan dust cloud is on the way

By Jeremy Wilks

Published on 04/03/2026 - EURONEWS

"It just shows that we are connected across borders and across continents," says Copernicus scientist Mark Parrington.

If you live in Spain, Portugal, or France, you might want to wait to wash your car.

A massive plume of Saharan dust is currently sweeping across the Mediterranean and into Western Europe, bringing with it orange sunsets, hazy horizons, and a fine layer of desert sand that will coat everything from windscreens to solar panels.

According to the latest forecasts from the Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service (CAMS), the plume is expected to move northward over the coming days, significantly impacting air quality across the Iberian Peninsula before reaching as far as the UK and Scandinavia.

Those particles have been lofted into the air from the Sahara, and travelled thousands of kilometres to Europe. "It just shows that we are connected across borders and across continents by the composition of the atmosphere," says Mark Parrington, Senior Scientist at CAMS.

What are the health risks of PM10 dust?

While the dust makes for spectacular sepia-toned photos, it also brings a silent health risk. National weather services, including AEMET in Spain, IPMA in Portugal, and Météo-France, have issued warnings regarding degraded air quality.

The primary concern during a Saharan dust event is PM10, meaning particulate matter that is less than 10 micrometres in diameter. These are relatively coarse particles, but are small enough to pass into the lungs, where they can irritate the airways, exacerbate asthma, and impact vulnerable groups like the elderly and young children.

If you live in a European city, you are probably more familiar with PM2.5 pollution, which is much finer, and comes from exhaust fumes, industrial processes and combustion of wood. As PM2.5 particles are smaller, they can penetrate deeper into the lungs and even enter the bloodstream.

While Saharan dust is primarily composed of the larger PM10 mineral particles, the sheer concentration during these events can cause total particulate levels to spike far beyond World Health Organization safety limits in some areas.

Is climate change to blame for dust pollution?

Saharan dust events often make headlines, and while they remind us of hot and dusty environments, we should be careful about linking them to a warming planet.

According to Parrington, the science isn't settled yet. "There's no clear picture on exactly how desertification affects the dust source," he explains, referring to the expansion of the Sahara Desert southwards, spurred by climate change and human activity.

Parrington points out that much of this dust originates from specific hotspots like the Bodélé Depression in Chad, where the dust is light enough to rise into the atmosphere under specific pressure conditions. Higher temperatures, drought and higher evaporation lead to lower soil moisture, and if you combine those effects with poor land management, it is conducive to more sand and dust storms.

Furthermore, there is some speculation that changes in atmospheric circulation linked to the effects of climate change may increase the frequency of Saharan dust storms reaching Europe.

Nevertheless, scientists are cautious to link the two directly, as there isn't enough historic data to allow them to trace a clear signal. "To the best of my knowledge there are no conclusive studies linking how desertification and deforestation and other things are affecting mineral dust in the atmosphere, so I think it's still quite an open question," Parrington tells Euronews Green.

What should you expect later this week?

As the dust moves through, residents in affected areas may see the particles mixed with rain, leaving a trademark murky residue on surfaces once the water evaporates.

Health officials recommend that people in high-impact zones avoid strenuous outdoor exercise while the haze persists.

For others, it might be time to whip out your best camera to capture a few Martian-style sunset shots as the dust scatters the evening light into vibrant oranges and reds.

The global aerosol forecast from CAMS, showing the Saharan dust event, can be seen by following this link.

LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment