
$244 billion a year: The cost of Canadian wildfire crossing borders across US?
If any Canadian import should be tariffed out of existence, it's one that President Donald Trump couldn't tax even if he wanted to: wildfire smoke. Unfortunately, it's a product in increasing and borderless abundance across North America and the world, endangering lives and inflicting billions of dollars in economic damage every year.
In fact, a new study suggests wildfire smoke is a bigger threat to American health and prosperity than many other climate-change effects combined.
In recent days — almost exactly two years after Canadian smoke made breathing difficult across a wide swath of the US from Chicago to New York — another huge cloud of the stuff has invaded the Lower 48, spoiling air quality from North Dakota to South Carolina — and, again, Chicago and New York. Some of it even crossed the Atlantic to Europe. The risk of more incursions will linger for several days, with 202 active fires stretching from British Columbia to Ontario as of this writing, 104 of which were out of control.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Secure Your Child's Future with Strong English Fluency
Planet Spark
Learn More
Undo
It's no fluke this has happened in two of the past three years. The heat from a relentlessly warming planet has made wildfires more frequent and intense (and weird) around the world. Along with a century of wildfire suppression and increasing human incursions into the wildland-urban interface, this has turned wildfire season into a year-round event in the US, and no longer limited to the far West.
'It's remarkable how quickly this risk is changing and how many people are affected in places historically not affected by this risk,' Marshall Burke, an associate professor at Stanford University, told me in a Zoom call with Marissa Childs, an assistant professor at the University of Washington. 'Ten years ago, it was only in the West. Now everyone is accustomed to it.'
Live Events
The acreage of US land burned by wildfires has doubled in the past 20 years, according to the National Interagency Fire Center. And in each of the past five years, Americans in the contiguous US have been exposed to at least twice as much wildfire smoke-related fine particulate matter (known as PM2.5) as they were between 2006 and 2019, according to a preprint study by Childs, Burke and other researchers.
'There's no part of the US that won't experience wildfire smoke eventually,' Childs said. 'Even if there are small parts of the country not impacted recently, they will be at some point.'
All this smoke has undone decades of progress in cleaning the air Americans breathe by lowering pollution from factories, power plants and automobiles. Some researchers have suggested wildfire smoke is far more toxic than those other pollution sources. As my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Lisa Jarvis has written, wildfire smoke hurts much more than just lungs, raising the risk of everything from dementia to premature births.
Burke was involved in a new working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, led by Minghao Qiu, an assistant professor at Stony Brook University (who also worked on the PM2.5 preprint), trying to measure the economic damage of this novel and growing danger to human health. Their findings are alarming in at least a few ways.
For one thing, they estimate that global heating of 3 degrees Celsius above preindustrial averages — the path the world is currently traveling — will lead to 46,200 extra deaths from wildfire smoke every year in the US, doubling the rate from 2011 to 2020. And each of those deaths represents an economic loss. In yet another NBER paper last year, the prolific Qiu, Childs, Burke and other colleagues estimated those smoke deaths would cause $244 billion in annual US damage by 2050.
What's also surprising is that most economic models haven't yet incorporated the health risks of wildfire smoke into estimates of what's known as the 'social cost of carbon.' This is a dollar amount economists assign to the damage done by each additional ton of carbon dioxide pumped into the atmosphere, further warming the planet. The Environmental Protection Agency's social-cost-of-carbon model takes a stab at including smoke-related mortality, Qiu told me in a phone call, but uses antiquated wildfire data and so underestimates damage by a factor of seven.
Each additional ton of carbon we pump into the atmosphere, thus warming the planet, will lead to enough wildfire smoke to do roughly $15.10 in US economic damage,the new NBER paper suggests. This may not sound like a lot, but multiply that by roughly 40 billion tons of global CO2-emissions each year, and very quickly you're talking real money.
In fact, deaths from wildfire smoke alone could be at least as economically destructive as every other factor cranked into most social-cost-of-carbon models, Qiu noted — suggesting most previous estimates of the damage of climate change have been too low by about 100%.
Even these larger estimates are still undercounting. They don't measure the hit to labor productivity when people struggle to breathe, along with the medical costs of asthma, heart attacks, strokes, premature births and more. A 2024 working paper from the Dallas and Philadelphia Federal Reserve banks and the UCLA Anderson School of Management found wildfires drive up credit-card debt for people living many miles from the flames, thanks to higher health costs.
And, of course, we haven't even mentioned the damage wildfires keep inflicting on the struggling home-insurance industry, as the Los Angeles fires exposed this winter.
A recent study by researchers at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business and the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School used the EPA's social-cost-of-carbon measure to suggest US corporate emissions will do $87 trillion in economic damage by 2050. In light of this new paper, maybe corporate America actually owes us $174 trillion.
While we wait for those checks, we'll have to be smarter about wildfires and smoke. We could start by quitting fossil fuels. A tariff of sorts to recoup some of this damage, in the form of a carbon tax, would be helpful. But even if we did all that tomorrow, fire risk would keep increasing for decades because of the heat already in the system. Better forest management, including controlled burns, can help mitigate that risk, as can moving humans out of the wildland-urban interface.
Meanwhile, public officials must do a better job of warning people of the dangers of smoke and make breathing centers, high-quality face masks and HEPA filters available to everyone who needs them. The Canadian smoke that invaded the US two years ago caught everybody by surprise. We're not in much better shape today.
'Not enough has been done to prepare,' Childs said. 'While in the longer term we need to think about how to manage forests and climate change, in the short term we need to protect people from exposure. That includes not relying on people to protect themselves.'
We literally can't afford to be so unprepared anymore.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


United News of India
30 minutes ago
- United News of India
US SC gives Trump admin's DOGE dept full authorisation to access social security data
Washington, June 7 (UNI) The US Supreme Court on Friday authorised officials from the Trump administration's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to access Social Security Administration data, giving it complete access to all sensitive private data of American citizens. The Supreme Court issued the authorisation after allowing an emergency petition filed by the administration of President Donald Trump to ask for a lifting of an injunction issued by a district judge in Maryland, who stated that privacy must be safeguarded, reports said. 'Under the present circumstances, SSA may proceed to afford members of the SSA DOGE Team access to the agency records in question in order for those members to do their work,' the court said in a three-paragraph order. The order didn't, however, give the reasoning behind its ruling, which has become a very controversial issue. The order was also challenged by the court's three liberals — Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson — all of whom dissented. In an opinion joined by Sotomayor, Jackson said the court was 'creating grave privacy risks for millions of Americans.' In the SSA case, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court that 'the government cannot eliminate waste and fraud if district courts bar the very agency personnel with expertise and the designated mission of curtailing such waste and fraud from performing their jobs.' The DOGE department, which was created by the Trump administration and was until recently headed by SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, before his resignation following his spat with the POTUS, while not an official government department, was designed specifically to monitor data fraud and misinformation. The disputed data includes Social Security numbers, addresses, birth and marriage certificates, tax and earnings records, employment history, and bank and credit card information. The lawsuit challenging DOGE's actions alleged that allowing broader access to personal information would violate a federal law called the Privacy Act, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander had ruled that DOGE had no legitimate need to access the specific data in question, according to Xinhua. The 4th circuit court of appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, declined to block Judge Hollander's decision, prompting the Trump administration to file an emergency request with the Supreme Court. In a separate order issued Friday in another case involving DOGE, the Supreme Court granted an additional request filed by the Trump administration, allowing it to shield DOGE from Freedom of Information Act requests for the time being. UNI ANV PRS
&w=3840&q=100)

Business Standard
33 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Trump's expanding use of emergency powers raises alarms among experts
Call it the 911 presidency. Despite insisting that the United States is rebounding from calamity under his watch, President Donald Trump is harnessing emergency powers unlike any of his predecessors. Whether it's levelling punishing tariffs, deploying troops to the border or sidelining environmental regulations, Trump has relied on rules and laws intended only for use in extraordinary circumstances like war and invasion. An analysis by The Associated Press shows that 30 of Trump's 150 executive orders have cited some kind of emergency power or authority, a rate that far outpaces his recent predecessors. The result is a redefinition of how presidents can wield power. Instead of responding to an unforeseen crisis, Trump is using emergency powers to supplant Congress' authority and advance his agenda. What's notable about Trump is the enormous scale and extent, which is greater than under any modern president, said Ilya Somin, who is representing five US businesses who sued the administration, claiming they were harmed by Trump's so-called Liberation Day tariffs. Because Congress has the power to set trade policy under the Constitution, the businesses convinced a federal trade court that Trump overstepped his authority by claiming an economic emergency to impose the tariffs. An appeals court has paused that ruling while the judges review it. Growing concerns over actions The legal battle is a reminder of the potential risks of Trump's strategy. Judges traditionally have given presidents wide latitude to exercise emergency powers that were created by Congress. However, there's growing concern that Trump is pressing the limits when the US is not facing the kinds of threats such actions are meant to address. The temptation is clear, said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Programme and an expert in emergency powers. What's remarkable is how little abuse there was before, but we're in a different era now. Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., who has drafted legislation that would allow Congress to reassert tariff authority, said he believed the courts would ultimately rule against Trump in his efforts to single-handedly shape trade policy. It's the Constitution. James Madison wrote it that way, and it was very explicit, Bacon said of Congress' power over trade. And I get the emergency powers, but I think it's being abused. When you're trying to do tariff policy for 80 countries, that's policy, not emergency action. The White House pushed back on such concerns, saying Trump is justified in aggressively using his authority. President Trump is rightfully enlisting his emergency powers to quickly rectify four years of failure and fix the many catastrophes he inherited from Joe Biden wide open borders, wars in Ukraine and Gaza, radical climate regulations, historic inflation, and economic and national security threats posed by trade deficits, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said. Trump frequently sites 1977 law to justify actions Of all the emergency powers, Trump has most frequently cited the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, to justify slapping tariffs on imports. The law, enacted in 1977, was intended to limit some of the expansive authority that had been granted to the presidency decades earlier. It is only supposed to be used when the country faces an unusual and extraordinary threat from abroad to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States. In analysing executive orders issued since 2001, the AP found that Trump has invoked the law 21 times in presidential orders and memoranda. President George W. Bush, grappling with the aftermath of the most devastating terror attack on US soil, invoked the law just 14 times in his first term. Likewise, Barack Obama invoked the act only 21 times during his first term, when the US economy faced the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression. The Trump administration has also deployed an 18th century law, the Alien Enemies Act, to justify deporting Venezuelan migrants to other countries, including El Salvador. Trump's decision to invoke the law relies on allegations that the Venezuelan government coordinates with the Tren de Aragua gang, but intelligence officials did not reach that conclusion. Congress has ceded its power to the presidency Congress has granted emergency powers to the presidency over the years, acknowledging that the executive branch can act more swiftly than lawmakers if there is a crisis. There are 150 legal powers including waiving a wide variety of actions that Congress has broadly prohibited that can only be accessed after declaring an emergency. In an emergency, for example, an administration can suspend environmental regulations, approve new drugs or therapeutics, take over the transportation system, or even override bans on testing biological or chemical weapons on human subjects, according to a list compiled by the Brennan Centre for Justice. Democrats and Republicans have pushed the boundaries over the years. For example, in an attempt to cancel federal student loan debt, Joe Biden used a post-September 11 law that empowered education secretaries to reduce or eliminate such obligations during a national emergency. The US Supreme Court eventually rejected his effort, forcing Biden to find different avenues to chip away at his goals. Before that, Bush pursued warrantless domestic wiretapping and Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the detention of Japanese-Americans on the West Coast in camps for the duration of World War II. Trump, in his first term, sparked a major fight with Capitol Hill when he issued a national emergency to compel construction of a border wall. Though Congress voted to nullify his emergency declaration, lawmakers could not muster up enough Republican support to overcome Trump's eventual veto. Presidents are using these emergency powers not to respond quickly to unanticipated challenges, said John Yoo, who as a Justice Department official under George W. Bush helped expand the use of presidential authorities. Presidents are using it to step into a political gap because Congress chooses not to act. Trump, Yoo said, has just elevated it to another level. Trump's allies support his moves Conservative legal allies of the president also said Trump's actions are justified, and Vice President JD Vance predicted the administration would prevail in the court fight over tariff policy. We believe and we're right that we are in an emergency, Vance said last week in an interview with Newsmax. You have seen foreign governments, sometimes our adversaries, threaten the American people with the loss of critical supplies, Vance said. I'm not talking about toys, plastic toys. I'm talking about pharmaceutical ingredients. I'm talking about the critical pieces of the manufacturing supply chain. Vance continued, These governments are threatening to cut us off from that stuff, that is by definition, a national emergency. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have tried to rein in a president's emergency powers. Two years ago, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in the House and Senate introduced legislation that would have ended a presidentially-declared emergency after 30 days unless Congress votes to keep it in place. It failed to advance. Similar legislation hasn't been introduced since Trump's return to office. Right now, it effectively works in the reverse, with Congress required to vote to end an emergency. He has proved to be so lawless and reckless in so many ways. Congress has a responsibility to make sure there's oversight and safeguards, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who cosponsored an emergency powers reform bill in the previous session of Congress. He argued that, historically, leaders relying on emergency declarations has been a path toward autocracy and suppression.

Business Standard
33 minutes ago
- Business Standard
'Racist, hostile and against global law': Iran slams Trump's travel ban
Iran has lashed out at the United States (US) over a sweeping travel ban that targets Iranian nationals and citizens from 11 other countries, mostly Middle Eastern and African. The move, Tehran says, is rooted in a "supremacist and racist mentality" and reflects Washington's enduring animosity toward Muslims, reported The Guardian. The criticism follows a fresh executive order signed on Wednesday by US President Donald Trump, reviving controversial travel restrictions that echo his first-term policy. The decision, according to US officials, was based on national security concerns—coming just days after a firebomb attack at a pro-Israel rally in Colorado that left over a dozen injured. The suspect was later identified as an Egyptian man who had overstayed his US tourist visa. But Iran isn't buying the justification. Alireza Hashemi-Raja, director General for the Affairs of Iranians Abroad at Iran's Foreign Ministry, issued a statement on Saturday, calling the measure 'a clear sign of the dominance of a supremacist and racist mentality among American policymakers.' Describing the order as 'discriminatory,' Hashemi-Raja said the travel restrictions undermine basic human rights and violate fundamental principles of international law. 'The decision indicates the deep hostility of American decision makers towards the Iranian and Muslim people,' he said, warning that such policies could trigger international legal consequences for the US government. The new restrictions, which will come into effect on June 9, also apply to nationals of Iran, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. A partial ban has also been placed on travellers from seven additional countries, although their names have not been publicly disclosed. Relations between Iran and the US have remained frosty for decades, especially since diplomatic ties were severed following the 1979 Islamic Revolution. While political tensions have persisted, the human connection remains significant—the US is home to the largest Iranian community outside of Iran. According to Iran's foreign ministry, around 1.5 million Iranians lived in the US as of 2020.