In 2022, 68,988 wildfires in the United States burned , and the federal government ran up a suppression tab. In 2023, our forests fared a little better:  burned . These fires, and, and triggered numerous , and closures across the west. Wildfire, of course, has played a critical role in North America’s ecosystems for thousands of years. But these days, most of them .

Modern wildfire risk reduction policy focuses on two strategies: forest thinning and prescribed burning, which even the Forest Service admits cannot be scaled to properly address the problem. Efforts are underway to harden communities and infrastructure to wildfire— to reduce structural losses. But little has been done to address the human ignition problem.

So I have a proposal: We should ban campfires. All of them.

Every summer, in response to hot and dry conditions made worse by climate change, public land managers across the country issue fire restrictions and often close large swaths of land, sometimes for months on end. I suggest the inverse: a year-round blanket ban on campfires on public lands, with exceptions during especially wet periods. Banning campfires sends a clear message to the public that humans (and all their toys and infrastructure) are the most common source of ignition, and that reducing the number of fires we light—on accident and on purpose—is an important part of living in a dryer, hotter West.

The Forest Service’s current strategy revolves around two stages of restrictions: Stage I prohibits campfires outside developed campgrounds, smoking outside of developed campgrounds or vehicles, and driving a vehicle without a properly functioning . Then comes Stage II, which bans all campfires, smoking outside of a vehicle or building, fireworks, explosives, welding, driving a vehicle off a road, and some nuanced limitations on daytime chainsaw use (you may use a chainsaw at 3 a.m.). You will forgive the camping public for not having these committed to memory.

And then they close the forests. These closures do more than disrupt weekend plans, they upend that are tied to public lands recreation. They cancel events from major races to small, private weddings and complicate the collection of scientific data.

Plus, the closures always seem to arrive a day late and a dollar short. In the summer of 2022 and a smoldering slash burn erupted in early April and later merged to become the largest wildfire in New Mexico history. It wasn’t until on May 19th that a closure order was issued for the rest of the Santa Fe National Forest, even though it was abundantly clear that conditions were dangerously hot, dry, and windy as early as late March.

Let’s enter an era of year-round modified Stage II fire restrictions on all public lands. No campfires, no smoking outside of a car, and restricted vehicle access during peak fire seasons. The outside of Flagstaff, AZ has already taken many of these steps and created a template for what should be included in a new national wildfire policy.

Banning campfires is of course a euphemism for comprehensively addressing the primary source of wildfire: human ignition. Recent studies suggest that 89 percent of all wildfires are , and that number jumps to 97 percent for . Unattended campfires are not the only culprit: negligent smoking habits, malfunctioning off-highway vehicles, trash burning, target shooting and firework use are all known causes of wildfire. Also included in this category are fires started by ,, and gender reveal parties, including a that sparked a blaze that destroyed five homes and killed one firefighter. Recent studies show that have both increased the duration and severity of the

A campfire is a primal pleasure and for many of us, our main contact with fire. But a blanket ban on campfires is both practical and a symbolic reminder that any spark-emitting activity is a potential tragedy in the making. Each summer, the government assumes that we, the camping public, have left our incendiary ways on the last cold hearth of spring. They wait for someone to start a fire when it is particularly hot and dry, or all the available firefighting resources are in Canada or California, and then roll out the fire restrictions.

But one of the harsh realities of climate change is that our future will look very different from our past. This is inevitable, whether we make choices that direct that change or wait until our hands are forced. Our best bet is to make bold decisions now that offer a chance at a livable future.

A ban on common sources of human ignition is a small price to pay when the alternative is considered: abnormally long, large, and hot fire seasons driven not just by human-caused climate change, but by human-caused fires. And if you find yourself nodding in agreement, there is no need to wait for the government to act. You can simply leave the firewood and axe at home next time you head out.

The post It’s Time to Ban Campfires for Good appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

A group of kids and young adults from across the West who filed suit against President Obama in August of 2015, claiming federal inaction on climate change was violating their constitutional right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, just won a major victory in court. The federal government’s refusal to draft and implement a comprehensive carbon emissions reduction plan is mortgaging their future well-being, they say, and amounts to a civil rights violation.

The cases rest heavily on documents dating back to the 1950s that originated from the Government Accountability Office, Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal offices that disclose the possible threat excessive carbon emissions and the burning of fossil fuels pose to the country. In essence, the federal government is about to stand trial for knowing about climate change and its threats to public health, infrastructure, and future generations but not acting on that information.

The case is playing out at a U.S. District Court in Eugene, Oregon, where the government and several representatives of the oil industry had filed a motion arguing that the young people’s case lacked standing. But on April 8, Judge Thomas Coffin denied the motion, acknowledging that it’s time to reevaluate the “constitutional parameters” of national policies serving “short term economic interests.”

“It may be that eventually the alleged harms…will befall all of us,” Judge Coffin wrote in his decision. There is particular concern for the impacts to “a discrete class of society,” Coffin wrote, referring to young people and unborn generations who can’t yet vote or speak for themselves and defend their interests in a healthy planet.

Since the motion to dismiss was denied, the case will move forward to the next stage in the legal process: review by the district judge. If he accepts Coffin’s decision, the case could eventually go to trial. If the young people’s argument holds up, their case, known as an Atmospheric Trust Litigation or ATL case, will be a historic turning point in our fight against climate change.

ATL is a novel legal theory based on two simple legal principles: the Public Trust Doctrine and Intergenerational Justice. Developed in 2006 by Oregon law professor Mary Christina Wood, ATL proposes that the planet’s atmosphere is part of the public trust, which is defined as a set of natural resources the government is tasked with protecting for the benefit of its citizens, both current and future. It is a radical departure from traditional environmental legal activism, which generally works to enforce agency regulations. ATL cases look to make claims about harms or injuries that the plaintiffs should be protected from by the constitution, not by agency regulations. In essence, it asks the courts to rule on whether or not future generations have a right to a liveable planet.

If the young people win, the court will order the drafting of a comprehensive, science-based national plan to reduce carbon emissions, and will oversee the implementation of the plan. Believe it or not, the U.S. doesn’t have such a plan in place—just a few piecemeal policies such as the Clean Power Plan, which cuts emissions but fails to regulate coal mining on public lands, which is a major source of domestic carbon emissions. (The U.S. has, however, signed on to international emissions-reduction agreements like the Kyoto Protocol.) An approval from the district judge could come as early as May, and the case could go to trial before the end of the year.

“This is the first time our federal government’s fossil fuel policies have been in federal court to determine if they violate the constitutional rights of young people,” says Julia Olsen, the plaintiffs attorney. “We believe that by failing to reduce carbon emissions, the government is denying young people a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitution.”

The 21 plaintiffs, ages 8 to 19, and additional plaintiff James Hansen, world-renowned climate scientist, initially filed a similar suit in 2011 in federal court in Washington, D.C. But their case was thrown out when the court determined that the public trust doctrine was a matter of state, not federal law. The decision was appealed all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and never heard.

Currently there are Atmospheric Trust cases pending in New Mexico, Washington, Colorado, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and North Carolina, as well as abroad in Pakistan and Uganda—all brought by college-aged students and young people. The fight against climate change can feel hopeless, but the next generation is taking matters into their own hands, ensuring a just and snowy future for us all.

The post The Future of Climate Change Is Being Fought at a Court in Oregon appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

All breasts, great and small, are comprised of subcutaneous fat tissue, mammary glands, and nothing else. They are bound to the torso by what are known as Cooper’s ligaments. These ligaments have no stabilizing function, they merely connect the breast tissue to the collar bone and muscles of the upper chest. This means that any and all natural support for breasts comes from your skin. And it turns out there is an entire field of science dedicated to studying how and why boobs move and how this movement affects performance. It’s called breast biomechanics, or as I prefer, the science of the jiggle. 

The University of Portsmouth’s (UP) Department of Sport and Exercise Science is the leading breast biomechanics research group in the country. Dr Joanna Scurr and her team (which includes several men), use state of the art motion imaging and user surveys to study everything from types of breast movement to the effect of perceived breast pain on performance and sports participation. Here are some of their findings:

Breasts Move a Lot

Their titled “Multiplanar breast kinematics during different exercise modalities” found that most breast motion either occurs in the vertical direction or the mediolateral (side to side) direction. Jumping activities tend to cause more vertical motion, while activities involving agility tend to generate more mediolateral motion. “Sixteen 32D participants had markers attached to their right nipple and torso. Relative multiplanar breast displacement was calculated during bare-breasted treadmill running (10 kph), maximum countermovement jumping and an agility t-test.” 

Painful Movement Turns Many Away from Exercise

A study published in January of this year found that while sports bras do control breast displacement caused by exercise, perception of the fit and comfort of the bras were better indicators of reduction of breast pain than the measured volume of discomfort. Their most recent study, which was published in February, looks at the impact of breast pain on sports participation. It found that about half of the school-age girls surveyed might be avoiding sport because of “embarrassment or pain caused by their breasts.” A subset of the group works to develop breast health curriculum aimed at getting girls and women in better fitting sports bras, thus increasing sports participation. 

Sports Bras Help, But They Could Be Better

Most importantly, the UP research has identified that the type of bra worn, and its fit, can change the way you run. There has yet to be a study looking at impact of breast movement on fatigue over a long effort (say, a marathon) or a study looking at non-running based sports. But, the Portsmouth group has several research projects they are seeking commercial partners on, meaning a better bra could be headed your way soon. 

The post How Breasts Affect Your Performance appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.

Earlier this winter, I found myself finishing every ski tour with a dreaded moist feeling between my shoulder blades. The culprit: poorly made cotton and synthetic bras. A good base layer—and I consider bras base layers—should move sweat away from your skin and trap air for insulation. Wool happens to be really good at this, so I narrowed my bra search to models made with the natural fiber. After a month of skiing, hiking, climbing, and galloping a few horses, these are my six favorites. 

Icebreaker Rush ($70) 

92% wool, 8% Lycra 

This was far and away the test winner. The Rush stayed dry and kept me warm on all-day backcountry tours, bitter-cold runs, and quick pre-work skin laps. The full coverage provides plenty of support, even for high-impact activities like running. The wool-Lycra fabric offers a snug fit yet isn’t constricting. And because it’s mostly wool (92 percent), I could wear the bra three days in a row before throwing it in the wash.  

Possibly my favorite feature of this bra is its lower band, which is covered in the same wool-Lycra blend as the body, making it super comfortable next to skin. The Rush absolutely never chafed. 

This Icebreaker does seem to run a bit small, which I noticed most in the armholes. I’d consider getting a size larger than you’d ordinarily buy. The other downside: it’s available only in black.  

Verdict: Winner

SmartWool PhD Seamless Racerback ($60) 

Outer layer: 77% polyester, 19% nylon, 4% elastane
Lining: 68% wool, 14% nylon, 18% elastane

​

This bra would have been my favorite, except it didn’t breath nearly as well as the Icebreaker. (The inner-outer shell design tended to trap sweat when I was working hard.) That said, this SmartWool bra was extremely comfortable, even when wet. It fits true to size and offers more relaxed support than the Icebreaker. 

Like the Rush, the band is covered in the same material as the body, preventing sore spots where it rubs against skin. It earns bonus points because it comes in eight colors. 

The big downside: the blended fabric—with no wool in the outer layer and only 68 percent in the inner layer—gets stinky after a big day on the slopes. 

Verdict: Most comfortable

Oiselle Wazzie Wool Jane John Bra ($42)  

93% wool, 7% spandex

Marketed as a “recovery-level” bra, this is my go-to when I know I can’t squeeze in a shower between my morning powder romp and my office chair. Cut much like a normal bra, the Jane John isn’t designed for burpees or hill repeats, but it’s a comfortable and warm option for lower-output activities. The merino-spandex blend is luxurious and butter-smooth, so much so that I didn’t want to take it off. Removable cups and fully adjustable straps make it as much a town bra as a mountain style. Fits true to size and available in a magnificent red-orange. It’s also the least expensive model on the list.

Verdict: Most versatile  

Ibex Balance ($60) 

72% wool, 22% nylon, 6% spandex 

The Balance is simple and efficient, with no extra bells and whistles, just a figure-hugging wool-blend top that fits beautifully. The bra doesn’t have an elastic band but rather a section of inch-wide elastic ribbing as its base. While this design doesn’t provide quite enough support for high-impact activities like trail running and gym workouts, it is extremely comfortable for everything else. Like the other bras made from mostly wool, it’ll keep you warm, dry, and stink-free. Fits true to size. 

Verdict: Best fitting

Ortovox Rock-N-Wool ($69) 

100% wool

Yep, the same Ortovox that made your avalanche beacon makes this bra. In fact, the German company has a full line of men’s and women’s mountain-sport apparel. The Rock-N-Wool is eye-catching, with a cute little sheep embroidered on the back of the band and bright color combinations. There’s no elastic in the fabric, which means it bags a fair amount, but it does excel at moisture management. It’s not suitable for high-impact use, but it would make an excellent backpacking bra. It runs small, so order a size up. 

Verdict: Best looking

Pulse Naked Ultra Sports Bra ($65) 

Outer layer: 38.7% wool, 44.8% nylon, 16.5% spandex 
Lining: 96.1% wool, 3.9% spandex

The only bra in the lineup that’s fully adjustable, the Pulse gets points for the traditional triple bra hooks on the band and Velcro closures on the shoulder straps that let you customize the fit. I worried the hooks might be uncomfortable under a backpack, but the strap is well padded; I hardly noticed it. This is an excellent choice for larger-chested women or those who have a hard time getting bras to fit right. 

Verdict: Most adjustable

The post Battle of the Wool Bras appeared first on şÚÁĎłÔąĎÍř Online.