Thirty years ago, the blockbuster movie Twister featured a group of academics putting themselves at risk by chasing tornadoes in the name of science. Although the Hollywood story entailed a surfeit of sensationalism, special effects, and unrealistic stereotypes, the movie got a few things right. Specifically, the scientists were trying to study tornadoes using a large number of spatially distributed, home-built, low-cost (and potentially sacrificial) sensors.

Today, we commonly refer to the coordinated use of tens to hundreds of similar sensors that are spread out as “large-N” sensing. Such sensor distributions have led to important advances in seismology and infrasound science, where they have improved our understanding of seismic ground motion and helped shed light on volcanic eruption dynamics [e.g., Rosenblatt et al., 2022; Anderson et al., 2023].

The benefits of large-N networks and arrays include robust spatial sampling and signal extraction from noise. They are also advantageous for detecting small signals, sensing natural hazards in remote environments, and offering critical redundancies for sensors at risk from lava or debris flows, wildfire, weather, or even malicious mammals.

Since 2013, our research group in the Department of Geosciences at Boise State University (BSU) has worked to study infrasound from geophysical phenomena by capitalizing on the benefits of low-cost, large-N sensing technology [e.g., Slad and Merchant, 2021]. More than a decade on, this effort has yielded scientific successes from a variety of environments, and it is continuing to evolve.

Large-N Sensing for Infrasound

Many violent natural processes, including landslides, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, avalanches, and meteors, produce infrasound, defined as low-frequency sound below the threshold of human hearing (less than 20 Hertz). Such events may create audible sound as well, but the subaudible band is often much more energetic in terms of sound intensity, and it has long wavelengths that can propagate long distances with little attenuation. These characteristics make infrasound especially valuable for remote sensing of natural phenomena.

Our group at BSU grew more interested in developing our own inexpensive infrasound sensing solutions after costing out technology for commercial data logging systems, the compact electronic devices that record and store sensor data. These systems can be far more expensive than infrasound transducers—the sensors that actually detect sound—themselves.

The cost element became particularly relevant after we lost instrumentation deployed at the summit of Chile’s Villarrica volcano when it erupted a 2-kilometer-tall lava fountain on 3 March 2015 [Johnson et al., 2018]. In an instant, our hardware, including seismic and infrasonic sensors and their commercial multichannel data loggers, was entombed beneath falling lava. This financial loss incentivized our work to develop low-cost loggers that would match the technical specifications and fidelity of commercial systems.

The result was the customized Gem infrasound logger, which we created using the widely available and very economical Arduino open-source electronic prototyping platform and its low–power consumption microcontroller. The Gem is an all-in-one infrasound sensor and data logger with a high dynamic range (millipascals to 100 pascals), a 100-hertz sample rate appropriate for infrasound, and a built-in GPS for precise timing and synchronization [Anderson et al., 2018].

Although we initially conceived of the Gem as an alternative to commercial loggers to be deployed as single stations or in small arrays, we quickly realized its potential for use in high-density distributed sensing arrays that enabled new detection capabilities. In particular, its small package size (it has about the dimensions and weight of a paperback novel) and its ease of deployment—simply insert alkaline batteries, place it on the ground, and turn it on—have opened opportunities for rapid, large-N deployments in difficult-to-access environments.

Early Successes for the Gem

The Gem’s inaugural field mission came in January 2020 during a return to Villarrica, where activity had returned to normal following its 2015 paroxysmal eruption [Rosenblatt et al., 2022]. Typical activity in the volcano’s normal state includes open-vent degassing from a small lava lake recessed deep within the summit crater, which produces its famously powerful volcano infrasound [e.g., Johnson et al., 2012].

To capture Villarrica’s infrasound in detail, a four-person team from BSU climbed the 3,000-meter-tall glaciated volcano and quickly installed 16 sensors around the crater rim, as well as another 16 sensors along an 8-kilometer linear transect from the summit down the northern slope (Figure 1). This unique sensor distribution permitted us to capture the infrasound wavefield and how it interacts with topography in unprecedented detail.

Deploying such an array configuration using much heavier, larger, and power-intensive conventional instruments would have taken far more time and resources, as well as a bigger group. With the Gems, however, the installation was feasible for our small team, each member of which could easily carry eight instruments and the batteries needed to power them.

Once in place, these sensors collected continuous data during the 2-week study that were used to quantify the diffraction of sound coming out of the volcanic crater [Rosenblatt et al., 2022] and to measure the sound’s attenuation as it propagated away. Such studies are important for investigating time-varying atmospheric parameters such as changing temperatures and winds, which can affect infrasound transmission, diminishing its amplitude or even—in extreme cases—completely silencing it in an acoustic shadow zone [Johnson et al., 2012]. To monitor volcanoes with infrasound, it is necessary to understand the influence of atmospheric effects.

Months later, another opportunity arose to demonstrate the Gems’ capability for large-N infrasound sensing. During the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, on 31 March 2020, a magnitude 6.5 earthquake occurred near Stanley, Idaho. The earthquake, the largest in the state since 1983, kicked off an energetic aftershock sequence, with more than 700 magnitude 3 or greater earthquakes occurring in 6 months. Most of these events produced significant local infrasound radiation, or “airquakes,” caused by ground-atmosphere coupling [e.g., Johnson et al., 2020].

Pandemic-related precautions inhibited a large team from venturing as a group into the field. However, a lone BSU researcher (coauthor Jacob Anderson), trudging through forest terrain and deep snow on skis, was able to deploy and activate 22 Gems in less than 4 hours in early April, thanks in part to the sensors’ compact size and ease of deployment.

This array captured hundreds of local infrasonic aftershocks within about 25 kilometers of their epicenters. It also recorded a far larger event 700 kilometers away, the 15 May magnitude 6.5 Monte Cristo earthquake in Nevada. The array detected the epicentral infrasound from the distant earthquake source, as well as infrasound from numerous secondary sources, including mountain ranges throughout the western United States that reradiated the ground motion as infrasound (Figure 2) [Anderson et al., 2023].

Detecting all these distinct signals was possible because of the enhanced array processing capabilities provided by the large number of sensors. Anderson et al. [2023] showed that when the data were processed from 3-sensor subsets of the 20+-sensor array—instead of from the whole array—it was possible to detect only the most intense earthquake infrasound arrivals. In other words, the larger array had much greater fidelity and sensing capabilities than smaller distributions of sensors.

During its 2-month deployment, the Stanley array also detected sounds from other distant nonearthquake sources, including waterfalls 195 kilometers away and thunder more than 900 kilometers away [Scamfer and Anderson, 2023]. Such enhanced detections, facilitated by large-N sensing, demonstrate an improved capacity to monitor a range of Earth phenomena continuously over a wide range of distances.

Putting Sensors in Harm’s Way

Since those proof-of-concept deployments, Gems have been used to monitor snow avalanches, lahars, river flow discharge, stratospheric sounds (while mounted aboard a solar balloon), and numerous volcanoes during field experiments [e.g., Tatum et al., 2023; Bosa et al., 2024; Rosenblatt et al., 2022; Brissaud et al., 2021]. Given their ease of use, small size, and low replacement cost, they’ve also been tested in hazardous environments where the risk to more expensive hardware could be considered unreasonable.

The motivation to put sensors in harm’s way is to gain insight into geophysical phenomena by recording subtle signals close to the source that may not be detectable from farther away. For example, at Villarrica, Rosenblatt et al. [2022] suspended a Gem on a cable 100 meters above a lava lake to collect infrasound data from a unique, bird’s-eye perspective over the crater (Figure 1c). (Stringing the cable across the crater proved far more challenging than deploying the sensor itself, which slid down the cable until finding its resting place at the bottom of the cable’s arc.)

In another case, we landed a pair of Gems on the ground near a frequently exploding crater at Fuego volcano in Guatemala using a drone (see video below). We later retrieved one of the sensors from high on the volcano’s flanks. Another was lost because high winds initially posed too great a risk to fly the drone back for it. Then the following day after the wind subsided, we could not locate the stranded Gem, which was probably a casualty of a nighttime explosion.

Our group at BSU also has nascent interest in using Gems to study fire in natural environments. Wildfires produce infrasound from a spatially extensive source region corresponding to actively burning areas. Because of the source complexity and the fact that fire infrasound is low amplitude and tremor-like [Johnson et al., 2025], enhancing signal-to-noise ratios in recorded infrasound is critical. This enhancement is enabled by using large-N monitoring networks, making infrasound wildfire surveillance a promising area of investigation.

Toward this objective, our group installed 76 sensors ahead of a prescribed burn in Reynolds Creek, Idaho, in October 2023 to begin developing infrasound as a tool for monitoring and mapping wildfire. We have also deployed Gems for infrasound studies of naturally occurring wildfires, such as the Emigrant wildfire in Oregon in August and September 2025 (Figure 3). During that active wildfire response, a team safely and quickly installed tens of sensors within a matter of hours in an area facing dynamic hazards from the rapidly expanding fire, which eventually covered 33,000 acres (about 13,354 hectares). Luckily, no instruments were lost, and the data have shown the potential to track a wildfire as it advances.

Preliminary results suggest that low-cost, rapid infrasound deployments could one day be used as an effective operational tool. For example, in firefighting responses, infrasound might complement intermittent aerial observations, from aircraft or drones, because it provides a continuous record of fire activity. Infrasound surveillance might also be able to “hear” combustion sources within a burn area that is obscured to optical sensing because of clouds or nightfall.

The Evolution of Low-Cost Sensors

Five years ago, the single-sensor Gem was a cutting-edge infrasound logging solution. While it remains a powerful and economical tool for large-N arrays and for sensing in hostile environments, it is evolving.

We have now developed the Gem into an even more versatile version called the Aspen, which can log four independent sensors at a sample rate of 200 hertz, double that of the Gem. The Aspen retains the small size, low weight, low power consumption, and low cost of the Gem, but with the capability to record higher-resolution 24-bit, time-synchronized data from a triaxial seismic sensor and an infrasound transducer.

Recording synchronous seismoinfrasonic data on the same logging platform offers the advantage of sensing both ground shaking and infrasonic oscillations. The ability to measure waves propagating in the ground and in the air simultaneously could facilitate work in the growing field of environmental seismology, which focuses on geophysical sources at Earth’s surface like debris flows and volcanoes.

Although we have focused on seismoacoustic geophysical measurements in our work, the concept of gathering data with low-cost instrumentation in harm’s way or from coordinated arrays of numerous sensors holds promise across Earth and environmental sciences. Such approaches could be used, for example, with tiltmeters (which measure slope changes), gravity meters, or near-infrared thermometers (e.g., optical pyrometers), all of which would offer additional data streams complementing seismoacoustic observations in geophysical studies of volcanoes.

With the diversity of emerging uses, it’s clear that large-N sensing—infeasible or cost prohibitive in many cases until recently—could transform how we measure many facets of Earth, helping to reveal the inner workings of volatile volcanoes, twisting tornadoes, and more.

Acknowledgments

More information about low-cost infrasound sensing solutions can be found at https://sites.google.com/boisestate.edu/infravolc/home. Development of the Gem infrasound logging platform was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (EAR-2122188).

References

Anderson, J. F., et al. (2018), The Gem infrasound logger and custom‐built instrumentation, Seismol. Res. Lett., 89(1), 153–164, https://doi.org/10.1785/0220170067.

Anderson, J. F., et al. (2023), Remotely imaging seismic ground shaking via large-N infrasound beamforming, Commun. Earth Environ., 4(1), 399, https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-023-01058-z.

Bosa, A. R., et al. (2024), Dynamics of rain-triggered lahars and destructive power inferred from seismo-acoustic arrays and time-lapse camera correlation at Volcán de Fuego, Guatemala, Nat. Hazards, 121, 3,431–3,472, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-024-06926-1.

Brissaud, Q., et al. (2021), The first detection of an earthquake from a balloon using its acoustic signature, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2021GL093013, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021GL093013.

Johnson, J. B., et al. (2012), Probing local wind and temperature structure using infrasound from Volcan Villarrica (Chile), J. Geophys. Res., 117, D17107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2012JD017694.

Johnson, J. B., et al. (2018), Forecasting the eruption of an open-vent volcano using resonant infrasound tones, Geophys. Res. Lett., 45, 2,213–2,220, https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL076506.

Johnson, J. B., et al. (2020), Mapping the sources of proximal earthquake infrasound, Geophys. Res. Lett., 47, e2020GL091421 , https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL091421.

Johnson, J. B., J. F. Anderson, and K. Yedinak (2025), Infrasound produced by a small pile fire, Appl. Acoust., 231, 110559, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apacoust.2025.110559.

Rosenblatt, B. B., et al. (2022), Controls on the frequency content of near-source infrasound at open-vent volcanoes: A case study from Volcán Villarrica, Chile, Bull. Volcanol., 84(12), 103, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00445-022-01607-y.

Scamfer, L. T., and J. F. Anderson (2023), Exploring background noise with a large‐N infrasound array: Waterfalls, thunderstorms, and earthquakes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 50, e2023GL104635, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023GL104635.

Slad, G., and B. Merchant (2021), Evaluation of Low Cost Infrasound Sensor Packages, Sandia Rep. SAND2021-13632, Sandia Natl. Lab., Albuquerque, N.M., https://doi.org/10.2172/1829264.

Tatum, T., J. F. Anderson, and T. J. Ronan (2023), Whitewater sound dependence on discharge and wave configuration at an adjustable wave feature, Water Resour. Res., 59, e2023WR034554, https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR034554.

Author Information

Jeffrey B. Johnson (jeffreybjohnson@boisestate.edu), Jacob F. Anderson, Madeline A. Hunt, Owen A. Walsh, and Jerry C. Mock, Department of Geosciences, Boise State University, Idaho

Citation: Johnson, J. B., J. F. Anderson, M. A. Hunt, O. A. Walsh, and J. C. Mock (2026), Sensing the sounds from Earth’s hazardous environments, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260142. Published on 8 May 2026.

Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Emissions from urban areas account for about a tenth of the global methane budget, according to a new analysis of satellite data published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. And those emissions grew by about 10% from 2020 to 2023, despite cities’ pledges to slash them.

Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and it’s shorter lived in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide. That means cutting methane emissions would have great benefits for the climate over the short term. Oil and gas operations and agriculture are major sources of methane, but so are cities and their infrastructure.

“Cities have started attempting to reduce their methane emissions, and we hope to be able to monitor this,” said Erica Whiting, a graduate student in climate and space science at the University of Michigan. Most efforts to account for urban methane emissions—from wastewater treatment plants, landfills, leaky natural gas infrastructure, and other sources—have relied on ground-based measurements and on inventories that estimate emissions on the basis of activities, said Whiting. Most of these studies have looked at a handful of cities, typically in North America and Europe.

In contrast, Whiting said her team’s study is one of the first to use satellite data to monitor urban methane emissions over time. Satellite monitoring offers long-term, often global, measurements and can provide a clearer picture of how mitigation efforts are developing.

Falling Short

A growing number of cities are aiming to reduce carbon emissions, and the new data show many of them are not on track. Whiting’s study included 92 cities around the world, including 51 members of a coalition called C40, which was founded in 2005. This 96-country coalition is working toward the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by half by 2030, including a 34% decrease in methane emissions. These numbers are aligned with the goal of limiting global warming to 1.5°C over preindustrial levels.

Whiting’s team analyzed methane data from the satellite-based TROPOMI (Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument) from 2019 to 2023. TROPOMI launched in 2017, making it possible to continuously monitor methane and other gas concentrations around the world. TROPOMI data showed that from 2019 to 2020, urban methane levels fell. But from 2020 to 2023, emissions grew 10% in C40 cities and 12% in non-C40 cities. The study focuses not just on urban centers but also on their outlying areas, where known methane sources such as landfills and wastewater treatment plants are often located.

The current study can’t point to what accounts for these trends, said Whiting. However, she said, urban populations grew during the study period, which could be a contributor to the cities’ growing emissions.

Rob Jackson, an Earth system scientist at Stanford University and chair of the Global Carbon Project, noted that it’s hard to know how to interpret the increase in emissions because the study period includes the era of the COVID-19 pandemic lockdowns, which caused major changes in people’s behavior and associated drops in anthropogenic emissions in 2020. (However, counterintuitively, the early 2020s actually saw a spike in overall methane emissions, which some scientists attribute to wetlands and changes in atmospheric chemistry.) Nevertheless, he said the data show that the world is not on track to decrease urban methane emissions. “In most regions of the world, there is no evidence that methane emissions from cities are decreasing at all,” he said.

“This work clearly shows that major cities worldwide are not reducing methane emissions at a rate consistent with the Global Methane Pledge,” Jackson said. This international agreement, made in 2021, has reduction goals that align with those of the C40 coalition: decrease global methane emissions by at least 30% relative to 2020 levels by 2030. The European Commission and 159 countries are participating in the pledge.

Whiting hopes better data will help. City and regional governments can use data from satellites to support and monitor ongoing efforts to lower methane emissions. “We’re excited to have this approach to monitor changes, and it should be useful for urban planning,” she said.

Zachary Tofias, director of food and waste at C40 Cities, noted via email that the organization was not involved with the design of the study. He pointed to several recent large-scale composting and other waste management facilities recently commissioned by member cities that should help bring down methane emissions going forward. The increasing availability of satellite and aerial monitoring data, he said, “provides an amazing additional tool for cities and facility managers to understand and address methane leaks from waste-disposal sites.”

—Katherine Bourzac (@bourzac.bsky.social), Science Writer

Citation: Bourzac, K. (2026), Urban methane emissions are rising, despite cities’ pledges, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260143. Published on 8 May 2026.

Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Editors’ Highlights are summaries of recent papers by AGU’s journal editors.

Source: Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface

Permafrost beneath Arctic roads is warming and becoming less stable, creating growing risks for northern infrastructure. Yet predicting how frozen ground will evolve remains difficult because subsurface conditions vary sharply over short distances, observations are sparse, and conventional process-based models are not easy to update as new field data arrive. In a new study, Gou et al. [2026] address that challenge at an embankment road in Utqiaġvik, Alaska, using fiber-optic temperature measurements collected along a 100-meter transect to track how shallow ground conditions change through time. Rather than treating monitoring and modeling as separate tasks, the authors link them in a framework designed to evolve with the physical system itself.

What stands out here is not simply the use of machine learning, but the way the authors build a physics-informed digital twin for permafrost under infrastructure. Their framework embeds a neural network within a heat-transfer solver, so the governing physics remain central while the model can still update uncertain soil properties as new observations arrive. This study moves beyond black-box prediction toward an interpretable, updateable system that can reconstruct subsurface temperature fields, infer thermodynamic properties such as unfrozen water content and thermal conductivity, and then test those inferences against independent DAS data, borehole temperatures, and laboratory measurements. This makes the work more than a site-specific modeling exercise; it offers a credible pathway toward near-real-time permafrost forecasting and infrastructure monitoring in a rapidly warming Arctic.

Citation: Gou, L., Xiao, M., Zhu, T., Martin, E. R., Wang, Z., Rocha dos Santos, G., et al. (2026). Physics-informed digital twin for predicting permafrost thermodynamic characteristics under an embankment road in Utqiaġvik, Alaska. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Surface, 131, e2025JF008787. https://doi.org/10.1029/2025JF008787

—Xiang Huang, Associate Editor, JGR: Earth Surface

Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

In April 2026 I recorded 36 fatal landslides causing 90 fatalities, the lowest monthly total for 2026 to date.

This is my regular update for the number of fatal global landslides, focusing on March 2026. As usual, this data has been collected in line with the methodology described in Froude and Petley (2018) and in Petley (2012). References are listed below – please cite these articles if you use this analysis. Data presented in these updates should be treated as being provisional at this stage as I will reanalyse them prior to formal publication, and other events will emerge.

The headline figures are as follows:

March 2026: 36 fatal landslides causing 90 fatalities;

This is an interesting result, unusually showing that fatal landslides in April were substantially lower than for any of the preceding months in 2026. This is the updated annual chart by month:-

Loyal readers will know that I like to present the running total using pentads (five day blocks). This is the cumulative total pentad graph to the end of Pentad 24 (which captures all of the events to the end of April):-

Thus, whilst April 2026 was unexceptional compared with the previous months of this year, the number of fatal landslides was still above the long term mean. Overall, 2026 continues to run extremely hot, exceeding even the record-breaking year of 2024.

We now start to enter the crucial period of much higher global fatal landslide occurrence. Whilst in the long term dataset this acceleration typically occurs in June (or even July), in recent years it has happened in May, as the 2024 line shows. I will watch with great interest to see what happens this month.

As I always stress, the occurrence of fatal landslides prior to the South and East Asia rainy seasons is not a predictor of what will happen in that period. Interestingly, the WMO is forecasting a below average summer monsoon in South Asia.

References

Froude, M. and Petley, D.N. 2018.  Global fatal landslide occurrence from 2004 to 2016.  Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences 18, 2161-2181.

Petley, D.N. 2012. Global patterns of loss of life from landslides. Geology 40 (10), 927-930.

Text © 2026. The authors. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.

Want to save time, money, and energy all while adding convenience to your life? Something as simple as using smart plugs throughout your home can help achieve these goals.

The average U.S. household has roughly 65 devices plugged in around the clock, quietly drawing about 770 kilowatt-hours of phantom power every year, about enough to run a refrigerator for nine months. At today’s average residential electricity rate of 17.47 cents per kilowatt-hour, that’s roughly $135 a year wasted on devices nobody uses.

Smart plugs are the simplest, cheapest way to stop electricity waste. The arrival of Matter, the cross-platform smart home standard backed by Amazon, Apple, Google, and Samsung, and the maturing of the low-power Thread wireless protocol mean a smart plug bought today should outlast the app it shipped with and work across whatever smart home ecosystem you switch to next. This updated article covers what changed, what to look for now, and which models are worth installing in 2026.

This article contains affiliate links. If you purchase an item through one of these links, we receive a small commission that helps fund our work.

How Smart Plugs Work

A smart plug sits between a wall outlet and whatever you plug into it — a lamp, a coffee maker, a space heater, an entertainment center. Inside is a relay that opens or closes the circuit on command, plus a wireless radio that listens for those commands from your phone or a smart speaker. Some plugs add an energy meter that reports real-time wattage and cumulative kilowatt-hours back to the app.

Older smart plugs relied entirely on 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi and the manufacturer’s cloud services, which meant a server outage or a Wi-Fi hiccup could leave you unable to turn off your lamp. Matter-certified plugs communicate locally over your home network and continue working even when the internet drops. Thread-based plugs go further, forming a self-healing mesh network in which each plugged-in device acts as a relay for the next, extending range and cutting response time, so there’s less waiting for your smart home app to make your smart home work.

In late 2022, the Connectivity Standards Alliance released Matter 1.0, an open, royalty-free standard meant to end the era of locked smart home ecosystems. Matter-certified plugs pair with Apple Home, Amazon Alexa, Google Home, and Samsung SmartThings simultaneously, and it is configured by scanning a single QR code. No brand-specific app required, no separate hub for each platform.

Matter has matured quickly. Version 1.4 added home energy management as a first-class device category and introduced certified routers and access points that double as Thread border routers. Version 1.5, published in November 2025, expanded support to cameras, soil moisture sensors, and additional energy management features. As of 2026, Thread border router certification requires Thread 1.4, which lets security credentials to be passed between platforms, so a plug added through Apple Home can also be controlled from a SmartThings hub.

A Matter plug bought in 2026 should still work in 2030, even if you switch from an Amazon Echo to a HomePod or add a SmartThings station. By contrast, a proprietary Wi-Fi plug from a brand that goes out of business or sunsets its app is a paperweight. That’s a real consideration in a category where startups have come and gone — Wink, Insteon, and others left users stranded when their cloud services shut down.

How Much Energy They Actually Save

Smart plugs save energy only when you use them deliberately. The plug itself draws roughly 1 to 2 watts of standby power, so each one adds about $1.50 a year to your bill before it does any work. That cost is recovered many times over if the plug is used to schedule, monitor, or kill standby loads.

Three smart plug features do most of the work:

1. Cutting Standby Loads

The U.S. Department of Energy and the Natural Resources Defense Council estimate that standby power — the electricity devices draw when they’re switched off but still plugged in — accounts for 5% to 10% of residential electricity use, and as much as 23% in homes packed with always-on electronics. The NRDC estimates the national wasted energy spending at about $19 billion a year, or roughly $165 to $440 per household. Older devices, gaming consoles, set-top boxes, and audio equipment are the worst offenders.

A smart plug with energy monitoring lets you spot which devices are draining power in standby and either schedule them off overnight or kill the circuit entirely. One reviewer found an old gaming console drawing 50 watts in standby mode, which costs is about $45 a year at average rates.

2. Scheduling and Off-Peak Shifting

Scheduling a coffee maker, towel warmer, or seasonal lights to run only when needed is the simplest savings case. The bigger one is shifting flexible loads — EV chargers, dehumidifiers, pool pumps — to off-peak hours when many utilities offer lower rates and the grid is running on cleaner sources. Earth911’s reporting on vampire loads walks through which household devices are worth targeting first.

3. Smart Plugs can Catch Failures Early

This is the underrated benefit. A refrigerator that suddenly draws 40% more power, a sump pump that’s cycling too often, or a freezer running 24/7 because the door seal failed will all show up in an energy-monitoring plug’s history before they show up on your utility bill. For appliances that fail gradually, the plug is a cheap diagnostic tool.

2026 Performance Standards: What to Look For

The smart plug market has consolidated around a handful of meaningful specifications. A plug bought in 2026 should meet most of these:

• UL or ETL safety certification. This is non-negotiable. Uncertified plugs from unknown brands have been linked to overheating and fires; in 2023 the CPSC announced a recall of Emporia smart plugs over electric shock hazards, and counterfeit electrical products remain a documented risk. Look for the printed UL or ETL mark on the device itself, not just the listing page.
• 15-amp / 1,800-watt rating. Standard for U.S. plugs and sufficient for nearly any single-outlet appliance. Be cautious about controlling space heaters with smart plugs, even at this rating; high-draw devices running for hours can stress the relay.
• Matter certification. Look for the Matter logo (three arrows forming a triangle) on the plug packaging.
• Real energy monitoring. Look for plugs that report actual wattage and cumulative kilowatt-hours, not estimated usage based on assumed device profiles. This is the feature that turns a smart plug into a savings tool rather than a convenience gadget.
• Local scheduling stored on the plug itself continues running when the internet drops. Cloud-only schedules don’t.
• Compact form factor. Older plugs were bulky enough to block the second outlet on a duplex receptacle. Slim designs from Kasa, TP-Link Tapo, and Eve now fit two per outlet.
• Thread support is optional but useful. Thread plugs use less power than Wi-Fi, respond faster, and strengthen your mesh as you add more. They require a Thread border router, which is built into most current Apple, Google, and Amazon hubs.

Recommended Models for 2026

These picks are organized by use case rather than ranked overall. Prices and availability checked April 2026; verify before purchase.

Best Cross-Platform Pick: Kasa KP125M

The Kasa KP125M was one of the first Matter-certified plugs with proper energy monitoring and remains the best balance of features in 2026. It works with Apple Home, Alexa, Google Home, and SmartThings via Matter to track real-time and historical wattage in the Kasa app. It stores schedules locally and is compact enough to stack two in a duplex outlet. UL-certified, 15A/1800W. Around $20 per plug in 2-packs and 4-packs. The Chinese manufacturer, TP-Link, has had its U.S. market presence scrutinized for security concerns — worth considering if that’s a priority for your household.

Best for Apple Home and Thread Mesh: Eve Energy

Eve Energy (Matter) runs over Matter and Thread, joining a Thread mesh automatically to act as a router for nearby devices. Eve’s privacy posture is unusual: no cloud, no account registration, no telemetry, so you can use it without fear of digital surveillance of your home. The energy monitoring is granular enough to capture small changes in appliance behavior, and the app provides detailed cost projections. UL-certified, 15A/1800W. Premium-priced at closer to $40 per plug, but the Thread support and privacy stance justify it for households committed to a local-first smart home.

Outdoor Use: Wyze Plug Outdoor

For holiday lights, pool pumps, garden features, and string lights, the Wyze Plug Outdoor offers two independently controlled, weather-sealed outlets with energy monitoring, a built-in light sensor, and IP64 water resistance. It works with Alexa and Google Assistant, operating from -4°F to 120°F. Typically priced between $25 and $30. Note that Wyze has had several security incidents over the past few years, which is worth weighing for indoor cameras, but matters less for an outdoor plug controlling lights.

Simplest Alexa-Only Setup: Amazon Smart Plug

If your household is already deep in the Alexa ecosystem and you want zero-configuration setup, the Amazon Smart Plug pairs automatically with Echo devices and works through the Alexa app, with no separate setup required. While it provides n o energy monitoring, this Alexa-only costs around $20. The simplest option, but the least flexible if you ever switch ecosystems.

The Bigger Picture

Smart plugs are a small intervention. Cutting standby load might save a household $50 to $200 a year — meaningful, but a fraction of the savings available from more efficient HVAC, water heating, and appliance choices, which together account for the majority of residential electricity use. The case for smart plugs is less about that one number and more about the visibility they provide. Most households have no idea which devices are responsible for their bills until they get the data.

The category also has a larger-grid story. Smart plugs that can shift flexible loads to off-peak hours give utilities and grid operators tools to balance demand without building more peaker plants, particularly relevant as electrification of heating and transportation drives residential demand growth. Check out our conversation with ecobee’s Sarah Colvin, which to go deeper into how distributed smart devices are starting to function as grid resources, not just consumer conveniences.

What You Can Do

• Audit before you buy. Walk through your home with a notepad and list devices that run on standby, such as entertainment systems, gaming consoles, printers, set-top boxes, microwaves with clocks, or anything with an LED that stays lit. Those are your first smart plug candidates.
• Start with one Matter plug with energy monitoring. Use it as a diagnostic tool for a week on each of your top suspects before installing a full set. The data will tell you which loads are worth automating.
• Build schedules around the loads you actually use. A coffee maker that runs from 6:30 to 7:30 a.m., an entertainment system that powers down at midnight, and holiday lights on a sunset-to-11 p.m. window. Aim for the plug to spend most of its time off.
• Check for utility rebates. Many U.S. utilities offer rebates on energy-monitoring devices and smart home products that participate in demand-response programs. Your provider’s website or ENERGY STAR’s rebate finder is the place to start.
• Don’t put high-draw appliances on smart plugs. Space heaters, window AC units, and other devices that draw near the 15A rating for hours at a time stress the relay and pose a real fire risk. Use a hardwired smart switch or a smart breaker for those instead.
• Verify safety certification on the physical product. The UL or ETL mark should be printed on the plug itself. If it’s not, return it.

Editor’s Note: Originally written by Sandi Schwartz on March 29, 2023, this article was substantially updated in April 2026.

The post How To Save Energy in Your Home With Smart Plugs appeared first on Earth911.

Today’s quote is from Yvon Chouinard, rock climber, environmentalist, and founder of outdoor gear retailer Patagonia. He said, “Going back to a simpler life based on living by sufficiency rather than excess is not a step backward.” Is it time to simplify your life?

Earth911 inspirations. Post them, share your desire to help people think of the planet first, every day. Click the poster to get a larger image.

This poster was originally published on June 26, 2020.

The post Earth911 Inspiration: Living by Sufficiency Rather Than Excess appeared first on Earth911.

Just over half the country is officially in drought, and about 155.7 million Americans—almost seven million more than last week—are now affected. The U.S. Drought Monitor’s April 23 report shows that 52.46% of the United States and Puerto Rico, and 62.78% of the Lower 48, are experiencing moderate drought or worse. According to NOAA, this is the worst spring drought on record for the continental United States.

This drought is not limited to one region. The Southeast just had its driest September-through-March since records began in 1895. The Colorado River system is only 36% full. Texas is 77% in drought, and Corpus Christi’s reservoirs have dropped to nearly 9%. Nebraska experienced its largest wildfire ever, fueled by dry grasslands. Oregon’s snowpack reached zero on April 1. In California, Tahoe City Cross melted completely by March 8, 40 days earlier than usual, after a record-breaking March heat wave caused rapid melting of an already low snowpack across most of the West.

The common factor is that from January through March, precipitation was below 70% of average across the lower 48 states, setting a new record. As a result, water restrictions are now broader and, in many places, more severe than usual.

The National Picture

The headline numbers come from the U.S. Drought Monitor, which is jointly produced by the National Drought Mitigation Center, USDA, and NOAA. As of April 21, drought conditions had worsened across the South, Southeast, Mid-Atlantic, High Plains, and West, with a 2.9% increase in coverage over the past week and an 11.7% increase over the past month. The Northeast and parts of Texas and the eastern Plains saw modest improvement; everywhere else trended drier.

Two main climate factors have caused this record drought. First, La Niña led to less rainfall from January to March, with totals below 70% of average—the lowest since records began in 1895, just surpassing the previous low in 1910. Second, spring temperatures in the Central Plains, Midwest, Northeast, and Mid-Atlantic were 5 to 10 degrees above normal, which sped up soil moisture loss and increased evaporation. This drought is not just about low rainfall; high temperatures are also drying out what little moisture remains.

The effects of the drought are already clear in the number of wildfires. By mid-April, over 1.7 million acres had burned across the country, nearly double the 10-year average. Nebraska’s Morrill Fire, which burned more than 640,000 acres in March, was the largest in the state’s history. In southeastern Georgia, the Highway 82 Fire destroyed at least 54 structures in Brantley County, which was the first county in the Southeast to reach exceptional drought (“D4”).

Southwest: The Colorado River Approaches a Threshold

The Colorado River Basin is facing water shortages not seen in modern times. The Bureau of Reclamation says the system is at about 36% of capacity. Lake Powell is only 23% full, and Lake Mead is about one-third full. Spring runoff into Lake Powell is expected to be just 22% of average. If this continues, 2026 could be one of the driest years in over sixty years, possibly even drier than 2002, which was the previous record.

In response, the Bureau of Reclamation announced in April that it plans to cut Lake Powell releases to 6 million acre-feet, the lowest in decades. They will also move water from Flaming Gorge to keep Lake Powell high enough for Glen Canyon Dam to generate hydropower. The dam provides electricity to about five million people, but water levels could drop too low by December if things do not improve. The seven states that share the Colorado River have not agreed on new rules for after 2026, when current guidelines expire. The Interior Department has said it may set new rules on its own if no agreement is reached this summer. Western states could be heading toward a conflict over water.

Local water restrictions are getting stricter. In March 2026, Erie, Colorado, moved to a Level 4 Emergency, the highest stage, which bans all residential sprinkler use. Aurora has completely banned new turf lawns. Denver Water started Stage 1 restrictions, asking residents to cut both indoor and outdoor water use by 20% until October 1. Along the Rio Grande, Elephant Butte is at 12.6% capacity, Falcon at 19.2%, and Amistad at 31.4%.

California: Permanent Rules Meet a Fourth Dry Year

California’s situation is more complex than just being in drought or not. In January 2026, the Drought Monitor showed no part of California in drought for the first time in 25 years. By April, Southern California was facing its fourth straight year of below-average rainfall. The statewide snowpack was only 18% of normal, and the State Water Project will limit water releases to 30% of normal.

What’s notable is that California’s restrictions no longer depend on whether a drought is officially declared. After the 2012-2017 drought, the state moved to a permanent year-round conservation framework codified by state law AB 1572 and the State Water Resources Control Board’s “Making Conservation a California Way of Life” rules.

Statewide baseline rules apply every year, regardless of conditions: no hosing down driveways or hardscape; no irrigation within 48 hours of rainfall; no irrigation runoff into streets or storm drains; mandatory shutoff nozzles on hoses; and recirculation requirements for fountains and decorative water features.

On top of these restrictions, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which serves 19 million people, issued a Level 1 conservation notice in March 2026 to all 26 city and county agency members. State enforcement of the new water-budget rules is paused until 2027 to give utilities time to adjust.

California is in for a dry summer this year.

Southeast: A Recharge Season That Failed

The Southeast, usually a humid region, is now facing a record drought. Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina all had their driest September-through-March since 1895. Normally, the region relies on December through March to restore soil moisture, streamflows, and groundwater, but this year, that recharge mostly did not occur.

The result, as of April: 100% of North Carolina, 99.95% of Virginia, 99.34% of South Carolina, 98.99% of Florida, 98.13% of Georgia, 93.65% of Tennessee, and 88.66% of Alabama are in drought. In Georgia, extreme drought now covers 71% of the state, the highest reading since 2012. Some monitoring stations with 75 or more years of data are recording their driest six-month periods on record. Drought watches are active across Virginia, Tennessee, and Alabama, with mandatory rules likely if late-spring rainfall doesn’t materialize.

Texas and the Southern Plains: Cities at the Edge

Texas is 77% in drought as of mid-April. The Coastal Bend story is the one to watch closely. Combined storage at Choke Canyon Reservoir and Lake Corpus Christi has fallen to 8.7% as of April 2026 — among the lowest levels ever recorded. Corpus Christi has been under Stage 3 mandatory restrictions since December 2024, the most severe stage in the city’s standard drought contingency plan, which is triggered when combined reservoir storage drops below 20% capacity. Stage 3 bans all outdoor irrigation, home vehicle washing, and most non-essential outdoor water use; second and subsequent violations carry fines up to $2,000 each.

The bigger concern is what happens next. City models now predict a Level 1 Water Emergency by September 2026, when the water supply could be just 180 days from running out. On April 28, 2026, the City Council postponed a vote on a proposal that would require everyone—residents, businesses, and industry—to cut water use by 25% if Level 1 is declared. Many residents at the meeting said this cut would be impossible unless industrial users reduce even more.

If Corpus Christi runs out of water—a scenario city officials now consider possible—it would be the first modern American city to face this. There is no guidebook for what to do. In the worst case, the city could see rolling water shutoffs by district, water delivered by tanker trucks, and even managed evacuations. The largest industrial users, such as petrochemical refineries, would likely lose access to water first, potentially leading to lawsuits.

In other parts of Texas, Dallas has had a permanent rule since 2001 that only allows watering lawns two days a week, and no irrigation is allowed between 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. from April to October. In Oklahoma and Kansas, the Ranger Road Fire—the largest U.S. wildfire of 2026 so far—burned 283,283 acres in February, killed hundreds of livestock, and led to burn bans across central and eastern Oklahoma.

High Plains: Dust, Fire, and Lake Beds

Nebraska is experiencing conditions that one state climatologist said are unlike anything seen before. Fifty-six percent of the state is in extreme drought, similar to 2012 but with warmer temperatures. The Morrill Fire started in March and quickly spread through dry grasslands, burning over 640,000 acres—the largest wildfire in Nebraska’s history. In Sheridan County, some landowners say their private lakes have dried up completely for the first time since 2012.

The Black Hills in South Dakota are now in extreme drought. In southern Nebraska, southwest Kansas, and southeast Colorado, low rainfall combined with high temperatures and evaporation have made spring planting difficult in many areas. The U.S. Geological Survey reports that streamflows are below or much below normal across southwestern South Dakota, southern Nebraska, and central and western Kansas.

Mandatory urban restrictions in this region are still relatively rare, but burn bans are widespread, and ranchers are culling cattle herds rather than feeding them on pastures with no grass.

Pacific Northwest: A Snow Drought, Not a Rain Drought

The Pacific Northwest had more precipitation this winter than the Southwest, but most of it fell as rain instead of snow because of record-warm temperatures. This has caused a snow drought rather than a rain drought. Since the region relies on snowpack for summer water, this is a serious problem.

Across the broader Columbia River Basin, snowpack ranks in the second percentile. On April 8, Washington’s Department of Ecology declared a statewide Drought Emergency, citing snowpack at just 53% of the median and projected summer water supply below 75% of normal in many basins, including the Yakima. Junior water-rights holders in the Yakima Basin are projected to receive only 44% of their allotment. Idaho is facing what could be its fourth consecutive drought year in its northern basins.

For the Northwest, the effects go beyond just this summer. New research from Oregon State University predicts that by the end of the century, water will move from precipitation to streamflow about 18% faster on average. This happens because there is less snow and more rain, so water moves through the system more quickly instead of slowly melting from snowpack. As a result, there could be about 50% less water in rivers, lakes, and reservoirs during the summer growing season.

The shift toward earlier runoff seen in 2026 is not a one-time event. It is a preview of the more severe impacts that climate change could bring.

Where Restrictions Are Active

This is a partial snapshot as of April 27, 2026. Local utilities update stages weekly. Verify before relying on these figures.

What You Can Do

Households use about 10% of all water in the U.S. Agriculture is still the biggest user, but in cities with restrictions, saving water at home can help prevent stricter rules, fines, or limits on businesses. The EPA’s WaterSense program says the average American family uses about 300 gallons a day, and simple upgrades can cut indoor use by 35%.

Indoor (immediate, no cost):

• Check your home for leaks. On average, American homes waste over 11,000 gallons a year from running toilets and dripping faucets. A single toilet leak can waste 200 gallons a day. To test for leaks, put food coloring in the tank—if it shows up in the bowl without flushing, you have a leak.
• Turn off the tap while brushing your teeth or shaving. This can save 8 to 10 gallons per person each day.
• Only run your dishwasher and washing machine when they are full. You can also skip pre-rinsing dishes.
• Take shorter showers. Reducing your shower by two minutes with a standard showerhead can save about 5 gallons of water.

Indoor (small investment):

• Install WaterSense-labeled fixtures. Faucet aerators and showerheads use at least 20% less water and are inexpensive. The average family can save about 3,500 gallons of water and 410 kWh of energy each year just by using these.
• Replace any toilet made before 1992. Older toilets use 4 gallons per flush, while WaterSense models use 1.28 gallons or less.

Outdoor (where most savings can happen):

• Outdoor irrigation uses nearly 9 billion gallons of water a day nationwide. It makes up about 30% of household water use, and up to 70% in dry areas. Water your yard before sunrise or after sunset to reduce evaporation.
• Consider replacing your lawn with drought-tolerant plants that are suited to your region. This type of landscaping uses less than half the water of a traditional lawn. Many cities, such as Aurora, Las Vegas, and Phoenix, offer rebates for replacing turf.
• Install a smart irrigation controller with a rain shutoff or soil moisture sensor. These devices adjust watering based on real conditions instead of following a set schedule.
• Add 2 to 3 inches of wood chips as mulch to your flower beds and vegetable gardens. This helps reduce evaporation and keeps weeds down.

Community and policy:

• Find out your utility’s current drought stage and the rules that apply. Most utilities post this information online and let you report water waste, like irrigation during banned hours or broken sprinklers spraying onto pavement.
• If you’re in an HOA, know your rights. California’s AB 1572 and Texas Property Code §202.007 prohibit HOAs from fining residents for brown lawns during active water restrictions. Other states are following this example.
• Pay attention to how agriculture and industry use water in your area. While homes use only about 10% of water, decisions about the other 90%—used by farms and businesses—will shape whether household conservation efforts make a lasting difference.

The Big Climate Picture

Some may see the 2026 drought as just a mix of La Niña, a warm winter, and early snowmelt, with rain expected to return as conditions change and an El Niño watch begins for late summer. While this is partly true, the bigger pattern—record warmth, snow falling as rain, earlier and faster runoff, and reservoirs unable to keep up as demand rises during hotter, longer summers—is what climate science has predicted for nearly twenty years.

Lake Powell is at 23%. Oregon’s snowpack is gone. North Carolina is completely in drought. Corpus Christi is preparing for the chance of running out of water. These are not separate stories. They are all part of the same story, showing what aridification looks like when it becomes a daily reality instead of just a forecast.

Editor’s note: Drought conditions are evolving weekly. Statistics in this piece are current as of the U.S. Drought Monitor release dated April 21–23, 2026. Local water restrictions change frequently — verify with your utility before relying on the figures cited here.

The post The 2026 Drought, Region by Region appeared first on Earth911.

Following the successful ten-year run of the Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas, Ontario Nature developed a Long-Term Monitoring Protocol (LTMP) to fill important knowledge gaps about Ontario’s common and at-risk snakes. Since 2019, we’ve expanded the LTMP from nine monitoring locations to over 60 sites across the province! We recently published a Story Map where you can learn all about this project and how to get involved.

The Long-Term Monitoring Protocol (LTMP)

Ontario Nature’s Long-Term Monitoring Protocol (LTMP) for snakes was launched in 2019. It uses standardized survey methods across a large geographic area to help improve our understanding of snake populations, detect changes over time, and guide conservation efforts. The LTMP brings together First Nations, scientists, landowners and volunteers to monitor snakes across the province, using plywood boards placed within snake habitat.

What’s in the Story Map?

The LTMP Story Map is a platform with text, maps, figures, and photos that showcases this project. It includes:

• Background information about why we’re monitoring snakes
• An overview of the methods used
• Interactive maps showing our partners and how the project has grown over time
• Early results from the first five years of data collection
• Information about the events we run
• How to get involved
• Lots of photos!

Help us monitor snakes!

You can participate in snake surveys as a volunteer or set up a new snake monitoring site! Many of the existing sites are monitored by volunteers and may be looking for more people to help with surveys. If you have access to land with suitable snake habitat, you could set up your own site with plywood boards, survey for snakes, and contribute data to our province-wide database.

Learn more

Check out the LTMP Story Map to find out more about the project and how to join! You can learn more about snakes and other reptiles and amphibians of Ontario in the Ontario Reptile and Amphibian Atlas. Test your knowledge with our identification quizzes!

The Story Map development was generously supported by the Hodgson Family Foundation.

In late 2025, astronomers spotted an interstellar comet making a quick trip through the solar system. 3I/ATLAS was discovered in July when it was just inside Jupiter’s orbit. It’s now about halfway between Jupiter and Saturn and getting farther away every day.

Astronomers have been observing 3I/ATLAS throughout its journey inward toward the Sun and back out again, compiling the most comprehensive and detailed view thus far of an interstellar object, including the chemistry of the gases that sublimated from its surface and formed its coma and tail.

In a first-of-its-kind observation of an interstellar object (ISO), researchers have discovered that the ratio of deuterium to hydrogen in 3I/ATLAS’s outgassed water is 30–40 times higher than in solar system objects. That suggests that the comet formed in a much colder environment than our own solar system did.

“It is always hard to really pinpoint where these objects form,” said Luis E. Salazar Manzano, the lead researcher on these observations and a doctoral student at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. “We know that they were formed in different parts of the galaxy, but it’s hard to connect what we measure with how they were formed. These types of measurements, such as the relative abundance of deuterium to hydrogen in water, are one of the best ways we have to actually [learn] about their forming conditions and their evolution.”

Coming In from the Cold

Water appears to be ubiquitous throughout the universe, sprinkled within distant galaxies and in star-forming nebulae. But there are different flavors of water: heavy, semiheavy, and plain old H₂O. In the molecular clouds where stars form, the cold environment favors a chemical reaction that increases the amount of gaseous deuterium (D), an isotope of hydrogen, relative to regular hydrogen atoms. That deuterium then bonds with hydrogen and oxygen atoms to create semiheavy water, or HDO.

By measuring the quantity of semiheavy water relative to regular water in an object, scientists can infer the object’s ratio of deuterium to hydrogen, or D/H, and decode the physical conditions in which that water formed. Astronomers have made such measurements for baby stars, planet-forming disks, solar system comets, and meteorites, as well as Earth’s ocean.

“What is fundamentally important about ISOs is that they are physical leftovers of the process of forming another planetary system and they can give us clues to that process,” said Karen Meech, an astrobiologist at the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa who was not involved with this research.

The team observed 3I/ATLAS with the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array (ALMA) in Chile on November 2025 when the comet was 335 million kilometers (208 million miles) from Earth. It had just passed its closest approach to the Sun and was as bright as it was ever going to be. This timing was critical for the measurements the team wanted to make because the signal for HDO is very subtle, especially when it has to compete with the much more abundant H₂O in the comet and within Earth’s atmosphere, Salazar Manzano explained.

Those measurements showed that for every 1,000 hydrogen atoms in 3I/ATLAS, there were about 5–7 deuterium atoms. While that’s not a lot, the ratio is still at least 40 times more than what’s found in ocean water and at least 30 times the average value in solar system comets.

“The conditions in the stellar system in which 3I/ATLAS formed may have been quite different from the one in the solar system,” said Paul Hartogh, a physicist and atmospheric science researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Göttingen, Germany.

The first interstellar object, 1I/ʻOumuamua, did not outgas any material, and although the second object, 2I/Borisov, did, it was not bright enough to detect deuterium. 3I/ATLAS was the first opportunity astronomers had to measure the D/H ratio of an interstellar comet. Those measurements suggest that 3I/ATLAS formed in a much colder galactic environment than the solar system did, less than 30°C above absolute zero. The team published these results in Nature Astronomy in April.

Planning for the Next Interstellar Visitor

Hartogh, who was not involved with this research, said that on the one hand, 3I/ATLAS’s high deuterium enrichment is surprising because it is higher than that of any known comet. On the other hand, he added, some scientists predicted such high values for cometary water several decades ago.

Meech said she found these results “really interesting.” She never expected all other solar systems to have formed just like ours, and 3I/ATLAS fits with that idea.

“This gives us an intriguing look into the processes of planetary system formation—and that there are differences from our own solar system,” Meech said. “It is too early to tell what this implies for the formation of planets or habitable worlds. We are just at the beginning of an exciting story.”

3I/ATLAS is getting harder to see with telescopes, but astronomers still have a lot of data from when it was much brighter to go through, Salazar Manzano said. Teams around the world are working on creating a holistic picture of the comet’s chemistry and evolution.

What’s more, “the fact that we were able to make this measurement with 3I will allow us to better prepare what to expect with the next generation of interstellar objects,” Salazar Manzano said.

Scientists expect that the Vera C. Rubin Observatory could discover between 6 and 51 interstellar objects within the next 10 years. If objects are detected early enough in their journey through the solar system, “there may be enough time to coordinate observations with ground-based and spaceborne telescopes, taking advantage of the recent experience gained by the multiple 3I/ATLAS observations,” Hartogh said.

“These are rare opportunities to study another planetary nursery up close, and we have to take advantage of each new ISO to learn as much as we can,” Meech said. “It may be harder for a large number of individual teams to get all the data they want, so I think coordination and collaboration is needed more than ever.”

—Kimberly M. S. Cartier (@astrokimcartier.bsky.social), Staff Writer

Citation: Cartier, K. M. S. (2026), Interstellar comet was born in a very cold place, Eos, 107, https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EO260141. Published on 7 May 2026.

Text © 2026. AGU. CC BY-NC-ND 3.0
Except where otherwise noted, images are subject to copyright. Any reuse without express permission from the copyright owner is prohibited.