This is the first analysis of live births since the law, which banned abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, went into effect in September 2021.
A patient looks at her ultrasound before proceeding with a medical abortion at Alamo Women’s Clinic in Albuquerque, New Mexico on Aug. 23, 2022. To open the clinic, Dr. Alan Braid and his staff had to obtain new medical licenses and move their families from Texas to New Mexico, as state becoming a refuge for those seeking to end pregnancies.Credit:REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
Close to 10,000 additional babies were born over a nine-month period after Texas banned most abortions after about six weeks of pregnancy, a new analysis from Johns Hopkins…
More recently, in a video presentation on YouTube, he acknowledged that wind and solar energy are critical technologies but says he believes geophysical and other limitations on their use mean the world will have to rely on fossil fuels for a long time to come. The limitations go beyond the familiar intermittency issue; they include the lack of adequate sunlight and wind in large parts of the world.
The International Energy Agency (IEA), among others, has ambitious goals for the world to achieve net-zero-carbon energy by mid-century. World solar installations set a record in 2021, but the IEA says they must triple by 2030. Electricity from wind, hydropower and bioenergy needs to double, and geothermal and ocean power must also grow rapidly.
There has been progress. In April, a study of 78 countries found that wind and solar technologies provided 12 percent of the world’s electricity last year, up from 10 percent in 2021. Nearly 40 percent of the world’s electricity comes from sunlight, wind and nuclear power. Without wind and solar growth, carbon dioxide pollution from the world’s power sector would have grown 20 percent last year; instead, growth was only 1.3 percent.
Solar and wind pessimists point to how much land wind and solar systems require. But researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory say that decarbonizing America’s power sector with those options would require only 1 percent of the land in the lower 48 states. That includes as many as 10,000 miles of new high-capacity transmission infrastructure per year — three times today’s capacity.
And as research in the journal Nature Communications points out, “Designing and operating a highly reliable electricity system that is dependent on such large shares of wind and solar generation can be a challenge due to the variable and uncertain nature of solar and wind resources.”
Advanced nuclear power would be one way to back up intermittent wind and solar energy. NREL concludes it might be necessary to decarbonize America’s power production if wind and solar run into siting and land-use barriers. But Zeihan dismisses nuclear power, citing public opposition to the technology and storing its wastes.
And it’s true: Decades of political opposition have kept the U.S. from opening a permanent storage site. As of two years ago, more than 90,000 metric tons of highly radioactive wastes from power and weapons production were sitting in temporary storage facilities around the county, some since the 1940s. Studies reported in Chemical and Engineering News found some underground storage tanks have degraded over time and are leaking.
So, what does all this imply?
Related video: Climate treaty remains elusive as ‘fossil fuel industry floods negotiations with lobbyists’ (France 24)
of which only 10% is recycled.
Loaded: 31.74%Play
Current Time 0:21
/
Duration 4:05QualitySettingsCaptionsFullscreen
France 24
Climate treaty remains elusive as ‘fossil fuel industry floods negotiations with lobbyists’Unmute
First, while wind and solar are the superstars of decarbonization, there are many other options, ranging from green hydrogen to closed-loop bioenergy and ocean waves to produce energy where the superstars can’t. If governments aren’t equally serious about investing in those options, they should be.
Second, pessimism can help identify the barriers to retiring fossil fuels. The work of removing the obstacles and enabling clean energy is as important as the work of improving the technologies themselves.
Third, governments and industry need to recognize the urgency of decarbonization, and work to achieve the full potential of ready-to-go energy efficiency, clean energy technologies and natural carbon sinks.
Fourth, small modular nuclear reactors may have to be an exception to the ready rule. The industry expects them to be much less expensive and easier to build than traditional nuclear power plants while generating less waste, using less cooling water, and distributing power closer to its point of use. (Regulators have approved only one so far; Westinghouse plans to have one running by 2033.)
But nuclear power is a hard pill for many clean energy and environmental advocates to swallow. The U.S. must finally solve the problem of permanent storage for high-level radioactive waste. Settling on a permanent storage site has been a political nightmare for federal and state officials, but we can’t keep solving our energy problems by creating new ones.
Some respected scientists tell us we now must swallow an even bigger pill, the geoengineering technology called “solar dimming” or “solar radiation management.”
Dr. Michael MacCracken, the chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C, has been a leader in the climate field for 25 years. He says the danger of catastrophic climate change is much closer than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has told us. Global warming is proceeding so rapidly, MacCracken says, that we must begin dimming sunlight by reducing the amount reaching the Earth’s surface. As environmental champion Bill McKibben writes, the world’s failure to meet critical deadlines for reducing CO2 pollution means “conditions may force a reckoning with the idea of solar geoengineering.”
MacCracken favors depositing sulfates in the atmosphere to reflect sunlight back into space. In one scenario, aircraft would fly 4,000 sorties to deposit sulfates in the first year, increasing to 60,000 flights annually after 15 years.
However, there are deep concerns about solar dimming. Unintended consequences could include damage to the ozone layer, an impact on photosynthesis, international disagreements about when, where and how much to use it, and something called “termination shock” — the sudden relapse into a hot world that’s become even hotter by ongoing greenhouse gas emissions while dimming was in effect.
First, if the IPCC has been too conservative in projecting how close we are to irreversible global warming, it should improve its analysis.
Second, working with other nations, NASA and NOAA should map the Earth’s lands and waters to identify those best suited for wind and solar farms, agriculture, wildlife habitat, industry, human settlement and other uses. This could help avoid land-use conflicts and guide clean energy deployment to where it’s most effective.
Third, nations should establish a process for international collaboration on deploying solar dimming and other geoengineering options. This should be on the agenda of the next Conference of the Parties in November.
And fourth, the U.S. Department of Energy should separate the wheat from the chaff as it prioritizes where to invest its funds and expertise. The Department of Energy and the White House should push back against Congress on funding schemes to greenwash fossil fuels, pacify Big Oil, and take bad risks like carbon capture and sequestration at power plants.
There is much not to like about nuclear power and even the simplest forms of geoengineering. But we will like things even less if we continue doing too little. The impacts of global warming are already severe enough to ask why we didn’t get serious about ending our addiction to fossil fuels while we still had the chance.
William Becker is executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project and a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Energy.
SINGAPORE (Reuters) – The target of keeping long-term global warming within 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) is moving out of reach, climate experts say, with nations failing to set more ambitious goals despite months of record-breaking heat on land and sea.
As envoys gathered in Bonn in early June to prepare for this year’s annual climate talks in November, average global surface air temperatures were more than 1.5C above pre-industrial levels for several days, the EU-funded Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S) said.
Though mean temperatures had temporarily breached the 1.5C threshold before, this was the first time they had done so in the northern hemisphere summer that starts on June 1. Sea temperatures also broke April…
Melting Antarctic ice has slowed an important ocean current that helps regulate the Earth’s climate, and scientists are worried about the consequences, including rising sea levels and changing weather patterns.
What’s happening?
A recent study revealed that a deep ocean current called the Southern Ocean overturning circulation has slowed down by about 30% since the 1990s. According to the Guardian, this current is important in regulating the Earth’s climate, including rainfall and warming patterns, along with how much heat and carbon dioxide the oceans store. What’s more, scientists expect a 40% slow down by 2050.
The circulation starts in the frigid and dense waters located deep off of Antarctica’s continental shelf. It spreads to other oceans from there, carrying oxygen to the deep ocean and bringing much-needed nutrients to the surface.
The Guardian reports that researchers say the slowing trend is due to global heating, which is causing Antarctic glacial ice to melt at a faster rate. This, in turn, adds freshwater, making the seas increasingly buoyant.
Why is the slowing ocean current concerning?
The slowing circulation could have cascading negative impacts, including rising sea levels and changing weather patterns, and it could deprive underwater ecosystems of nutrients.
“Changes in the overturning circulation are a big deal,” the study’s co-author, oceanographer Steve Rintoul, told the Guardian. “It’s something that is a concern because it touches on so many aspects of the Earth, including climate, sea level, and marine life.”
Related video: ‘We really need to care for this ocean as if our life depended on it’ (France 24)
Thanks so much for being with us here on France
Loaded: 13.00%Play
Current Time 0:05
/
Duration 5:23QualitySettingsCaptionsFullscreen
France 24
‘We really need to care for this ocean as if our life depended on it’Unmute
For one thing, it could cause “miserable weather” for places like the United Kingdom and Western Europe, Shenjie Zhou, a physical oceanographer at the British Antarctic Survey, told Wired.
It could also accelerate global warming because of the slowing absorption of heat and carbon dioxide in the world’s oceans. Plus, it could impact food security and threaten marine animals.
What can I do?
“Unless we act soon we will commit ourselves to changes that we’d really rather avoid,” Rintoul told the Guardian. “We need to act to reduce emissions, and we need to do everything we can as fast as we can.”
For ordinary citizens, that means taking actions to reduce environmental impact. Simple ways to do this include switching off lights when they’re not in use, taking the stairs instead of the elevator, riding a bike or mass transportation instead of driving, doing full loads of laundry, and maintaining a moderate room temperature.
But that’s not enough. Government policy is an important piece of the climate puzzle, and according to Yale School of the Environment, “Strong public demand increases the likelihood that governments will prioritize climate change action.”
That means it’s time to put pressure on government officials. You can do this by contacting them directly or by joining an environmental organization campaigning for climate policy, such as the Sierra Club.
“With drastic action, we could probably stop that slowdown from being a full collapse,” oceanographer and climate scientist Matthew England told Wired. “But it’s pretty tight.”
On Saturday Russia was thrown into disarray by a failed mutiny by Yevgeny Prigozhin, leader of the Wagner mercenary group.
The mutiny, which showed some of the cracks in the edifice of the Russian state that Vladimir Putin has created, triggered some concerns over the status of Russian nuclear weapons.
The idea of combatants in a civil war seizing nuclear weapons is one of the nightmare scenarios for security analysts.
Of course, this is hardly the first attempt at a violent transfer of authority in a nuclear power country; most countries with nuclear weapons have suffered from some kind of extra-legal leadership crisis.
France
On February 13, 1960, France detonated its first atomic device at a remote site deep in the hinterlands of Algeria. The test was politically awkward because Paris was in the throes of a struggle with both the community of French citizens in Algeria (pied noir) and with the Algerian independence movement (FLN). A little over a year later, as the intentions of the De Gaulle government to grant Algeria its independence became apparent, a group of French generals launched a coup intended to forestall the cession by ceasing the French state. The coup failed to trigger a general uprising in either Algeria or metropolitan France and collapsed after several days.
USSR and Russian Federation
Probably the scariest coup in the history of nuclear weapons happened in the autumn of 1991 when a group of Soviet generals made a belated effort to turn back the collapse of the Soviet Empire. The coup plotters took power for about three days, putting President Mikhail Gorbachev under house arrest and contesting control of Moscow and other parts of the country. U.S. policymakers panicked, but kept their panic as quiet as possible in order to avoid upsetting the development of events. The failure of the coup precipitated the collapse of the Soviet Union, driving the constituent republics of the USSR into independence. Gorbachev reassumed power but for only long enough to preside over the end of the state that he led.
Related video: Instability in nuclear-armed Russia ‘not a good thing’: EU’s Borrell (Dailymotion)
The Russian Federation inherited most of the Soviet nuclear arsenal and much of its instability. In the autumn of 1993, a constitutional crisis broke out into open fighting in Moscow between partisans of the Russian Duma and President Boris Yeltsin. Yeltsin defeated his opponents and maintained control of Russia’s nuclear arsenal throughout the crisis.
China
The People’s Republic of China went nuclear in 1964, on the eve of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. In September 1971 the divide between Mao Zedong and one of his chief lieutenants, Lin Biao, had become unbridgeable. Details of the “Lin Biao Incident” remain hazy, but Chinese authorities assert that Lin attempted to seize power from Mao, then tried to flee to the Soviet Union when the attempt went badly. Lin’s plane crashed in Mongolia, killing everyone on board.
Upon the death of Mao Zedong control of the Chinese state briefly seemed up in the air. The “Gang of Four,” including Mao’s widow Jiang Qing, made a play for power in Beijing, establishing control over the city and challenging the broader leadership of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). However, at this time the power base of the Chinese Communist Party was tied up tightly with regional military control, putting stark limits on the ability of any outsiders to seize control of the state. The Gang of Four was arrested after a month-long contest for influence over the People’s Liberation Army. Access to nuclear weapons was apparently never in question, remaining in the hands of army officials.
Pakistan
One of the major concerns about Pakistan’s development of nuclear weapons involved perceptions of its unstable political system. Pakistan suffered many coups and coup attempts before it went nuclear, and perhaps more ominously suffered catastrophic military defeat and dismemberment at the hands of its neighbor.
In October 1995, a group of army officers tried and failed to overthrow President Benazir Bhutto. In 1999 Pakistani General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in a coup precipitated by the latter’s effort to arrest the former. This coup caused considerable consternation in the West, in large part because there was uncertainty about the nature and structure of Pakistan’s systems of command and control. The fact that the state was taken over by the chief of the armed forces offered some solace, however, as the fundamental lines of authority over nuclear weapons remained unchallenged.
United States
On January 6, 2021, presiding U.S. President Donald Trump attempted an autogolpe, an extra-legal effort to remain in power despite losing the 2020 Presidential election. Trump’s effort foundered quickly, although he remained Commander in Chief for another two weeks. The military did not participate in the coup and Congressional certification of the election proceeded with only a small delay. The situation remained tense for the remainder of Trump’s term, but on January 21 authority over nuclear weapons peacefully passed to President Joseph Biden.
What Should We Think?
Nuclear weapons have not granted their owners domestic serenity or immunity from domestic unrest. On more than one occasion, control over nuclear weapons has been at stake during violent efforts to change the government. Only Britain, Israel, North Korea, and India have avoided a violent domestic incident since going nuclear, and in India’s case, the emergency came very close. Fortunately, this disorder has yet to lead to a situation in which nuclear weapons were either up for grabs or ended up on different sides of a civil conflict. However, as the situation in Russia over the past few days has demonstrated, nuclear weapons and domestic instability are two tastes that most definitely do not go well together.
HELENA — Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks says wolf numbers across the state fell slightly in 2022 but remain healthy.
The state estimates there are 1,087 wolves in Montana, 44 fewer than the previous year. The total number of packs in the state is 181 packs, down 10 packs from 2021. FWP says hunters harvested 248 wolves between the spring and fall hunting seasons.
On August 17, the Fish and Wildlife Commission will consider a new 289-wolf quota for the 2023-2024 season, including maintaining the six-wolf quota for the management unit north of Yellowstone National Park. The new region quotas in total are 167 lower than the previous season.
Rutgers Professor Yair Rosenthal, a coauthor on the study, examines deep-sea sediments aboard the Joides Resolution. Credit: Courtesy, Yair Rosenthal, Rutgers University
An analysis of oxygen levels in Earth’s oceans may provide some rare, good news about the health of the seas in a future, globally warmed world.
A Rutgers-led study published inNatureanalyzingocean sedimentshows that ocean oxygen levels in a key area were higher during the Miocenewarm period, some 16 million years ago when the Earth’s temperature was hotter than it is today.
In recent decades, levels of life-sustaining oxygen in the ocean have been decreasing, raising concerns that oxygen-deficient zones in key parts of the world oceans will expand, further harming marine life.
Scientists have attributed the trend toclimate change-induced rising temperatures, which affect the amount of oxygen that can be absorbed from the atmosphere.
The report sparked outrage and applause when it was published in 1972.Image credit: santoelia/Shutterstock.com
When researchers revisited a damning report from the early 1970s that predicted global collapse within the coming century, they reached a worrying conclusion: their decades-old data was proving to be surprisingly accurate. Worse still, the planet was still heading down the same path with little sign of change on the horizon.
In 1972, a team of scientists from MIT used a computer model to look into the future of humanity after receiving a commission from the Club of Rome, an international group of leading academics, scientists, business leaders, and politicians.
Outdoor workers are vulnerable to prolonged heat waves like the one hitting Texas, which climate scientists warn are becoming more common.
David J. Phillip/AP
If there’s one kind of weather extreme that scientists clearly link to climate change, it’s worsening heat waves.
“They are getting hotter,” says Kai Kornhuber, adjunct scientist at Columbia University and scientist at Climate Analytics, a climate think tank. “They are occurring at a higher frequency, so that also increases the likelihood of sequential heat waves.”
In Texas, the Southern U.S. and Mexico, athree-week heat wavehas gripped the region with temperature records falling for days in a row. Extreme heat has also hit India, China and Canada, where widespread wildfires are burning.
“Most of the world’s population has experienced record-breaking heat in recent days,” says Daniel Swain, climate scientist at the University of California, Los…
Controversial new lab-grown meat has been slammed by nutritionists and farmers skeptical of its nutritional value — and whether it should even be labeled beef or chicken.
The US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration have given the green light to two companies, UPSIDE Foods and GOOD Meat, to sell their products — which are cultivated in a lab rather than coming from slaughtered animals — in the US.
The meat is created from live stem cells taken from the muscle and skin…
/https://static.texastribune.org/media/files/1f7b08d914c4bfaa2144cff59cebb77e/2023-06-21T100302Z_101589457_RC2G2W9JRVQA_RTRMADP_3_USA-ABORTION-FAMILY.JPG)
Related video: Climate treaty remains elusive as ‘fossil fuel industry floods negotiations with lobbyists’ (France 24)
France 24
PublishedJune 28, 2023
11Comments
380Shares
Top Stories00:2401:06
Exposing the Big Game 
