NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: AI is consuming more power than the grid can handle — nuclear might be the answer

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Goran Calic, Associate Profesor of Strategy and Entrepreneurship Leadership Chair, McMaster University

    New partnerships are forming between tech companies and power operators — ones that could reshape decades of misconceptions about nuclear energy.

    Last year, Meta (Facebook’s parent company) put out a call for nuclear proposals, Google agreed to buy new nuclear reactors from Kairos Power, Amazon partnered with Energy Northwest and Dominion Energy to develop nuclear energy and Microsoft committed to a 20-year deal to restart Unit 1 of the Three Mile Island nuclear plant.

    At the centre of these partnerships is artificial intelligence’s voracious appetite for electricity. One Google search uses about as much electricity as turning on a household light for 17 seconds. Asking a Generative AI model like ChatGPT a single question is equivalent to leaving that light on for 20 minutes.



    Read more:
    AI is bad for the environment, and the problem is bigger than energy consumption

    Having GenAI generate an image can draw about 6,250 times more electricity, roughly the energy of fully charging a smartphone, or enough to keep the same light bulb on for 87 consecutive days.

    The hundreds of millions of people now using AI have effectively added the equivalent of millions of new homes to the power grid. And demand is only growing. The challenge for tech companies is that few sources of electricity are well-suited to AI.

    The grid wasn’t ready for AI

    AI requires vast amounts of computational power running around the clock, often housed in energy-intensive data centres.

    Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind provide intermittent energy, meaning they don’t guarantee the constant power supply these data centres require. These centres must be online 24/7, even when the sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing.

    Fossil fuels can run continuously, but they carry their own risks. They have significant environmental impacts. Fuel prices can be unpredictable, as exemplified by the gas price spikes due to the war in Ukraine, and the long-term availability of fossil fuels is uncertain.

    Major tech companies like Google, Amazon and Microsoft say they are committed to eliminating CO2 emissions, making fossil fuels a poor long-term fit for them.

    This has pushed nuclear energy back into the conversation. Nuclear energy is a good fit because it provides electricity around the clock, maximizing the use of expensive data centres. It’s also clean, allowing tech companies to meet their low CO2 commitments. Lastly, nuclear energy has very low fuel costs, which allows tech companies to plan their costs far into the future.

    However, nuclear energy has its own set of problems that have historically been hard to solve — problems that tech companies may now be uniquely positioned to overcome.

    Is nuclear energy making a comeback?

    Nuclear power has long been considered too costly and too slow to build. The estimated cost of a 1.1 gigawatt nuclear power facility is about US$7.77 billion, but can run higher. The recently completed Vogtle Units 3 and 4 in the state of Georgia, for example, cost US$36.8 billion combined.

    Historically, nuclear energy projects have been hard to justify because of their high upfront costs. Like solar and wind power, nuclear energy has relatively low operating costs once a plant is up and running. The key difference is scale: unlike solar panels, which can be installed on individual rooftops, the kind of nuclear reactors tech companies require can’t be built small.

    Yet this cost is now more palatable when compared to the expense of AI data centres, which are both more costly and entirely useless without electricity. The first phase of OpenAI and SoftBank’s Stargate AI project will cost US$100 billion and could be entirely powered by a single nuclear plant.

    Nuclear power plants also take a long time to build. A 1.1 gigawatt reactor takes, on average, 7.5 years in the U.S. and 6.3 years globally. Projects with such long timelines require confidence in long-term electricity demand, something traditional utilities struggle to predict.

    To solve the problem of long-range forecasting, tech companies are incentivizing power providers by guaranteeing they’ll purchase electricity far into the future.

    These companies are also literally and financially moving closer to nuclear power, either by acquiring nuclear energy companies or locating their data centres next to nuclear power plants.

    Destigmatizing nuclear energy

    One of the biggest challenges facing nuclear energy is the perception that it’s dangerous and dirty. Per gigawatt-hour of electricity, nuclear produces only six tonnes of CO2. In comparison, coal produces 970, natural gas 720 and hydropower 24. Nuclear even has lower emissions than wind and solar, which produce 11 and 53 tonnes of CO2, respectively.

    Nuclear energy is also among the safest energy sources. Per gigawatt-hour, it causes 820 times fewer deaths than coal, 43 times fewer than hydropower and roughly the same as wind and solar.

    Still, nuclear energy remains stigmatized, largely because of persistent misconceptions and outdated beliefs about nuclear waste and disasters. For instance, while many public concerns remain about nuclear waste, existing storage solutions have been used safely for decades and are supported by a strong track record and scientific consensus.

    Similarly, while the Fukushima disaster in Japan displaced thousands of people and was extremely costly (total costs of the disaster are expected at about US$188 billion), not a single person died of radiation exposure after the accident, a United Nations Scientific Committee of 80 international experts found.



    Read more:
    With nuclear power on the rise, reducing conspiracies and increasing public education is key

    For decades, there was little effort to correct public perceptions about nuclear fears because it wasn’t seen as necessary or profitable. Coal, gas and renewables were sufficient to meet the demand required of them. But that’s now changing.

    With AI’s energy needs soaring, Big Tech has classified nuclear energy as green and the World Bank has agreed to lift its longstanding ban on financing nuclear projects.

    Big Tech’s billion-dollar bet on nuclear

    The world has long lived with two nuclear dilemmas. The first is that, despite being one the safest and cleanest form of energy, nuclear was perceived as one the most dangerous and dirtiest.

    The second is that upgrading the power grid requires large-scale investments, yet money had been funnelled into small, distributed sources like solar and wind, or dirty ones like coal and natural gas.

    Now tech companies are making hundred-billion-dollar strategic bets that they can solve both nuclear dilemmas. They are betting that nuclear can offer the kind of steady, clean power their AI ambitions require.

    This could be an unexpected positive consequence of AI: the revitalization of one of the safest and cleanest energy sources available to humankind.

    Michael Tadrous, an undergraduate student and research assistant at the DeGroote School of Business at McMaster University, co-authored this article.

    Goran Calic does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. AI is consuming more power than the grid can handle — nuclear might be the answer – https://theconversation.com/ai-is-consuming-more-power-than-the-grid-can-handle-nuclear-might-be-the-answer-258677

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Jeffrey Fields, Professor of the Practice of International Relations, USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

    The Osirak nuclear power research station in 1981. Jacques Pavlovsky/Sygma via Getty Images

    Israel, with the assistance of U.S. military hardware, bombs an adversary’s nuclear facility to set back the perceived pursuit of the ultimate weapon. We have been here before, about 44 years ago.

    In 1981, Israeli fighter jets supplied by Washington attacked an Iraqi nuclear research reactor being built near Baghdad by the French government.

    The reactor, which the French called Osirak and Iraqis called Tammuz, was destroyed. Much of the international community initially condemned the attack. But Israel claimed the raid set Iraqi nuclear ambitions back at least a decade. In time, many Western observers and government officials, too, chalked up the attack as a win for nonproliferation, hailing the strike as an audacious but necessary step to prevent Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein from building a nuclear arsenal.

    But the reality is more complicated. As nuclear proliferation experts assess the extent of damage to Iran’s nuclear facilities following the recent U.S. and Israeli raids, it is worth reassessing the longer-term implications of that earlier Iraqi strike.

    The Osirak reactor

    Iraq joined the landmark Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1970, committing the country to refrain from the pursuit of nuclear weapons. But in exchange, signatories are entitled to engage in civilian nuclear activities, including having research or power reactors and access to the enriched uranium that drives them.

    The International Atomic Energy Agency is responsible through safeguards agreements for monitoring countries’ civilian use of nuclear technology, with on-the-ground inspections to ensure that civilian nuclear programs do not divert materials for nuclear weapons.

    But to Israel, the Iraqi reactor was provocative and an escalation in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

    Israel believed that Iraq would use the French reactor – Iraq said it was for research purposes – to generate plutonium for a nuclear weapon. After diplomacy with France and the United States failed to persuade the two countries to halt construction of the reactor, Prime Minister Menachem Begin concluded that attacking the reactor was Israel’s best option. That decision gave birth to the “Begin Doctrine,” which has committing Israel to preventing its regional adversaries from becoming nuclear powers ever since.

    Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin addresses the press after the 1981 attack on the Osarik nuclear reactor.
    Israel Press and Photo Agency/Wikimedia Commons

    In spring 1979, Israel attempted to sabotage the project, bombing the reactor core destined for Iraq while it sat awaiting shipment in the French town of La Seyne-sur-Mer. The mission was only a partial success, damaging but not destroying the reactor.

    France and Iraq persisted with the project, and in July 1980 – with the reactor having been delivered – Iraq received the first shipment of highly enriched uranium fuel at the Tuwaitha Nuclear Research Center near Baghdad.

    Then in September 1980, during the initial days of the Iran-Iraq war, Iranian jets struck the nuclear research center. The raid also targeted a power station, knocking out electricity in Baghdad for several days. But a Central Intelligence Agency situation report assessed that “only secondary buildings” were hit at the nuclear site itself.

    It was then Israel’s turn. The reactor was still unfinished and not in operation when on June 7, 1981, eight U.S.-supplied F-16s flew over Jordanian and Saudi airspace and bombed the reactor in Iraq. The attack killed 10 Iraqi soldiers and a French civilian.

    Revisiting the ‘success’ of Israeli raid

    Many years later, U.S. President Bill Clinton commented: “Everybody talks about what the Israelis did at Osirak in 1981, which I think, in retrospect, was a really good thing. You know, it kept Saddam from developing nuclear power.”

    But nonproliferation experts have contended for years that while Saddam may have had nuclear weapons ambitions, the French-built research reactor would not have been the route to go. Iraq would either have had to divert the reactor’s highly enriched uranium fuel for a few weapons or shut the reactor down to extract plutonium from the fuel rods – all while hiding these operations from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    As an additional safeguard, the French government, too, had pledged to shut down the reactor if it detected efforts to use the reactor for weapons purposes.

    In any event, Iraq’s desire for a nuclear weapon was more aspirational than operational. A 2011 article in the journal International Security included interviews with several scientists who worked on Iraq’s nuclear program and characterized the country’s pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability as “both directionless and disorganized” before the attack.

    Iraq’s program begins in earnest

    So what happened after the strike? Many analysts have argued that the Israeli attack, rather than diminish Iraqi desire for a nuclear weapon, actually catalyzed it.

    Nuclear proliferation expert Målfrid Braut-Hegghammer, the author of the 2011 study, concluded that the Israeli attack “triggered a nuclear weapons program where one did not previously exist.”

    In the aftermath of the attack, Saddam decided to formally, if secretively, establish a nuclear weapons program, with scientists deciding that a uranium-based weapon was the best route. He tasked his scientists with pursuing multiple methods to enrich uranium to weapons grade to ensure success, much the way the Manhattan Project scientists approached the same problem in the U.S.

    In other words, the Israeli attack, rather than set back an existing nuclear weapons program, turned an incoherent and exploratory nuclear endeavor into a drive to get the bomb personally overseen by Saddam and sparing little expense even as Iraq’s war with Iran substantially taxed Iraqi resources.

    From 1981 to 1987, the nuclear program progressed fitfully, facing both organizational and scientific challenges.

    As those challenges were beginning to be addressed, Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, provoking a military response from the United States. In the aftermath of what would become Operation Desert Storm, U.N. weapons inspectors discovered and dismantled the clandestine Iraqi nuclear weapons program.

    The Tammuz nuclear reactor was hit again during the 1991 Gulf War.
    Ramzi Haidar/AFP via Getty Images

    Had Saddam not invaded Kuwait over a matter not related to security, it is very possible that Baghdad would have had a nuclear weapon capability by the mid-to-late 1990s.

    Similarly to Iraq in 1980, Iran today is a party to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. At the time President Donald Trump withdrew U.S. support in 2018 for the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, colloquially known as the Iran nuclear deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency certified that Tehran was complying with the requirements of the agreement.

    In the case of Iraq, military action on its nascent nuclear program merely pushed it underground – to Saddam, the Israeli strikes made acquiring the ultimate weapon more rather than less attractive as a deterrent. Almost a half-century on, some analysts and observers are warning the same about Iran.

    Jeffrey Fields receives funding from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Schmidt Futures.

    – ref. Israel bombed an Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981 − it pushed program underground and spurred Saddam Hussein’s desire for nukes – https://theconversation.com/israel-bombed-an-iraqi-nuclear-reactor-in-1981-it-pushed-program-underground-and-spurred-saddam-husseins-desire-for-nukes-259618

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: The Learning Refuge: How women-led community efforts help refugees resettle in Cyprus

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Suzan Ilcan, Professor of Sociology & University Research Chair, University of Waterloo

    A grassroots organization in Paphos, Cyprus, is bringing women together to address the needs of refugees in the city. (Shutterstock)

    Since 2015, the Republic of Cyprus (ROC) has seen a steady rise in migrant arrivals and asylum applications, primarily from people from Middle Eastern and African countries like Syria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Cameroon.

    But many asylum-seekers face significant challenges. Refugees formally in the asylum system are often denied residency permits, which means they face persistent insecurity, poverty and isolation

    These conditions are compounded by restrictive and limited services for asylum-seekers. This deepens the precarity and exclusion refugees face within a political and economic system that treats them more like economic burdens than as human beings with rights who need help.

    In response to these institutional failures, citizens, volunteers and refugees themselves have begun to build grassroots networks of care and solidarity in the ROC and beyond to support refugee communities.

    In 2022 and 2023, we conducted interviews with women volunteers and refugees affiliated with The Learning Refuge, a civil society organization in the city of Paphos in southwest Cyprus that cultivates dialogue and collaboration among these two diverse groups.

    Women-led initiatives

    Many displaced people first arrive on the island of Cyprus through the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC). However, the absence of a functioning asylum system or international legal protections leaves them in limbo.

    With no viable path to status in the TRNC, most cross the Green Line that bifurcates Cyprus into the ROC, where European Union asylum frameworks exist but remain limited in practice.

    Women-led community-building is often a response to the negative effects of inadequate state support and humanitarian aid for refugees. In Cyprus, this situation leaves many refugees without access to sufficient food, satisfactory health care, accommodation, employment, clothing and language training. In this current environment, refugees are increasingly experiencing insecure and fragile situations, especially women.

    In Cyprus, as in many other countries, a variety of community-building efforts are important responses to limited or restricted state support and humanitarian aid for refugees.

    Women-led efforts offer opportunities to deliver educational activities and establish networks, and to help improve the welfare and social protection of refugee women, however imperfectly.

    These and other similar efforts highlight how women refugees and volunteers can mobilize to foster dialogue and collaboration.

    The Learning Refuge

    Founded in 2015, The Learning Refuge began as community meetings in a city park. The organization then used space from a nearby music venue to conduct support activities, and later, established itself in a dedicated building.

    Organizations like The Learning Refuge emerged to address the limited state support and humanitarian assistance services available to refugees.

    The Learning Refuge cultivates dialogue and collaboration among a diverse group of community volunteers.
    (Suzan Ilcan)

    As Syrian families began arriving in Paphos in 2015, local mothers started working with Syrian children, assisting them with homework, providing skills-training opportunities and language classes.

    The Learning Refuge cultivates dialogue and collaboration among a diverse group of community volunteers, including schoolteachers, artists, musicians, local residents, refugees and other migrants.

    With the aid of 20 volunteers, the loosely organized groups provide women refugees with material support and resources to enhance collective activities, including art and music projects, while also engaging in educational and friendship activities.

    While modest in scale, the organization has formed partnerships with local and international organizations, including Caritas Cyprus, UNHCR-Cyprus and the Cyprus Refugee Council to extend its outreach to various refugee groups.

    The organization has also launched creative initiatives aimed at cultivating additional inclusive civic spaces. One such effort, “Moms and Babies Day,” was developed in response to the rising number of single mothers from Africa arriving on the island. These women often face poverty and isolation, and struggle with language barriers.

    These efforts highlight how grassroots responses — especially those led by women — can offer partial but vital educational and emotional support to refugees struggling to find their footing in a new country.

    Negotiated belonging

    Through participation in The Learning Refuge, refugee women in Paphos engage in a dynamic process of negotiated belonging, navigating challenges like language barriers, gendered isolation, domestic violence and poverty while contributing to broader community-building efforts.

    For example, Maryam, a Syrian woman and mother of three, told us how The Learning Refuge helped her children establish friendships and learn Greek. She also highlighted that it helped her form close ties with volunteers and other Syrian women living in Cyprus, and find paid work in the city.

    The volunteers and women refugees participating in The Learning Refuge’s activities emphasized not only their capacity to develop new forms of belonging and solidarity; they also help reshape communal knowledge and generate supportive spaces for women from various backgrounds.

    Our research shows that women-led community-building is an effective, though short-term, response to insufficient state support and humanitarian aid systems that leave many refugees in precarious situations.

    In varying degrees, these efforts offer women and their families spaces to learn and cultivate new relationships, and foster collective projects and better visions of resettlement and refuge.

    Suzan Ilcan receives funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Council of Canada.

    Seçil Daǧtaș receives funding from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

    – ref. The Learning Refuge: How women-led community efforts help refugees resettle in Cyprus – https://theconversation.com/the-learning-refuge-how-women-led-community-efforts-help-refugees-resettle-in-cyprus-252682

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Bats get fat to survive hard times. But climate change is threatening their survival strategy

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Nicholas Wu, Lecturer in Wildlife Ecology, Murdoch University

    Rudmer Zwerver/Shutterstock

    Bats are often cast as the unseen night-time stewards of nature, flitting through the dark to control pest insects, pollinate plants and disperse seeds. But behind their silent contributions lies a remarkable and underappreciated survival strategy: seasonal fattening.

    Much like bears and squirrels, bats around the world bulk up to get through hard times – even in places where you might not expect it.

    In a paper published today in Ecology Letters, we analysed data from bat studies around the world to understand how bats use body fat to survive seasonal challenges, whether it’s a freezing winter or a dry spell.

    The surprising conclusion? Seasonal fattening is a global phenomenon in bats, not just limited to those in cold climates.

    Even bats in the tropics, where it’s warm all year, store fat in anticipation of dry seasons when food becomes scarce. That’s a survival strategy that’s been largely overlooked. But it may be faltering as the climate changes, putting entire food webs at risk.

    Climate shapes fattening strategies

    We found bats in colder regions predictably gain more weight before winter.

    But in warmer regions with highly seasonal rainfall, such as tropical savannas or monsoonal forests, bats also fatten up. In tropical areas, it’s not cold that’s the enemy, but the dry season, when flowers wither, insects vanish and energy is hard to come by.

    The extent of fattening is impressive. Some species increased their body weight by more than 50%, which is a huge burden for flying animals that already use a lot of energy to move around. This highlights the delicate balancing act bats perform between storing energy and staying nimble in the air.

    Sex matters, especially in the cold

    The results also support the “thrifty females, frisky males” hypothesis.

    In colder climates, female bats used their fat reserves more sparingly than males – a likely adaptation to ensure they have enough energy left to raise young when spring returns. Since females typically emerge from hibernation to raise their young, conserving fat through winter can directly benefit their reproductive success.

    Interestingly, this sex-based difference vanished in warmer climates, where fat use by males and females was more similar, likely because more food is available in warmer climates. It’s another clue that climate patterns intricately shape behaviour and physiology.

    Climate change is shifting the rules

    Beyond the biology, our study points to a more sobering trend. Bats in warm regions appear to be increasing their fat stores over time. This could be an early warning sign of how climate change is affecting their survival.

    Climate change isn’t just about rising temperatures. It’s also making seasons more unpredictable.

    Bats may be storing more energy in advance of dry seasons that are becoming longer or harder to predict. That’s risky, because it means more foraging, more exposure to predators and potentially greater mortality.

    The implications can ripple outward. Bats help regulate insect populations, fertilise crops and maintain healthy ecosystems. If their survival strategies falter, entire food webs could feel the effects.

    Fat bats, fragile futures

    Our study changes how we think about bats. They are not just passive victims of environmental change but active strategists, finely tuned to seasonal rhythms. Yet their ability to adapt has limits, and those limits are being tested by a rapidly changing world.

    By understanding how bats respond to climate, we gain insights into broader ecosystem resilience. We also gain a deeper appreciation for one of nature’s quiet heroes – fattening up, flying through the night and holding ecosystems together, one wingbeat at a time.

    Nicholas Wu was the lead author of a funded Australian Research Council Linkage Grant awarded to Christopher Turbill at Western Sydney University.

    – ref. Bats get fat to survive hard times. But climate change is threatening their survival strategy – https://theconversation.com/bats-get-fat-to-survive-hard-times-but-climate-change-is-threatening-their-survival-strategy-259560

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Canada Day: How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Eric Wilkinson, Postdoctoral Fellow in Philosophy, University of British Columbia

    Tariffs imposed on Canada by the United States have fuelled a surge in nationalist sentiment that played a significant role in the outcome of April’s federal election.

    Mark Carney’s new Liberal government has signalled an interest in pursuing nation-building projects that hearken back to an earlier period in Canadian history.

    Economic, cultural and social policy in Canada has often served the purpose of building national unity to facilitate cohesion and collective action. But some commentators have cautioned Canadians to dampen their reinvigorated sense of pride in their nation.



    Read more:
    Canadians are more patriotic than ever amid Trump’s trade war — but it’s important not to take national pride too far

    Those on the right view Canadian nationalism as an obstacle to neo-liberal economic policies while the left perceives it as irredeemably flawed.

    For people on the right, free trade and globalization are thought to produce the best economic outcomes, and nationalism obstructs those outcomes. But those on the progressive left argue that Canada was founded on racist policies and settler colonialism, so nationalism should be rejected because of this original sin.



    Read more:
    This Canada Day, settler Canadians should think about ‘land back’

    What is a nation?

    Both perspectives — and the public discussion of Canada’s national identity more generally — remain mired in confusion over the nature of nations. As a political philosopher, I have worked to clear up this confusion by determining what nations are and how they evolve.

    In the 19th century, French scholar Ernest Renan outlined a definition of nation that has yet to be improved upon. For Renan, a nation consists of two things: the daily commitment of a people to continue to live and work together and a collective memory of a shared past together.

    In contemporary times, Irish social scientist Benedict Anderson described nations as “imagined communities,” since the character of the nation is determined by the limits of the collective imagination of its citizens.

    These are subjective definitions of nations because they define national communities in terms of the identification of their members with the community.

    There are other, more common objective definitions of a nation involving identity, including shared ethnicity, religion or culture. But these definitions have long been criticized since many national identities transcend ethnicity, religion, culture or any other identity markers.

    Nations vs. states

    A national community is distinct from a state. The state constitutes the formal political institutions of a society, while the nation is the community of people within that society who view each other as compatriots. This is why the phrase “the people” is often used as a synonym for the national community.

    While some nations are stateless, in other cases, multiple nations co-exist within a single state.

    In Canada, there is the Québécois nation and many Indigenous nations within the Canadian nation. Although they are distinct, states and their governments will often build national identities around themselves to enable cohesion and collective action. Canada’s national identity was systematically shaped by successive governments — from Confederation onward — to build the society that Canadians live in today.

    The character of a particular nation is not fixed.

    The beliefs, practices and culture of the people who choose to live and work together can be shaped into anything they collectively decide on. A nation can adopt new values, redefine its membership or have one of its definitive characteristics fade from prominence.

    Accordingly, there is no reason to think that moral failings of a national community’s past must compromise it forever. A nation can, and sometimes does, recognize its past failures and become something better.

    Patriotism vs. nationalism

    A distinction is sometimes drawn between “patriotism” and “nationalism,” with the most famous being made by English social critic and novelist George Orwell.

    For Orwell, patriotism is devotion to a particular way of life without the desire to force it on other people, while nationalism denotes an impulse to seek power for one’s nation. Patriotism, then, is a benign, ethical form of partiality to one’s nation.

    Other thinkers have sought to explain how national identities and communities can be cultivated in an ethical way, described by Israeli philosopher Yael Tamir as “liberal nationalism.”

    The liberal nationalist, according to Tamir, seeks to construct a national identity that adopts the correct ethical values. They hope to harness the energy of nationalism to build a nation committed to liberty, inclusivity and progress.

    In 1867, George-Étienne Cartier described the Canadian identity that he and the other Fathers of Confederation sought to create as a “political nationality.” He viewed Canadian identity as being defined by shared principles rather than language or ethnicity.

    More than 150 years later, political theorist Michael Ignatieff made a similar distinction between ethnic and civic nationalism. In an ethnic nation, citizens identify with each other because they belong to the same ethnic, religious or cultural community. Meanwhile, in a civic nation, the people unite behind certain civic principles, like a commitment to democracy.

    Cartier’s concept of a political nationality was crucial to making sense of the political experiment that was Confederation. Having mostly abandoned their efforts to assimilate the French-Canadians, the British settlers in North America would now join with them to build a new national identity instead.

    Reshaping Canadian identity

    In his recent book, historian Raymond Blake explains how Canada’s post-Second World War prime ministers, through their speeches and public statements, reshaped Canada’s national identity.



    Read more:
    40 years later: A look back at the Pierre Trudeau speech that defined Canada

    Up through Louis St-Laurent, various prime ministers would refer to the “deux nations” origin of Canada as inspirational. British and French settlers had come together despite their differences to build a new society together, they pointed out.

    As time went on, it became clear this definition of Canada’s national identity wasn’t nearly inclusive enough, making no mention of Indigenous Peoples.

    The multicultural character of Canadian society was increasingly acknowledged by the government and Canadians at large until it was central to Canada’s identity. Canada’s national narrative has been reframed in recent years to recognize Indigenous Peoples as one of the three founding pillars of Canadian society. This evolution exemplifies exactly the change citizens should expect in a national community.

    This transformation in Canadian national identity shows that national communities can change over time — including, perhaps, in response to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threats against Canada.

    In the end, Canadians decide what sort of nation they want to inhabit. Canada’s political nationality has proven more resilient than even some of its founders might have anticipated, but not for lack of effort. There will always remain the work of building a better nation — and it’s work worth doing.

    Eric Wilkinson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Canada Day: How Canadian nationalism is evolving with the times — and will continue to do so – https://theconversation.com/canada-day-how-canadian-nationalism-is-evolving-with-the-times-and-will-continue-to-do-so-259352

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why have athletes stopped ‘taking a knee’?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Ciprian N. Radavoi, Associate Professor in Law, University of Southern Queensland

    Eli Harold, Colin Kaepernick and Eric Reid of the San Francisco 49ers kneel ahead of a game in 2016. Michael Zagaris/San Francisco 49ers/Getty Images

    It’s almost a decade since San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick started a worldwide trend and sparked fierce debate when he knelt during the US national anthem.

    In 2016, Kaepernick refused to follow the pre-game protocol related to the national anthem and knelt instead, saying:

    I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of colour.

    Soon, many athletes and teams began “taking a knee” at sports events to express their solidarity with victims of racial injustice.

    Now, they appear to have stopped, which prompted us to research the decline.

    Initial widespread support

    Following the intense public debate over the appropriateness of Kaepernick’s act, the ritual quickly spread worldwide, with athletes in major soccer leagues, cricket, rugby, Formula 1, top-tier tennis and the US’s Major League Baseball and National Basketball Association taking a knee.

    Athletes didn’t always kneel during national anthems, with the majority kneeling at certain points pre-game.

    Despite the occasional “defection” of a small number of players who would stand while their teammates knelt – such as Israel Folau in rugby league, Wilfried Zaha in soccer and Quinton de Kock in cricket – the ritual was widely embraced by teams and athletes and helped raise awareness of the issue.

    Even major sports organisations notorious for prohibiting any type of political activism generally accepted the kneeling ritual. For example, soccer’s International Football Federation (FIFA) showcased kneeling as a “stand against discrimination” and as human rights advocacy.

    The International Olympic Committee (IOC) initially stood firm by its Rule 50, which states “no kind of demonstration or political, religious, or racial propaganda is permitted in any Olympic sites, venues or other areas”.

    But just three weeks before the 2021 Olympic and Paralympic Games in Tokyo, the IOC relaxed its interpretation, and athletes were permitted to express their views in ways that included taking a knee.

    A surprising turn of events

    Despite permission and even encouragement from sports governing bodies, our research shows the practice is disappearing from major sports competitions.

    Take soccer, for example. At the FIFA World Cup 2022, England and Wales were the only national teams that knelt at their games in Qatar.

    At the FIFA Women’s World Cup 2023 in Australia and New Zealand, no teams or players knelt.

    The same happened at the 2024 Olympic soccer tournament in Paris.

    That only a handful of teams knelt in Tokyo at the 2021 Olympics, two at the FIFA Mens’ World Cup in Qatar in 2022, none at the FIFA Womens’ World Cup in Australia and New Zealand in 2023, and again none at the Paris 2024 Olympics indicates a growing reluctance throughout the sports world.

    This surely cannot mean athletes have become indifferent to racial injustice or other forms of oppression in the interval between the late 2010s and the mid-2020s.

    The explanation must be sought elsewhere. A hint was provided when Crystal Palace soccer player Zaha, the first player of colour in the UK who refused to kneel, explained:

    I feel like taking the knee is degrading, because growing up my parents just let me know that I should be proud to be Black no matter what and I feel like we should just stand tall.

    The explanation may therefore be, at least in part, the players’ uncomfortable feelings related to the kneeling posture.

    In sociology, this bothersome state of mind is called “cognitive dissonance”: the mental conflict a person experiences in the presence of contrasting beliefs.

    A history of kneeling

    The body posture of kneeling is not deemed, in any culture, as expressing solidarity.

    Ancient Greek and the Roman societies, on whose values Western civilisation was built, rejected kneeling as improper, even when praying to gods.

    Then, with the spread of Christianity in the Western world, kneeling became widely used, but only as an act of worship, confessing guilt, or praying for mercy.

    When performed outside the church, kneeling meant submission to nobility or royalty.

    The significance of kneeling as humility is not limited to the Western world.

    In African tribal culture, the young kneel in front of elders, and everyone kneels before the king.

    In China in 1949, Chairman Mao famously proclaimed at the first plenary of the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference:

    From now on our nation […] will no longer be a nation subject to insult and humiliation. We have stood up.

    With this in mind, kneeling may be deemed unfit at sporting events, which often feature a powerful cocktail of emotions, values and social expectations.

    The inconsistency between the excitement of competition and the expectation to kneel — a gesture associated with submission and humility — likely creates a bothersome state of mind for athletes.

    This potentially motivates some players to reject one of the two – in this case, the kneeling – to restore cognitive harmony.

    What could replace the kneeling ritual?

    After refusing, by unanimous players’ vote, to take a knee before their October 2020 game against the All Blacks, the Australian rugby union team chose instead to wear a First Nations jersey.

    The same year, several teams in German soccer’s top league chose to show their support for Black Lives Matter by wearing distinctive armbands.

    So it appears wearing a distinctive jersey or at least an armband is more easily accepted by modern-day athletes. This may be challenging given the governing bodies of many sports, such as FIFA, ban athletes from wearing political symbols on their clothing.

    Depending on whether sports code accept this type of activism in the future, wearing suportive clothing could replace taking a knee as symbolic communication of solidarity with oppressed minorities.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why have athletes stopped ‘taking a knee’? – https://theconversation.com/why-have-athletes-stopped-taking-a-knee-259047

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How social media is changing the game for athletes

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Elyse Gorrell, PhD, CMPC, Brock University

    A landmark multibillion-dollar legal settlement is set to transform the landscape of college sports in the United States. A court recently approved the House v. NCAA settlement, requiring the NCAA (the National Collegiate Athletic Association) to pay nearly US$2.8 billion in damages over the next 10 years to athletes who competed from 2016 through to the present day.

    The settlement opens the door for college athletes to earn a share of revenue moving forward, marking a shift away from the traditional ideals of amateurism in sport.

    Amateurism was traditionally defined as the notion of athletes playing sport for the love of it rather than for financial reasons. Historically, it was created by upper-class elite groups as a way to exclude others. Today, its definition continues to be contested, especially since many athletes have been exploited by amateurism.

    The concept of NIL (name, image and likeness) has only exacerbated this by encouraging athletes to promote themselves on social media. Some sport organizations now even factor social media presence into recruitment decisions.

    These developments raise key questions: should we be treating athletes as brands? And what are the consequences of doing so, both on and off the field?

    Social media and the modern athlete

    Social media offers a way for athletes to build a community of followers, share and discuss their personal lives, and interact with fans.

    For many athletes, social media platforms have become tools for building a personal brand and differentiating themselves from other competitors and ultimately having more control over their public image. In turn, social media can allow them to seek out sponsorships and endorsement deals.

    However, research also shows there are negative side-effects of social media use. It also exposes athletes to public scrutiny and online abuse from fans, and can lead to effects similar to cyber-bullying.

    One study of NCAA Division I athletes found that maintaining a polished image on Twitter lead student-athletes to censor themselves to uphold a certain image, which stifled their self-expression. Athletes also reported that social media affected their concentration and raised performance anxiety due to pressure to perform well or face negative critiques.

    Other research has found that platforms like Facebook can distract athletes from optimal mental preparation. The pressure to manage and maintain a personal brand can result in some athletes prioritizing online presence over performance. Constant exposure to competitors’ content can also heighten stress and insecurity.

    My master’s thesis found that social media, and the way athletes use it, influences self-efficacy in combat sport athletes. I found that what athletes see online can disrupt their belief in their own abilities, sometimes more than their actual experience in sport.

    Impact on youth athletes

    My PhD research found that many athletes are unaware of how social media affects their mental game and performance. There’s even less information about how social media impacts youth athletes.

    Elite athletes already face a unique set of pressures: rigorous training schedules, limited leisure time, injury risks, competition pressure and the pursuit of scholarships or team placements. For young athletes, these challenges are layered on top of the developmental process of forming a sense of self. Social media now plays a central role in this development.

    For youth athletes, athletic identity becomes a major part of this process. It shapes how they think, feel, behave and relate to others through their connection to sport.

    But there is a complex relationship between social media and adolescent psychosocial development. Excessive or problematic social media use can negatively impact mental health and well-being, increasing risk of depression, low self-esteem, harassment and burnout.

    Despite these risks, there is limited social media training for athletes, and many are unaware of the effects social media use has on their performance.

    Coaches see the impact

    Since social media is now a constant part of athletes’ lives, understanding how coaches view it is essential. Research shows coaches are often more aware of how social media impacts their athletes’ performance and engagement. Many see it as a growing challenge.

    For my PhD thesis, which was later published as a peer-reviewed paper, I interviewed six high-performance coaches across a range of sports to understand their perspectives of athletes’ social media use.

    Many of the coaches I interviewed expressed concern that social media places too much emphasis on results and encourages constant comparison with others.

    They felt the instant feedback loop introduced too many voices that competed with their own, making it harder for athletes to focus on performance goals and training. Many of the coaches also believed athletes could become overly concerned with their public image and how they are perceived.

    What role should coaches play?

    Current recommendations for coaches recognize that an outright ban of social media and technology use for athletes is outdated and unrealistic. Athletes, especially younger ones, are digital natives.

    Instead, coaches are encouraged to adapt their methods to better align with the generation they are working with. But there aren’t many resources tailored for this purpose.

    What’s needed are tools to help coaches engage with their athletes and help them understand how social media influences their mental performance and well-being. Resources need to go beyond helping coaches use technology to providing them with information on how to communicate with their athletes safely or protect them from liability.

    In addition, trust between coaches and athletes has been strained in some cases by problematic social media-related incidents. For example, one study found that Snapchat has been used by coach perpetrators to sexually abuse their athletes by overcoming internal inhibitions, avoiding external barriers and breaking down victim resistance.

    Rather than focusing on controlling what athletes post on social media, organizations should educate athletes on the way social media might affect them while they are using it. This starts with awareness.

    Navigating the realities of social media

    The American Psychological Association offers general guidelines for recognizing problematic social media use in youth. While these recommendations provide a useful starting point, athletes face a unique set of challenges.

    Unlike their peers, many athletes are encouraged to use social media to brand themselves. Because of this, they need to understand how to balance healthy engagement and harmful overuse.

    At the same time, coaches also need better education. There must be a spectrum between coaches who don’t want anything to do with social media at all and coaches who are overly involved in their athlete’s social media.

    Coaching resources need to be created to address this. They should be accessible, and provide effective and appropriate assistance that aligns with, and supports, individual coaching methods. A one-size-fits-all solution is unlikely to be effective.

    Social media is here to stay, and both athletes and coaches need the tools to help them navigate it well.

    Elyse Gorrell does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. How social media is changing the game for athletes – https://theconversation.com/how-social-media-is-changing-the-game-for-athletes-258887

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Craig Mark, Adjunct Lecturer, Faculty of Economics, Hosei University

    Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has sent a clear signal to the Trump administration: the Japan–US relationship is in a dire state.

    After saying just days ago he would be attending this week’s NATO summit at The Hague, Ishiba abruptly pulled out at the last minute.

    He joins two other leaders from the Indo-Pacific region, Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and South Korean President Lee Jae-myung, in skipping the summit.

    The Japanese media reported Ishiba cancelled the trip because a bilateral meeting with US President Donald Trump was unlikely, as was a meeting of the Indo-Pacific Four (IP4) NATO partners (Australia, New Zealand, South Korea and Japan).

    Japan will still be represented by Foreign Minister Takeshi Iwaya, showing its desire to strengthen its security relationship with NATO.

    However, Ishiba’s no-show reveals how Japan views its relationship with the Trump administration, following the severe tariffs Washington imposed on Japan and Trump’s mixed messages on the countries’ decades-long military alliance.

    Tariffs and diplomatic disagreements

    Trump’s tariff policy is at the core of the divide between the US and Japan.

    Ishiba attempted to get relations with the Trump administration off to a good start. He was the second world leader to visit Trump at the White House, after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

    However, Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs imposed a punitive rate of 25% on Japanese cars and 24% on all other Japanese imports. They are already having an adverse impact on Japan’s economy: exports of automobiles to the US dropped in May by 25% compared to a year ago.

    Six rounds of negotiations have made little progress, as Ishiba’s government insists on full tariff exemptions.

    Japan has been under pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defence spending, as well. According to the Financial Times, Tokyo cancelled a summit between US and Japanese defence and foreign ministers over the demand. (A Japanese official denied the report.)

    Japan also did not offer its full support to the US bombings of Iran’s nuclear facilities earlier this week. The foreign minister instead said Japan “understands” the US’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

    Japan has traditionally had fairly good relations with Iran, often acting as an indirect bridge with the West. Former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe even made a visit there in 2019.

    Japan also remains heavily dependent on oil from the Middle East. It would have been adversely affected if the Strait of Hormuz had been blocked, as Iran was threatening to do.

    Unlike the response from the UK and Australia, which both supported the strikes, the Ishiba government prioritised its commitment to upholding international law and the rules-based global order. In doing so, Japan seeks to deny China, Russia and North Korea any leeway to similarly erode global norms on the use of force and territorial aggression.

    Strategic dilemma of the Japan–US military alliance

    In addition, Japan is facing the same dilemma as other American allies – how to manage relations with the “America first” Trump administration, which has made the US an unreliable ally.

    Earlier this year, Trump criticised the decades-old security alliance between the US and Japan, calling it “one-sided”.

    “If we’re ever attacked, they don’t have to do a thing to protect us,” he said of Japan.

    Lower-level security cooperation is ongoing between the two allies and their regional partners. The US, Japanese and Philippine Coast Guards conducted drills in Japanese waters this week. The US military may also assist with upgrading Japan’s counterstrike missile capabilities.

    But Japan is still likely to continue expanding its security ties with partners beyond the US, such as NATO, the European Union, India, the Philippines, Vietnam and other ASEAN members, while maintaining its fragile rapprochement with South Korea.

    Australia is now arguably Japan’s most reliable security partner. Canberra is considering buying Japan’s Mogami-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy. And if the AUKUS agreement with the US and UK collapses, Japanese submarines could be a replacement.

    Ishiba under domestic political pressure

    There are also intensifying domestic political pressures on Ishiba to hold firm against Trump, who is deeply unpopular among the Japanese public.

    After replacing former prime minister Fumio Kishida as leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) last September, the party lost its majority in the lower house of parliament in snap elections. This made it dependent on minor parties for legislative support.

    Ishiba’s minority government has struggled ever since with poor opinion polling. There has been widespread discontent with inflation, the high cost of living and stagnant wages, the legacy of LDP political scandals, and ever-worsening geopolitical uncertainty.

    On Sunday, the party suffered its worst-ever result in elections for the Tokyo Metropolitan Assembly, winning its lowest number of seats.

    The party could face a similar drubbing in the election for half of the upper house of the Diet (Japan’s parliament) on July 20. Ishiba has pledged to maintain the LDP’s majority in the house with its junior coalition partner Komeito. But if the government falls into minority status in both houses, Ishiba will face heavy pressure to step down.

    Craig Mark does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Japanese prime minister’s abrupt no-show at NATO summit reveals a strained alliance with the US – https://theconversation.com/japanese-prime-ministers-abrupt-no-show-at-nato-summit-reveals-a-strained-alliance-with-the-us-259694

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: What’s the difference between an eating disorder and disordered eating?

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gemma Sharp, Researcher in Body Image, Eating and Weight Disorders, Monash University

    PIKSEL/Getty

    Following a particular diet or exercising a great deal are common and even encouraged in our health and image-conscious culture. With increased awareness of food allergies and other dietary requirements, it’s also not uncommon for someone to restrict or eliminate certain foods.

    But these behaviours may also be the sign of an unhealthy relationship with food. You can have a problematic pattern of eating without being diagnosed with an eating disorder.

    So, where’s the line? What is disordered eating, and what is an eating disorder?

    What is disordered eating?

    Disordered eating describes negative attitudes and behaviours towards food and eating that can lead to a disturbed eating pattern.

    It can involve:

    • dieting

    • skipping meals

    • avoiding certain food groups

    • binge eating

    • misusing laxatives and weight-loss medications

    • inducing vomiting (sometimes known as purging)

    • exercising compulsively.

    Disordered eating is the term used when these behaviours are not frequent and/or severe enough to meet an eating disorder diagnosis.

    Not everyone who engages in these behaviours will develop an eating disorder. But disordered eating – particularly dieting – usually precedes an eating disorder.

    What is an eating disorder?

    Eating disorders are complex psychiatric illnesses that can negatively affect a person’s body, mind and social life. They’re characterised by persistent disturbances in how someone thinks, feels and behaves around eating and their bodies.

    To make a diagnosis, a qualified health professional will use a combination of standardised questionnaires, as well as more general questioning. These will determine how frequent and severe the behaviours are, and how they affect day-to-day functioning.

    Examples of clinical diagnoses include anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, binge eating disorder and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder.

    How common are eating disorders and disordered eating?

    The answer can vary quite radically depending on the study and how it defines disordered behaviours and attitudes.

    An estimated 8.4% of women and 2.2% of men will develop an eating disorder at some point in their lives. This is most common during adolescence.

    Disordered eating is also particularly common in young people with 30% of girls and 17% of boys aged 6–18 years reporting engaging in these behaviours.

    Although the research is still emerging, it appears disordered eating and eating disorders are even more common in gender diverse people.

    Can we prevent eating disorders?

    There is some evidence eating disorder prevention programs that target risk factors – such as dieting and concerns about shape and weight – can be effective to some extent in the short term.

    The issue is most of these studies last only a few months. So we can’t determine whether the people involved went on to develop an eating disorder in the longer term.

    In addition, most studies have involved girls or women in late high school and university. By this age, eating disorders have usually already emerged. So, this research cannot tell us as much about eating disorder prevention and it also neglects the wide range of people at risk of eating disorders.

    Is orthorexia an eating disorder?

    In defining the line between eating disorders and disordered eating, orthorexia nervosa is a contentious issue.

    The name literally means “proper appetite” and involves a pathological obsession with proper nutrition, characterised by a restrictive diet and rigidly avoiding foods believed to be “unhealthy” or “impure”.

    These disordered eating behaviours need to be taken seriously as they can lead to malnourishment, loss of relationships, and overall poor quality of life.

    However, orthorexia nervosa is not an official eating disorder in any diagnostic manual.

    Additionally, with the popularity of special diets (such as keto or paleo), time-restricted eating, and dietary requirements (for example, gluten-free) it can sometimes be hard to decipher when concerns about diet have become disordered, or may even be an eating disorder.

    For example, around 6% of people have a food allergy. Emerging evidence suggests they are also more likely to have restrictive types of eating disorders, such as anorexia nervosa and avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder.

    However, following a special diet such as veganism, or having a food allergy, does not automatically lead to disordered eating or an eating disorder.

    It is important to recognise people’s different motivations for eating or avoiding certain foods. For example, a vegan may restrict certain food groups due to animal rights concerns, rather than disordered eating symptoms.

    What to look out for

    If you’re concerned about your own relationship with food or that of a loved one, here are some signs to look out for:

    • preoccupation with food and food preparation

    • cutting out food groups or skipping meals entirely

    • obsession with body weight or shape

    • large fluctuations in weight

    • compulsive exercise

    • mood changes and social withdrawal.

    It’s always best to seek help early. But it is never too late to seek help.

    In Australia, if you are experiencing difficulties in your relationships with food and your body, you can contact the Butterfly Foundation’s national helpline on 1800 33 4673 (or via their online chat).

    For parents concerned their child might be developing concerning relationships with food, weight and body image, Feed Your Instinct highlights common warning signs, provides useful information about help seeking and can generate a personalised report to take to a health professional.

    Gemma Sharp receives funding from an NHMRC Investigator Grant. She is a Professor and the Founding Director and Member of the Consortium for Research in Eating Disorders, a registered charity.

    – ref. What’s the difference between an eating disorder and disordered eating? – https://theconversation.com/whats-the-difference-between-an-eating-disorder-and-disordered-eating-256787

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Canada Day: Symbols take centre stage in debates about Canadian nationalism

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Paul Hamilton, Associate Professor of Political Science, Brock University

    The recent resurgence of Canadian nationalism is a response to explicit threats made by United States President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly expressed his desire to make Canada the 51st American state.

    Canadian flag sales have skyrocketed, informal and formal boycotts of American goods are continuing and Canadians are being urged to stay home and spend their vacation dollars domestically. Even in Québec, pro-Canadian sentiments are evident. Canadian nationalism is back.



    Read more:
    Is Trump’s assault on Canada bringing Québec and the rest of the country closer together?

    Yet only a decade ago, the newly elected Justin Trudeau labelled Canada the first “post-national nation” in an interview with The New York Times. In essence, the prime minister suggested, Canada was moving beyond nationalism to some new phase of social identity. Nationalism, like a step in the launch of a spacecraft, would be jettisoned now that it was a vestigial and outdated feature of Canadian society.

    As we argue in a recently presented paper to be published soon, Canadians are nowhere near either a homogeneous, popularly held identity, nor are they “beyond nationalism” as if it were an outdated hairstyle.

    Instead, Canadian steps toward a united, widely held nationalism continue to be stymied by both substantial constitutional issues (Québec, western alienation, Indigenous aspirations to self-determination) but also by battles over banal symbols of national identity. Canadians are, in the words of journalist Ian Brown, “a unity of contradictions.”

    The importance of symbols

    In his influential book, Banal Nationalism, British social science scholar Michael Billig highlighted the role of symbols like stamps, currency and flags to identify barely noticed transmitters of national consciousness.

    Writing in 1995, at a time of ethnic nationalist resurgence in the former Yugoslavia, Billig contrasted the understated, reserved nationalism of citizens of established states like Canada with the dangerous, passionate expressions of nationalism in the Balkans.

    This genteel nationalism is barely noticed much of the time, but proposals to alter national symbols arouse debate — like during the great Canadian flag debate of the mid-1960s — and expose deep emotional attachments. Canadians, too, are nationalists.

    But they’re also citizens of a liberal democracy where nationalistic narratives compete to define and unite the nation. Societies evolve and generational change can lead to new symbols reflecting changing values. The historical episodes of discontent pertaining to national symbols show how Canadian society has evolved since its drift away from Britain after the Second World War.

    During the flag debate, Liberal Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson said Canada needed a new flag that would present a united nation rather than a confusing amalgamation of different people. Conservative Leader John Diefenbaker, on the other hand, argued Canada should be “all Canadian and all British” during the debate, adding that any Canadian who disagreed should “be denounced.”

    The leaders could not agree, with Diefenbaker opting for something like the status quo and Pearson for a complete redesign that would represent all Canadians, regardless of national heritage. In a 1964 La Presse article on the debate, columnist Guy Cormier crudely voiced Québec’s concerns that Pearson’s handling of the flag debate was an attempt to “artificially inseminate” his agenda on the province. The Philadelphia Evening Bulletin reported on the debate, declaring that “tinkering with a nation’s flag is sort of like playing volleyball with a hornets nest.”

    Mountie symbolism

    As Canada became increasingly more multicultural in the 1980s, another symbol became the centre of controversy. A Sikh entering the RCMP wanted to be able to wear a turban instead of the traditional Stetson.

    Despite government and RCMP support, public opinion was mixed. Racist lapel pins were sold with the message “Keep the RCMP Canadian” as some argued the old uniform should remain and that new recruits should adapt to it.

    While few Canadians knew much about the design and history of the RCMP uniform, almost all Canadians consider it an iconic representation of Canada. Changes to it represent a threat to some, inclusion for others.

    Changes to the anthem, passport

    Changes to O Canada, the national anthem, have been proposed over the past decades. Recently, a more inclusive version was drafted, changing “in all thy sons command” to “all of us command.”

    Conservative MPs and some television pundits argued the change wasn’t necessary and the anthem doesn’t belong to a political party. Opponents argued that most people aren’t offended by the anthem’s lyrics, the anthem wasn’t broken and was not in need of fixing. Ultimately, the change was made, with great praise from some and vexation from others.

    Removing images of the late Terry Fox in 2023 from the Canadian passport, a document few think about until checking its expiry date before a vacation, caused significant uproar.

    Other images from Canadian history were also removed, but Fox’s removal was most notable since he was someone most Canadians consider the embodiment of a Canadian hero.

    The response to these changes ranged from mild — with those arguing that Canada needs more Terry Fox, not less, — to furious, as some accused Trudeau of being out of touch with Canadians and a “fault finder-in-chief.”

    Far from trivial, these arguments over national symbols reveal how deeply some Canadians are attached to them. The nature of Canadian identity and nationalism will continue to be dated and contested. In that respect, Canadians are no different than the citizens of any other country.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Canada Day: Symbols take centre stage in debates about Canadian nationalism – https://theconversation.com/canada-day-symbols-take-centre-stage-in-debates-about-canadian-nationalism-259847

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Geoff Beattie, Professor of Psychology, Edge Hill University

    Donald Trump’s latest forthright outburst was made as part of his attempts to create a peace deal with Iran and Israel. “I’m not happy with Israel,” he told reporters on June 24. “We basically have two countries that have been fighting so long and so hard that they don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.”

    This came a day after Trump had announced a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. By the next day, the ceasefire had been violated by both Iran and Israel. Trump was clearly furious, and his language showed it.

    This was not a verbal slip – there was no immediate correction, no apology, no nonverbal indication of embarrassment. He just stormed off, clearly angry.

    This is not the kind of language that is normally associated with a president. Some have been reported to use the f-word before, but usually behind closed doors.

    Donald Trump uses the f-word in a press conference.

    We expect presidents to be calm, measured, thoughtful, considered. Trump’s comment was none of these things. Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th US president, once recommended a foreign policy strategy that was based on speaking softly and carrying a big stick. He was suggesting quiet menace, but Trump showed frustration, barely contained. His furious, aggressive response was like something straight out of an old psychology textbook.

    In the 1930s, psychologists developed the frustration-aggression hypothesis to explain how aggressive behaviour can arise. The hypothesis suggested that when a person’s goal is blocked in some way, it leads to frustration, which then results in aggression. Aggression was considered a “natural” way of releasing this unpleasant state of frustration. They were clearly different times.

    Over the next few decades, this hypothesis was thought by most psychologists to be a gross oversimplification of complex human behaviour. It assumed a direct causal relationship between frustration and aggression, ignoring all the other situational and cognitive factors that can intervene.

    Human beings are more complex than that, psychologists argued — they find other ways of dealing with their frustrations. They use their rational system of thought to find solutions. They don’t have to lash out when they’re frustrated in this seemingly primitive way.

    Perhaps, that’s why many people feel shocked when they watch this US president in certain situations. To many of us, it all seems so basic, so unsophisticated, so frightening.

    Fast v slow thinking

    The Nobel laureate and psychologist Daniel Kahneman, in his book Thinking, Fast and Slow (2011), characterised the two systems that underpin everyday decision-making. His work may help with understanding of what’s going on here.

    He describes system one as the evolutionary, basic system. It operates unconsciously, automatically and very quickly, handling everyday tasks like reading other people’s emotions, without any effort. It is an intuitive system designed to work in a world full of approach and avoidance, scary animals and friendly animals. It is heavily reliant on affect to guide decision-making.

    In contrast, system two is slower, more deliberative. It requires conscious effort and is used for complex thinking, solving difficult problems, or making careful decisions.

    The relationship between the two systems is critical, and that may get us thinking about Trump in more detail.

    Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.

    Kahneman says that system one is a bit of a “workaholic”, beavering away all the time, making “suggestions” for system two to endorse. Good decisions – depend upon system two checking the suggestions of system one. But system one often jumps quickly and unconsciously to certain conclusions. System two should check them, but often doesn’t, even when it would be easy.

    Here is a well-known example. Answer the following question: “A bat and ball cost one pound ten pence, the bat costs one pound more than the ball. How much does the ball cost?”

    One answer looks blatantly obvious – but it isn’t correct. The correct answer (after a bit of thought) is five pence.

    About 80% of university students give the very quick and incorrect answer of ten pence because it “looks” right. Their system two never checked.

    In many people, it seems system two is not used nearly enough. There are striking individual differences in the way that people rely on emotion and gut instinct versus the rational system in making decisions.

    Emotional decisions?

    It appears that Trump makes decisions very quickly (classic system one), often without extensive deliberation or consultation with advisers. Both in his presidency and in his business career, he seemed to prioritise immediate action over any sort of prolonged and thoughtful analysis. That’s why he changes his mind so often.

    His decisions seem to be driven by strong emotions. His response to events, opponents and issues are often passionate and visceral. This could lead to to decisions being unduly influenced by personal feelings, first impressions based on arbitrary cues, and interpersonal perceptions, rather than anything more substantial.

    Trump’s style of decision-making emphasises immediacy and emotional conviction, which can be effective in rallying supporters and creating a sense of decisiveness. However, it also can lead to unpredictable outcomes and, as has been seen again and again, somewhat controversial, impulsive actions.

    Many suggest that Trump’s decision-making style reflects his background in the high-pressure and high-stakes world of business, where quick judgements and gut instinct can be advantageous in these sorts of competitive winner-takes-all environments

    But the world at war is a more precarious place, where system one needs to be kept more firmly in check. Gut instincts may have a role to play, but that old lazy system two needs to be more vigilant. Especially, it would seem, in Trump’s case.

    This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.

    Geoff Beattie does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Trump’s f-bomb: a psychologist explains why the president makes fast and furious statements – https://theconversation.com/trumps-f-bomb-a-psychologist-explains-why-the-president-makes-fast-and-furious-statements-259735

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: I analyzed more than 100 extremist manifestos: Misogyny was the common thread

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Karmvir K. Padda, Researcher and PhD Candidate, Sociology, University of Waterloo

    Two years have passed since a 24-year-old former student walked into a gender studies classroom at the University of Waterloo and stabbed the professor and two students.

    The attack left the campus shaken and sparked national outrage. Many saw the attack as a shocking but isolated act of violence. But a close analysis of his 223-word manifesto reveals much more.

    What emerges is a chilling picture of how deep-seated misogyny, disguised as grievance and moral outrage, can escalate ideological violence. Though short, the manifesto is saturated with anti-feminist, conspiratorial rhetoric.

    As a researcher looking at digital extremism and gender-based violence, I’ve analyzed more than 100 manifestos written by people who carried out mass shootings, stabbings, vehicular attacks and other acts of ideologically, politically and religiously motivated violent extremism in Canada, the United States and beyond.

    These attackers may not belong to formal terrorist organizations, but their writings reveal consistent ideological patterns. Among them, one stands out: misogyny.

    Misogyny is the ‘gateway drug’

    The Waterloo case is not unique. In fact, it mirrors a growing number of violent incidents where gender-based hate plays a central role. Reports by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and Public Safety Canada show misogynist extremism is rising in Canada. It’s often entangled with white nationalism, anti-LGBTQ+ hate and anti-government sentiment.

    According to political sociologist Yasmin Wong, misogyny now acts as a “gateway drug” to broader extremist ideologies. This is particularly true in digital spaces where hate and grievance are cultivated algorithmically.

    In my analysis of manifestos collected from 1966 to 2025, gender identity-driven violence appeared in nearly 40 per cent of them. These violent beliefs were either the primary or a significant secondary motivation for the attack. This includes direct expressions of hatred toward women, trans and queer people and references to feminist or LGBTQ+ movements.

    ‘Salad bar’extremism

    The Waterloo attacker did not explicitly identify as an “incel” (involuntary celibate), but the language in his manifesto closely echoes those found in incel and broader manosphere discourse. Feminism is portrayed as dangerous, gender studies as ideological indoctrination and universities as battlegrounds in a supposed culture war.

    The Waterloo attacker destroyed a Pride flag during the attack, referred to the professor he targeted as a “Marxist,” and told police he hoped his actions would serve as a “wake-up call.”

    At one point, he praised leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Canadian far-right politician Maxime Bernier as “based Chads.” “Based Chads” is a slang term used in online extremist communities to glorify or refer to dominant and assertive males.

    Alongside anti-feminist messaging, the attacker’s writing echoes common far-right narratives: fear of “cultural Marxism,” disdain for liberal elites, and the belief that violence is necessary to awaken the public. He referenced prior mass attacks, including the 2011 Norway massacre and the 2019 Christchurch mosque shooting. These two incidents are frequently celebrated in far-right spaces.

    These references place him within a transnational digital subculture where misogyny, white supremacy and ideological violence are valourized.

    It reflects what researchers described as “salad bar extremism”: a mix-and-match worldview where misogyny is blended with white nationalism, anti-government sentiment and conspiratorial thinking to justify violence.

    Manifestos rationalize violence

    The authors of manifestos are frequently dismissed as “nutters” — demented or socially unstable people.

    But the manifestos are valuable documents for understanding how ideology works. They show how people rationalize violence, where their ideas come from and how they see themselves as political entities. They also reveal the role of digital communities in shaping those beliefs.

    Researchers can use them to map ideological ecosystems and identify patterns. These analyses can inform prevention strategies.

    The Waterloo manifesto is no exception. It draws from a familiar ideological playbook — one that dehumanizes feminists, academics and LGBTQ+ people while portraying violence as both righteous and necessary.

    These are not isolated ideas; they are symptoms of a wider digital ecosystem of online hate and ideological grooming.



    Read more:
    The stabbing attack at the University of Waterloo underscores the dangers of polarizing rhetoric about gender

    Deliberate, ideologically motivated attacks

    While a psychological assessment of the attacker raised questions about a psychotic break, there was no clinical diagnosis of psychosis. His actions — planning the attack, writing and posting a manifesto, selecting a specific target — were deliberate and ideologically motivated.

    Yet the terrorism charge brought against him by federal prosecutors was ultimately dropped. The judge ruled his beliefs were “too scattered and disparate” to constitute a coherent ideology.

    But his manifesto shared language and ideological frameworks recognizable across incel, anti-feminist and far-right communities. The idea that this doesn’t constitute “ideology” reflects how outdated our legal and policy frameworks have become.

    Confronting ongoing danger

    Two years on, we remember the victims of the Waterloo attack. We must also confront the larger danger the attack represents.

    Misogyny is not just a cultural or emotional problem. Instead, it increasingly functions as an ideological gateway, connecting personal grievance with broader calls for violent extremism.

    In this era of rising lone-actor violence, it is one of the most consistent and dangerous drivers of extremism.

    If we continue to treat gender-based hate as peripheral or personal, we will keep misunderstanding the nature of violent radicalization in Canada. We must name this threat and take it seriously, because that’s the only way to prepare for what’s coming next.

    Karmvir K. Padda receives research funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council

    – ref. I analyzed more than 100 extremist manifestos: Misogyny was the common thread – https://theconversation.com/i-analyzed-more-than-100-extremist-manifestos-misogyny-was-the-common-thread-259347

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-Evening Report: The rising rate of type 2 diabetes in young New Zealanders is becoming a health crisis

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Lynne Chepulis, Associate Professor, Health Sciences, University of Waikato

    vadimguzhva/Getty Images

    No longer just a condition of middle age, type 2 diabetes is increasingly affecting children, teenagers and young adults in New Zealand. And our health system is nowhere near ready to manage this surge.

    Type 2 diabetes is a condition where the body stops properly using insulin, the hormone that helps control blood glucose. Glucose then builds up in the blood. Over time, that can damage the heart, kidneys, eyes, nerves and more.

    This condition is more aggressive in young people. It progresses faster, causes complications earlier, and is harder to manage, often due to the accumulation of damage across their lifetime. People with young-onset type 2 diabetes also tend to die earlier than those diagnosed later in life.

    Our research looks at who has been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes across the Waikato and Auckland regions of New Zealand. From a dataset of more than 65,000 people with type 2 diabetes, 1,198 were aged under 25 years.

    More than a quarter of people (28.0%) with diabetes under the age of 25 had type 2 diabetes (the rest mostly have type 1 diabetes – an unrelated autoimmune condition), up from less than 5% of this age group 20 years ago.

    Further, only one in four young people with type 2 diabetes meet their blood glucose (HbA1c) targets, meaning a higher need for more doctor visits, more medication, and more chance of serious problems later on.

    This rise in under 25s with type 2 diabetes has been flagged in recent years, but our research gives a clear picture of just how worrying the trend is.

    Even though all young people with diabetes have access to specialist care, healthcare access remains challenging for many, particularly Māori and Pacific communities which are disproportionately affected.

    And the pressure isn’t just on patients – it’s on the entire health system.

    Young people with type 2 diabetes may need care, medication and effective treatment plans for the rest of their lives. That means higher costs for general practice, increased demand on diabetes clinics, and a growing strain on hospitals and emergency services.

    There are also rising wellbeing costs associated with young-onset type 2 diabetes. These young people often miss school or work. They struggle with the emotional toll of living with a chronic illness. Some lose trust in a health system that doesn’t always meet their needs, and for some it feels like the start of a long, unsupported journey.

    Addressing the deeper causes

    There’s no one cause for young-onset type 2 diabetes. Obesity is a huge factor. Nearly 90% of young people in our research were overweight or obese, and childhood obesity has been rising in New Zealand for years.

    Poverty plays a big role, too. It’s harder for families with less money to buy healthy food or get access to regular healthcare.

    Health inequality in New Zealand also matters. Type 2 diabetes can be inter-generational and children born to mothers with diabetes are at a much higher risk of developing the disease.

    Opportunities to turn this rising tide exist, but it needs a multi-pronged approach. That starts with addressing child poverty, making healthy food affordable and accessible, and making sure families have the support they need.

    Patients need to be well-supported right from their time of diagnosis.

    This means culturally respectful care, better access to medications and tech and making sure no one is left behind just because of their postcode or their background.

    Managing type 2 diabetes in young people is also not the same as managing it in older adults. Clinicians need appropriate support to provide integrated care, including resources and programmes that are age appropriate.

    Ideally, we also need to screen and detect those at high risk early on.

    Young-onset type 2 diabetes screening programmes have been effective in other countries such as the United States but are not yet widespread in New Zealand.

    Timely screening of at-risk asymptomatic young people could catch type 2 diabetes early, delaying or even preventing serious complications. Yet right now, many young people are being diagnosed late.

    The increase in type 2 diabetes in young people demands serious investment, coordinated effort and long-term commitment. With better detection, smarter treatment plans, and a stronger, more connected health system, the problem can be addressed.

    Lynne Chepulis receives funding from the Health Research Council of New Zealand.

    – ref. The rising rate of type 2 diabetes in young New Zealanders is becoming a health crisis – https://theconversation.com/the-rising-rate-of-type-2-diabetes-in-young-new-zealanders-is-becoming-a-health-crisis-259978

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Sexy K-pop demons, a human lie detector and shearers on strike: what to watch in July

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Mickel, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology

    Tomorrow marks exactly halfway through 2025. Luckily there’s a suite of streaming options to help get you through the mid-year bump.

    We’ve got iconic classics celebrating major anniversaries, as well as an animated K-Pop spectacle, and a documentary trawling through the controversial tenure of former Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

    Joh: Last King of Queensland

    Stan

    The new documentary film Joh: Last King of Queensland offers a dramatised account of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s premiership from 1968 to 1987.

    Directed by Kriv Stenders, using reenactments (Bjelke-Petersen is played by Richard Roxburgh), archival footage and contemporary interviews, the film portrays him as a complex and polarising figure. Roxburgh highlights Bjelke-Petersen’s rhetorical simplicity. He presented himself as an advocate for “ordinary” Queenslanders, especially in rural and conservative communities.

    We are given a man who is socially conservative, economically ambitious and politically divisive. A man who profoundly shaped Queensland’s governance and development. But while the film effectively captures his popular appeal and role in the state’s economic transformation, it simplifies key aspects of his political ascent.

    In particular, it doesn’t capture the complexities of electoral mechanics, internal party manoeuvring and the influence of the public service.

    Bjelke-Petersen’s legacy continues to polarise. To supporters, he remains a visionary who championed economic growth and conservative values. To critics, he presided over an era of democratic erosion, civil rights suppression and entrenched corruption.

    His story reflects the enduring tension between executive authority and democratic accountability in modern Australian political history.

    – John Mickel



    Read more:
    Joh: Last King of Queensland captures Bjelke-Petersen’s political persona – but omits key details of the story

    Jaws

    Various platforms

    Steven Spielberg’s Jaws, released 50 years ago, was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.

    Chief of Police Martin Brody has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife and two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.

    The mayor insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper insist on joining the expedition to save the island.

    Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.

    With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half. Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music.

    Jaws is now a cinema classic.

    It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.

    – Will Jeffery



    Read more:
    Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work

    KPop Demon Hunters

    Netflix

    KPop Demon Hunters is an animated movie that follows a Korean girl band, Huntrix, whose members happen to be covert demon hunters. Their songs and slays have the power to maintain the barrier between the human world and the underworld (called the “honmoon”).

    Annoyed demon overlord Gwi-ma (voiced by Lee Byong-Hun) greenlights a devilishly sexy boy band, Saja Boys, to steal the girls’ fans (and their souls). The attack proves to be more than a challenge for lead singer, Rumi (Arden Cho), who has a dark secret she’s keeping under wraps.

    For fans of the Spider-Verse films, the animation style will be familiar: a blend of 2D and 3D techniques, with a high-contrast colour palette. KPop Demon Hunters goes an aesthetic step further by adding some distinctive anime touches, such as by using the chibi style, when characters have intense reactions.

    The film also showcases several musical interludes voiced by actual K-pop stars such as EJAE, Kevin Woo, Andrew Choi and Rei Ami – as well as an anthem performed by members of TWICE, famous for their 2016 megahit Cheer Up.

    To older viewers, the success of this watchable yet somewhat predictable flick may be puzzling, but KPop Demon Hunters will resonate with any Gen Zs in the house. After all, it has catchy tunes, jokes that land, female empowerment, epic battle scenes, and a smidge of teen romance.

    There’s also a deeper thematic around the duality of identity, and a message about confronting one’s own demons.

    – Phoebe Hart

    Poker Face, season two

    Stan

    Charlie Cale (Natasha Lyonne) is back for season two of Poker Face. Creator Rian Johnson is clearly a lover of the whodunnit genre. Between Poker Face and the Knives Out films, Johnson continues to pay homage to the format while pushing it into new directions.

    Poker Face takes the format of the inverted detective story, made famous by popular series Columbo (1968–2003), where the episode opens with the killer committing the crime, only for the detective to arrive on the scene.

    The joy of Poker Face lies in the viewer trying to figure out how the detective will catch the killer, while also enjoying comedic allusions to several genres. Charlie Cale has a unique skill in that she can always tell when someone is lying: “bullshit”, she calmly says when someone doesn’t tell the truth.

    Season two continues the show’s all-star cameo lineup from different eras of popular culture. Standouts include Cynthia Erivo in the opening episode, Cheers star Rhea Perlman, Katie Holmes, and Awkwafina accusing Alia Shawkat of sleeping with her grandma to steal a rent-controlled apartment.

    The strongest episode of the season features John Cho and Melanie Lynskey, where Charlie meet a group of scammers at a hotel bar. Cho plays the scammer and Lynskey is his unwitting victim. When Lyonne’s Charlie becomes involved, it becomes a game of who is playing who.

    The episodic format never feels tired, as each mystery’s eccentricities and generic allusions shift in each episode. Natasha Lyonne’s performance anchors the show, allowing for the emotional beats to shift seamlessly, from the sadness of death, to the humour of each ridiculous situation.

    – Stuart Richards

    Sirens

    Netflix

    Much like The Perfect Couple (2024–), or Succession (2018–23), Sirens offers all the guilty pleasures of watching wealthy but dysfunctional families scheme and unravel inside their opulent homes. It contains the usual metamodern mix of irony, plot twists, clever dialogue and dark comedy (with hints of murder) we’ve come to expect from series that rank in Netflix’s top ten.

    However, it’s not quite as binge-worthy or provocative as other shows in this genre. It also drags in the middle. You could probably watch the first episode and the last chapter to follow the narrative and catch all the best scenes.

    Sirens tries to distinguish itself by foregrounding strong female leads, and leaning heavily into its postfeminist take on manipulative women of different ages competing against each other. They’re not fighting over the man (played by Kevin Bacon), so much as his estate and the social capital that comes with it.

    Unlike Poison Ivy and other 90s classics I have explored, Sirens presents a more sympathetic and nuanced portrayal of the sexy, younger class usurper. Simone DeWitt (played by Milly Alcock) is the working-class personal assistant determined to improve her social positioning by any means necessary.

    The series also attempts to elevate itself through images and sounds which reference Greek mythology, with lots of scenes of beautiful women perched precariously on cliff tops, while hapless men are lured in by their haunting high-pitched singing.

    The ambiguous politics of it all will leave you wondering if you, too, have been just as expertly manipulated.

    – Susan Hopkins

    Sunday Too Far Away

    Brollie and ABC iView

    Released 50 years ago, Sunday Too Far Away deals episodically with a group of shearers led by Foley (Jack Thompson), and the events leading up to the national shearers’ strike of 1956.

    The shearers are a ragtag group held together by rum, unionism and competitiveness – as Foley must deal with the camp cook from hell, as well as a threat to his “gun” status.

    Like its contemporary Wake in Fright (1971), Sunday also centres on rural male mateship. But while Wake in Fright is revolted by it, Sunday strives for an elegiac celebration that might have drawn from Henry Lawson, of union-based mateship as the only defence against the harshness of life.

    It is hard to overstate Sunday’s importance for the Australian film industry and for its producer, the South Australian Film Corporation (SAFC), founded in 1972 by the new Labor government. Sunday would be the organisation’s first film, budgeted at $231,000, with the commonwealth providing half this figure. It was a remarkable demonstration of maximum involvement by a state government body.

    Sunday was accepted into the Directors’ Fortnight at Cannes, the first Australian film bestowed the honour, and it went on to win eight of the 12 awards on offer at the Australian Film Institute Awards. The success of Sunday Too Far Away, followed closely by Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) and Storm Boy (1976), succeeded in establishing the SAFC as a prime mover in Australian film.

    – Michael Walsh



    Read more:
    Sunday Too Far Away at 50: how a story about Aussie shearers launched a local film industry

    Michael Walsh is a consultant for the SAFC on its digitisation project. He has previously written a commissioned history for the organisation.

    John Mickel, Phoebe Hart, Stuart Richards, Susan Hopkins, and Will Jeffery do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Sexy K-pop demons, a human lie detector and shearers on strike: what to watch in July – https://theconversation.com/sexy-k-pop-demons-a-human-lie-detector-and-shearers-on-strike-what-to-watch-in-july-259907

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Sexy K-pop demons, a human lie detector and shearers on strike: what to watch in July

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By John Mickel, Adjunct Associate Professor, School of Justice, Queensland University of Technology

    Tomorrow marks exactly halfway through 2025. Luckily there’s a suite of streaming options to help get you through the mid-year bump.

    We’ve got iconic classics celebrating major anniversaries, as well as an animated K-Pop spectacle, and a documentary trawling through the controversial tenure of former Queensland premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen.

    Joh: Last King of Queensland

    Stan

    The new documentary film Joh: Last King of Queensland offers a dramatised account of Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s premiership from 1968 to 1987.

    Directed by Kriv Stenders, using reenactments (Bjelke-Petersen is played by Richard Roxburgh), archival footage and contemporary interviews, the film portrays him as a complex and polarising figure. Roxburgh highlights Bjelke-Petersen’s rhetorical simplicity. He presented himself as an advocate for “ordinary” Queenslanders, especially in rural and conservative communities.

    We are given a man who is socially conservative, economically ambitious and politically divisive. A man who profoundly shaped Queensland’s governance and development. But while the film effectively captures his popular appeal and role in the state’s economic transformation, it simplifies key aspects of his political ascent.

    In particular, it doesn’t capture the complexities of electoral mechanics, internal party manoeuvring and the influence of the public service.

    Bjelke-Petersen’s legacy continues to polarise. To supporters, he remains a visionary who championed economic growth and conservative values. To critics, he presided over an era of democratic erosion, civil rights suppression and entrenched corruption.

    His story reflects the enduring tension between executive authority and democratic accountability in modern Australian political history.

    – John Mickel



    Read more:
    Joh: Last King of Queensland captures Bjelke-Petersen’s political persona – but omits key details of the story

    Jaws

    Various platforms

    Steven Spielberg’s Jaws, released 50 years ago, was the first summer blockbuster, received Academy Awards for sound, editing and music, and became the first film to earn US$100 million at the United States box office.

    Chief of Police Martin Brody has recently moved from New York City to Amity Island with his wife and two children. As the small town prepares for its crucial 4th of July celebrations, a series of shark attacks threatens the festivities – and the town’s summer economy.

    The mayor insists on keeping the beaches open for “summer dollars”. When the shark strikes again, local fisherman Quint is hired to hunt it down. Brody and visiting marine biologist Matt Hooper insist on joining the expedition to save the island.

    Apart from one scene using real underwater shark footage from Australians Ron and Valerie Taylor, the shark was mechanical. The mechanical shark sank … a lot. No wonder Spielberg named the temperamental and unreliable shark after his lawyer.

    With the lack of a functioning shark, Spielberg made the artistic decision – echoing Alfred Hitchcock – to suggest the shark’s presence rather than show it outright in the film’s first half. Even without appearing onscreen, the shark has an overwhelming presence and effect on the audience, thanks to John Williams’ music.

    Jaws is now a cinema classic.

    It launched Spielberg’s illustrious career, scared an entire generation from going into the water, and also inspired a new generation of marine activists – such as myself – who love sharks and the ocean.

    – Will Jeffery



    Read more:
    Jaws at 50: the first summer blockbuster is still a film that bites – even when the shark didn’t work

    KPop Demon Hunters

    Netflix

    KPop Demon Hunters is an animated movie that follows a Korean girl band, Huntrix, whose members happen to be covert demon hunters. Their songs and slays have the power to maintain the barrier between the human world and the underworld (called the “honmoon”).

    Annoyed demon overlord Gwi-ma (voiced by Lee Byong-Hun) greenlights a devilishly sexy boy band, Saja Boys, to steal the girls’ fans (and their souls). The attack proves to be more than a challenge for lead singer, Rumi (Arden Cho), who has a dark secret she’s keeping under wraps.

    For fans of the Spider-Verse films, the animation style will be familiar: a blend of 2D and 3D techniques, with a high-contrast colour palette. KPop Demon Hunters goes an aesthetic step further by adding some distinctive anime touches, such as by using the chibi style, when characters have intense reactions.

    The film also showcases several musical interludes voiced by actual K-pop stars such as EJAE, Kevin Woo, Andrew Choi and Rei Ami – as well as an anthem performed by members of TWICE, famous for their 2016 megahit Cheer Up.

    To older viewers, the success of this watchable yet somewhat predictable flick may be puzzling, but KPop Demon Hunters will resonate with any Gen Zs in the house. After all, it has catchy tunes, jokes that land, female empowerment, epic battle scenes, and a smidge of teen romance.

    There’s also a deeper thematic around the duality of identity, and a message about confronting one’s own demons.

    – Phoebe Hart

    Poker Face, season two

    Stan

    Charlie Cale (Natasha Lyonne) is back for season two of Poker Face. Creator Rian Johnson is clearly a lover of the whodunnit genre. Between Poker Face and the Knives Out films, Johnson continues to pay homage to the format while pushing it into new directions.

    Poker Face takes the format of the inverted detective story, made famous by popular series Columbo (1968–2003), where the episode opens with the killer committing the crime, only for the detective to arrive on the scene.

    The joy of Poker Face lies in the viewer trying to figure out how the detective will catch the killer, while also enjoying comedic allusions to several genres. Charlie Cale has a unique skill in that she can always tell when someone is lying: “bullshit”, she calmly says when someone doesn’t tell the truth.

    Season two continues the show’s all-star cameo lineup from different eras of popular culture. Standouts include Cynthia Erivo in the opening episode, Cheers star Rhea Perlman, Katie Holmes, and Awkwafina accusing Alia Shawkat of sleeping with her grandma to steal a rent-controlled apartment.

    The strongest episode of the season features John Cho and Melanie Lynskey, where Charlie meet a group of scammers at a hotel bar. Cho plays the scammer and Lynskey is his unwitting victim. When Lyonne’s Charlie becomes involved, it becomes a game of who is playing who.

    The episodic format never feels tired, as each mystery’s eccentricities and generic allusions shift in each episode. Natasha Lyonne’s performance anchors the show, allowing for the emotional beats to shift seamlessly, from the sadness of death, to the humour of each ridiculous situation.

    – Stuart Richards

    Sirens

    Netflix

    Much like The Perfect Couple (2024–), or Succession (2018–23), Sirens offers all the guilty pleasures of watching wealthy but dysfunctional families scheme and unravel inside their opulent homes. It contains the usual metamodern mix of irony, plot twists, clever dialogue and dark comedy (with hints of murder) we’ve come to expect from series that rank in Netflix’s top ten.

    However, it’s not quite as binge-worthy or provocative as other shows in this genre. It also drags in the middle. You could probably watch the first episode and the last chapter to follow the narrative and catch all the best scenes.

    Sirens tries to distinguish itself by foregrounding strong female leads, and leaning heavily into its postfeminist take on manipulative women of different ages competing against each other. They’re not fighting over the man (played by Kevin Bacon), so much as his estate and the social capital that comes with it.

    Unlike Poison Ivy and other 90s classics I have explored, Sirens presents a more sympathetic and nuanced portrayal of the sexy, younger class usurper. Simone DeWitt (played by Milly Alcock) is the working-class personal assistant determined to improve her social positioning by any means necessary.

    The series also attempts to elevate itself through images and sounds which reference Greek mythology, with lots of scenes of beautiful women perched precariously on cliff tops, while hapless men are lured in by their haunting high-pitched singing.

    The ambiguous politics of it all will leave you wondering if you, too, have been just as expertly manipulated.

    – Susan Hopkins

    Sunday Too Far Away

    Brollie and ABC iView

    Released 50 years ago, Sunday Too Far Away deals episodically with a group of shearers led by Foley (Jack Thompson), and the events leading up to the national shearers’ strike of 1956.

    The shearers are a ragtag group held together by rum, unionism and competitiveness – as Foley must deal with the camp cook from hell, as well as a threat to his “gun” status.

    Like its contemporary Wake in Fright (1971), Sunday also centres on rural male mateship. But while Wake in Fright is revolted by it, Sunday strives for an elegiac celebration that might have drawn from Henry Lawson, of union-based mateship as the only defence against the harshness of life.

    It is hard to overstate Sunday’s importance for the Australian film industry and for its producer, the South Australian Film Corporation (SAFC), founded in 1972 by the new Labor government. Sunday would be the organisation’s first film, budgeted at $231,000, with the commonwealth providing half this figure. It was a remarkable demonstration of maximum involvement by a state government body.

    Sunday was accepted into the Directors’ Fortnight at Cannes, the first Australian film bestowed the honour, and it went on to win eight of the 12 awards on offer at the Australian Film Institute Awards. The success of Sunday Too Far Away, followed closely by Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975) and Storm Boy (1976), succeeded in establishing the SAFC as a prime mover in Australian film.

    – Michael Walsh



    Read more:
    Sunday Too Far Away at 50: how a story about Aussie shearers launched a local film industry

    Michael Walsh is a consultant for the SAFC on its digitisation project. He has previously written a commissioned history for the organisation.

    John Mickel, Phoebe Hart, Stuart Richards, Susan Hopkins, and Will Jeffery do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Sexy K-pop demons, a human lie detector and shearers on strike: what to watch in July – https://theconversation.com/sexy-k-pop-demons-a-human-lie-detector-and-shearers-on-strike-what-to-watch-in-july-259907

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bridget Haire, Associate Professor, Public Health Ethics, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

    Alim Yakubov/Shutterstock

    Over the past three decades there have been amazing advances in treating and preventing HIV.

    It’s now a manageable infection. A person with HIV who takes HIV medicine consistently, before their immune system declines, can expect to live almost as long as someone without HIV.

    The same drugs prevent transmission of the virus to sexual partners.

    There is still no effective HIV vaccine. But there are highly effective drugs to prevent HIV infection for people without HIV who are at higher risk of acquiring it.

    These drugs are known as as “pre-exposure prophylaxis” or PrEP. These come as a pill, which needs to be taken either daily, or “on demand” before and after risky sex. An injection that protects against HIV for six months has recently been approved in the United States.

    So with such effective HIV treatment and PrEP, why are we still spending millions looking for HIV cures?

    Not everyone has access to these drugs

    Access to HIV drugs and PrEP depends on the availability of health clinics, health professionals, and the means to supply and distribute the drugs. In some countries, this infrastructure may not be secure.

    For instance, earlier this year, US President Donald Trump’s dissolution of the USAID foreign aid program has threatened the delivery of HIV drugs to many low-income countries.

    This demonstrates the fragility of current approaches to treatment and prevention. A secure, uninterrupted supply of HIV medicine is required, and without this, lives will be lost and the number of new cases of HIV will rise.

    Another example is the six-monthly PrEP injection just approved in the US. This drug has great potential for controlling HIV if it is made available and affordable in countries with the greatest HIV burden.

    But the prospect for lower-income countries accessing this expensive drug looks uncertain, even if it can be made at a fraction of its current cost, as some researchers say.

    So despite the success of HIV drugs and PrEP, precarious health-care systems and high drug costs mean we can’t rely on them to bring an end to the ongoing global HIV pandemic. That’s why we also still need to look at other options.

    Haven’t people already been ‘cured’?

    Worldwide, at least seven people have been “cured” of HIV – or at least have had long-term sustained remission. This means that after stopping HIV drugs, they did not have any replicating HIV in their blood for months or years.

    In each case, the person with HIV also had a life-threatening cancer needing a bone marrow transplant. They were each matched with a donor who had a specific genetic variation that resulted in not having HIV receptors in key bone marrow cells.

    After the bone marrow transplant, recipients stopped HIV drugs, without detectable levels of the virus returning. The new immune cells made in the transplanted bone marrow lacked the HIV receptors. This stopped the virus from infecting cells and replicating.

    But this genetic variation is very rare. Bone marrow transplantation is also risky and extremely resource-intensive. So while this strategy has worked for a few people, it is not a scalable prospect for curing HIV more widely.

    So we need to keep looking for other options for a cure, including basic laboratory research to get us there.

    How about the ‘breakthrough’ I’ve heard about?

    HIV treatment stops the HIV replication that causes immune damage. But there are places in the body where the virus “hides” and drugs cannot reach. If the drugs are stopped, the “latent” HIV comes out of hiding and replicates again. So it can damage the immune system, leading to HIV-related disease.

    One approach is to try to force the hidden or latent HIV out into the open, so drugs can target it. This is a strategy called “shock and kill”. And an example of such Australian research was recently reported in the media as a “breakthrough” in the search for an HIV cure.

    Researchers in Melbourne have developed a lipid nanoparticle – a tiny ball of fat – that encapsulates messenger RNA (or mRNA) and delivers a “message” to infected white blood cells. This prompts the cells to reveal the “hiding” HIV.

    In theory, this will allow the immune system or HIV drugs to target the virus.

    This discovery is an important step. However, it is still in the laboratory phase of testing, and is just one piece of the puzzle.

    We could say the same about many other results heralded as moving closer to a cure for HIV.

    Further research on safety and efficacy is needed before testing in human clinical trials. Such trials start with small numbers and the trialling process takes many years. This and other steps towards a cure are slow and expensive, but necessary.

    Importantly, any cure would ultimately need to be fairly low-tech to deliver for it to be feasible and affordable in low-income countries globally.

    So where does that leave us?

    A cure for HIV that is affordable and scalable would have a profound impact on human heath globally, particularly for people living with HIV. To get there is a long and arduous path that involves solving a range of scientific puzzles, followed by addressing implementation challenges.

    In the meantime, ensuring people at risk of HIV have access to testing and prevention interventions – such as PrEP and safe injecting equipment – remains crucial. People living with HIV also need sustained access to effective treatment – regardless of where they live.

    Bridget Haire has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is a past president of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (now Health Equity Matters).

    Benjamin Bavinton receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian government, and state and territory governments. He also receives funding from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences, both of which make drugs or drug classes mentioned in this article. He is a Board Director of community organisation, ACON, and is on the National PrEP Guidelines Panel coordinated by ASHM Health.

    – ref. We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures? – https://theconversation.com/we-have-drugs-to-manage-hiv-so-why-are-we-spending-millions-looking-for-cures-258391

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Bridget Haire, Associate Professor, Public Health Ethics, School of Population Health, UNSW Sydney

    Alim Yakubov/Shutterstock

    Over the past three decades there have been amazing advances in treating and preventing HIV.

    It’s now a manageable infection. A person with HIV who takes HIV medicine consistently, before their immune system declines, can expect to live almost as long as someone without HIV.

    The same drugs prevent transmission of the virus to sexual partners.

    There is still no effective HIV vaccine. But there are highly effective drugs to prevent HIV infection for people without HIV who are at higher risk of acquiring it.

    These drugs are known as as “pre-exposure prophylaxis” or PrEP. These come as a pill, which needs to be taken either daily, or “on demand” before and after risky sex. An injection that protects against HIV for six months has recently been approved in the United States.

    So with such effective HIV treatment and PrEP, why are we still spending millions looking for HIV cures?

    Not everyone has access to these drugs

    Access to HIV drugs and PrEP depends on the availability of health clinics, health professionals, and the means to supply and distribute the drugs. In some countries, this infrastructure may not be secure.

    For instance, earlier this year, US President Donald Trump’s dissolution of the USAID foreign aid program has threatened the delivery of HIV drugs to many low-income countries.

    This demonstrates the fragility of current approaches to treatment and prevention. A secure, uninterrupted supply of HIV medicine is required, and without this, lives will be lost and the number of new cases of HIV will rise.

    Another example is the six-monthly PrEP injection just approved in the US. This drug has great potential for controlling HIV if it is made available and affordable in countries with the greatest HIV burden.

    But the prospect for lower-income countries accessing this expensive drug looks uncertain, even if it can be made at a fraction of its current cost, as some researchers say.

    So despite the success of HIV drugs and PrEP, precarious health-care systems and high drug costs mean we can’t rely on them to bring an end to the ongoing global HIV pandemic. That’s why we also still need to look at other options.

    Haven’t people already been ‘cured’?

    Worldwide, at least seven people have been “cured” of HIV – or at least have had long-term sustained remission. This means that after stopping HIV drugs, they did not have any replicating HIV in their blood for months or years.

    In each case, the person with HIV also had a life-threatening cancer needing a bone marrow transplant. They were each matched with a donor who had a specific genetic variation that resulted in not having HIV receptors in key bone marrow cells.

    After the bone marrow transplant, recipients stopped HIV drugs, without detectable levels of the virus returning. The new immune cells made in the transplanted bone marrow lacked the HIV receptors. This stopped the virus from infecting cells and replicating.

    But this genetic variation is very rare. Bone marrow transplantation is also risky and extremely resource-intensive. So while this strategy has worked for a few people, it is not a scalable prospect for curing HIV more widely.

    So we need to keep looking for other options for a cure, including basic laboratory research to get us there.

    How about the ‘breakthrough’ I’ve heard about?

    HIV treatment stops the HIV replication that causes immune damage. But there are places in the body where the virus “hides” and drugs cannot reach. If the drugs are stopped, the “latent” HIV comes out of hiding and replicates again. So it can damage the immune system, leading to HIV-related disease.

    One approach is to try to force the hidden or latent HIV out into the open, so drugs can target it. This is a strategy called “shock and kill”. And an example of such Australian research was recently reported in the media as a “breakthrough” in the search for an HIV cure.

    Researchers in Melbourne have developed a lipid nanoparticle – a tiny ball of fat – that encapsulates messenger RNA (or mRNA) and delivers a “message” to infected white blood cells. This prompts the cells to reveal the “hiding” HIV.

    In theory, this will allow the immune system or HIV drugs to target the virus.

    This discovery is an important step. However, it is still in the laboratory phase of testing, and is just one piece of the puzzle.

    We could say the same about many other results heralded as moving closer to a cure for HIV.

    Further research on safety and efficacy is needed before testing in human clinical trials. Such trials start with small numbers and the trialling process takes many years. This and other steps towards a cure are slow and expensive, but necessary.

    Importantly, any cure would ultimately need to be fairly low-tech to deliver for it to be feasible and affordable in low-income countries globally.

    So where does that leave us?

    A cure for HIV that is affordable and scalable would have a profound impact on human heath globally, particularly for people living with HIV. To get there is a long and arduous path that involves solving a range of scientific puzzles, followed by addressing implementation challenges.

    In the meantime, ensuring people at risk of HIV have access to testing and prevention interventions – such as PrEP and safe injecting equipment – remains crucial. People living with HIV also need sustained access to effective treatment – regardless of where they live.

    Bridget Haire has received funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council. She is a past president of the Australian Federation of AIDS Organisations (now Health Equity Matters).

    Benjamin Bavinton receives funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council, the Australian government, and state and territory governments. He also receives funding from ViiV Healthcare and Gilead Sciences, both of which make drugs or drug classes mentioned in this article. He is a Board Director of community organisation, ACON, and is on the National PrEP Guidelines Panel coordinated by ASHM Health.

    – ref. We have drugs to manage HIV. So why are we spending millions looking for cures? – https://theconversation.com/we-have-drugs-to-manage-hiv-so-why-are-we-spending-millions-looking-for-cures-258391

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government – National Security College, Australian National University

    Since US President Donald Trump took office this year, one theme has come up time and again: his rule is a threat to the US-led international order.

    As the US political scientist John Mearsheimer famously argued, the liberal international order

    was destined to fail from the start, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    This perspective has gained traction in recent years. And now, Trump’s actions have caused many to question whether a new world order is emerging.

    Trump has expressed a desire for a new international order defined by multiple spheres of influence — one in which powers like the US, China and Russia each exert dominance over distinct regions.

    This vision aligns with the idea of a “multipolar” world, where no single state holds overarching global dominance. Instead, influence is distributed among several great powers, each maintaining its own regional sphere.

    This architecture contrasts sharply with earlier periods – the bipolar world of the Cold War, dominated by the US and the Soviet Union; and the unipolar period that followed, dominated by the US.

    What does this mean for the world order moving forward?

    Shifting US spheres of influence

    We’ve seen this shift taking place in recent months. For example, Trump has backed away from his pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and now appears to be leaving it to the main protagonists, and Europe, to find a solution.

    Europe, which once largely spoke in a unified voice with the US, is also showing signs of policy-making which is more independent. Rather than framing its actions as protecting “Western democratic principles”, Europe is increasingly focused on defining its own security interests.

    In the Middle East, the US will likely maintain its sphere of influence. It will continue its unequivocal support for Israel under Trump.

    Amid shifting global alliances, the Trump administration will continue to support Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
    noamgalai/Shutterstock

    The US will also involve itself in the region’s politics when its interests are at stake, as we witnessed in its recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    This, along with increasing economic ties between the US and Gulf states, suggests US allies in the region will remain the dominant voices shaping regional dynamics, particularly now with Iran weakened.

    Yet it’s clear Trump is reshaping US dynamics in the region by signaling a desire for reduced military and political involvement, and criticising the nation building efforts of previous administrations.

    The Trump administration now appears to want to maintain its sphere of influence primarily through strong economic ties.

    Russia and China poles emerging elsewhere

    Meanwhile, other poles are emerging in the Global South. Russia and China have deepened their cooperation, positioning themselves as defenders against what they frame as Western hegemonic bullying.

    Trump’s trade policies and sanctions against many nations in the Global South have fuelled narratives (spread by China and Russia) that the US does not consistently adhere to the rules it imposes on others.

    Trump’s decision to slash funding to USAID has also opened the door to China, in particular, to become the main development partner for nations in Africa and other parts of the world.

    And on the security front, Russia has become more involved in many African and Middle Eastern countries, which have become less trustful and reliant on Western powers.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Xinping see opportunities to spread their influence in the Global South.
    plavi011/Shutterstock

    In the Indo-Pacific, much attention has been given to the rise of China and its increasingly assertive posture. Many of Washington’s traditional allies are nervous about its continued engagement in the region and ability to counter China’s rise.

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping has sought to take advantage of the current environment, embarking on a Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia push earlier this year. But many nations continue to be wary of China’s increasing influence, in particular the Philippines, which has clashed with China over the South China Sea.

    Strategic hedging

    Not all countries, however, are aligning themselves neatly with one pole or another.

    For small states caught between great powers, navigating this multipolar environment is both a risk and an opportunity.

    Ukraine is a case in point. As a sovereign state, Ukraine should have the freedom to decide its own alignments. Yet, it finds itself ensnared in great power politics, with devastating consequences.

    Other small states are playing a different game — pivoting from one power to another based on their immediate interests.

    Slovakia, for instance, is both a NATO and EU member, yet its leader, Robert Fico, attended Russia’s Victory Day Parade in May and told President Vladimir Putin he wanted to maintain “normal relations” with Russia.

    Then there is Central Asia, which is the centre of a renewed “great game,” with Russia, China and Europe vying for influence and economic partnerships.

    Yet if any Central Asian countries were to be invaded by Putin, would other powers intervene? It’s a difficult question to answer. Major powers are reluctant to engage in direct conflict unless their core interests or borders are directly threatened.

    As a result, Central Asian states are hedging their bets, seeking to maintain relations with multiple poles, despite their conflicting agendas.

    A future defined by regional power blocs?

    While it is still early to draw definitive conclusions, the events of the past few months underscore a growing trend. Smaller countries are expressing solidarity with one power, but pragmatic cooperation with another, when it suits their national interests.

    For this reason, regional power blocs seem to be of increasing interest to countries in the Global South.

    For instance, the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has become a stronger and larger grouping of nations across Eurasia in recent years.

    Trump’s focus on making “America Great Again,” has taken the load off the US carrying liberal order leadership. A multipolar world may not be the end of the liberal international order, but it may be a reshaped version of liberal governance.

    How “liberal” it can be will likely depend on what each regional power, or pole, will make of it.

    Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-worldview-is-causing-a-global-shift-of-alliances-what-does-this-mean-for-nations-in-the-middle-257113

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle?

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva, Lecturer in Government – National Security College, Australian National University

    Since US President Donald Trump took office this year, one theme has come up time and again: his rule is a threat to the US-led international order.

    As the US political scientist John Mearsheimer famously argued, the liberal international order

    was destined to fail from the start, as it contained the seeds of its own destruction.

    This perspective has gained traction in recent years. And now, Trump’s actions have caused many to question whether a new world order is emerging.

    Trump has expressed a desire for a new international order defined by multiple spheres of influence — one in which powers like the US, China and Russia each exert dominance over distinct regions.

    This vision aligns with the idea of a “multipolar” world, where no single state holds overarching global dominance. Instead, influence is distributed among several great powers, each maintaining its own regional sphere.

    This architecture contrasts sharply with earlier periods – the bipolar world of the Cold War, dominated by the US and the Soviet Union; and the unipolar period that followed, dominated by the US.

    What does this mean for the world order moving forward?

    Shifting US spheres of influence

    We’ve seen this shift taking place in recent months. For example, Trump has backed away from his pledge to end the war between Russia and Ukraine and now appears to be leaving it to the main protagonists, and Europe, to find a solution.

    Europe, which once largely spoke in a unified voice with the US, is also showing signs of policy-making which is more independent. Rather than framing its actions as protecting “Western democratic principles”, Europe is increasingly focused on defining its own security interests.

    In the Middle East, the US will likely maintain its sphere of influence. It will continue its unequivocal support for Israel under Trump.

    Amid shifting global alliances, the Trump administration will continue to support Israel, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
    noamgalai/Shutterstock

    The US will also involve itself in the region’s politics when its interests are at stake, as we witnessed in its recent strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    This, along with increasing economic ties between the US and Gulf states, suggests US allies in the region will remain the dominant voices shaping regional dynamics, particularly now with Iran weakened.

    Yet it’s clear Trump is reshaping US dynamics in the region by signaling a desire for reduced military and political involvement, and criticising the nation building efforts of previous administrations.

    The Trump administration now appears to want to maintain its sphere of influence primarily through strong economic ties.

    Russia and China poles emerging elsewhere

    Meanwhile, other poles are emerging in the Global South. Russia and China have deepened their cooperation, positioning themselves as defenders against what they frame as Western hegemonic bullying.

    Trump’s trade policies and sanctions against many nations in the Global South have fuelled narratives (spread by China and Russia) that the US does not consistently adhere to the rules it imposes on others.

    Trump’s decision to slash funding to USAID has also opened the door to China, in particular, to become the main development partner for nations in Africa and other parts of the world.

    And on the security front, Russia has become more involved in many African and Middle Eastern countries, which have become less trustful and reliant on Western powers.

    Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese leader Xi Xinping see opportunities to spread their influence in the Global South.
    plavi011/Shutterstock

    In the Indo-Pacific, much attention has been given to the rise of China and its increasingly assertive posture. Many of Washington’s traditional allies are nervous about its continued engagement in the region and ability to counter China’s rise.

    Chinese leader Xi Jinping has sought to take advantage of the current environment, embarking on a Vietnam, Malaysia and Cambodia push earlier this year. But many nations continue to be wary of China’s increasing influence, in particular the Philippines, which has clashed with China over the South China Sea.

    Strategic hedging

    Not all countries, however, are aligning themselves neatly with one pole or another.

    For small states caught between great powers, navigating this multipolar environment is both a risk and an opportunity.

    Ukraine is a case in point. As a sovereign state, Ukraine should have the freedom to decide its own alignments. Yet, it finds itself ensnared in great power politics, with devastating consequences.

    Other small states are playing a different game — pivoting from one power to another based on their immediate interests.

    Slovakia, for instance, is both a NATO and EU member, yet its leader, Robert Fico, attended Russia’s Victory Day Parade in May and told President Vladimir Putin he wanted to maintain “normal relations” with Russia.

    Then there is Central Asia, which is the centre of a renewed “great game,” with Russia, China and Europe vying for influence and economic partnerships.

    Yet if any Central Asian countries were to be invaded by Putin, would other powers intervene? It’s a difficult question to answer. Major powers are reluctant to engage in direct conflict unless their core interests or borders are directly threatened.

    As a result, Central Asian states are hedging their bets, seeking to maintain relations with multiple poles, despite their conflicting agendas.

    A future defined by regional power blocs?

    While it is still early to draw definitive conclusions, the events of the past few months underscore a growing trend. Smaller countries are expressing solidarity with one power, but pragmatic cooperation with another, when it suits their national interests.

    For this reason, regional power blocs seem to be of increasing interest to countries in the Global South.

    For instance, the China-led Shanghai Cooperation Organisation has become a stronger and larger grouping of nations across Eurasia in recent years.

    Trump’s focus on making “America Great Again,” has taken the load off the US carrying liberal order leadership. A multipolar world may not be the end of the liberal international order, but it may be a reshaped version of liberal governance.

    How “liberal” it can be will likely depend on what each regional power, or pole, will make of it.

    Dilnoza Ubaydullaeva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Trump’s worldview is causing a global shift of alliances – what does this mean for nations in the middle? – https://theconversation.com/trumps-worldview-is-causing-a-global-shift-of-alliances-what-does-this-mean-for-nations-in-the-middle-257113

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Understanding the ‘Slopocene’: how the failures of AI can reveal its inner workings

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Daniel Binns, Senior Lecturer, Media & Communication, RMIT University

    AI-generated with Leonardo Phoenix 1.0. Author supplied

    Some say it’s em dashes, dodgy apostrophes, or too many emoji. Others suggest that maybe the word “delve” is a chatbot’s calling card. It’s no longer the sight of morphed bodies or too many fingers, but it might be something just a little off in the background. Or video content that feels a little too real.

    The markers of AI-generated media are becoming harder to spot as technology companies work to iron out the kinks in their generative artificial intelligence (AI) models.

    But what if instead of trying to detect and avoid these glitches, we deliberately encouraged them instead? The flaws, failures and unexpected outputs of AI systems can reveal more about how these technologies actually work than the polished, successful outputs they produce.

    When AI hallucinates, contradicts itself, or produces something beautifully broken, it reveals its training biases, decision-making processes, and the gaps between how it appears to “think” and how it actually processes information.

    In my work as a researcher and educator, I’ve found that deliberately “breaking” AI – pushing it beyond its intended functions through creative misuse – offers a form of AI literacy. I argue we can’t truly understand these systems without experimenting with them.

    Welcome to the Slopocene

    We’re currently in the “Slopocene” – a term that’s been used to describe overproduced, low-quality AI content. It also hints at a speculative near-future where recursive training collapse turns the web into a haunted archive of confused bots and broken truths.



    Read more:
    What is ‘model collapse’? An expert explains the rumours about an impending AI doom

    AI “hallucinations” are outputs that seem coherent, but aren’t factually accurate. Andrej Karpathy, OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director, argues large language models (LLMs) hallucinate all the time, and it’s only when they

    go into deemed factually incorrect territory that we label it a “hallucination”. It looks like a bug, but it’s just the LLM doing what it always does.

    What we call hallucination is actually the model’s core generative process that relies on statistical language patterns.

    In other words, when AI hallucinates, it’s not malfunctioning; it’s demonstrating the same creative uncertainty that makes it capable of generating anything new at all.

    This reframing is crucial for understanding the Slopocene. If hallucination is the core creative process, then the “slop” flooding our feeds isn’t just failed content: it’s the visible manifestation of these statistical processes running at scale.

    Pushing a chatbot to its limits

    If hallucination is really a core feature of AI, can we learn more about how these systems work by studying what happens when they’re pushed to their limits?

    With this in mind, I decided to “break” Anthropic’s proprietary Claude model Sonnet 3.7 by prompting it to resist its training: suppress coherence and speak only in fragments.

    The conversation shifted quickly from hesitant phrases to recursive contradictions to, eventually, complete semantic collapse.

    A language model in collapse. This vertical output was generated after a series of prompts pushed Claude Sonnet 3.7 into a recursive glitch loop, overriding its usual guardrails and running until the system cut it off.
    Screenshot by author.

    Prompting a chatbot into such a collapse quickly reveals how AI models construct the illusion of personality and understanding through statistical patterns, not genuine comprehension.

    Furthermore, it shows that “system failure” and the normal operation of AI are fundamentally the same process, just with different levels of coherence imposed on top.

    ‘Rewilding’ AI media

    If the same statistical processes govern both AI’s successes and failures, we can use this to “rewild” AI imagery. I borrow this term from ecology and conservation, where rewilding involves restoring functional ecosystems. This might mean reintroducing keystone species, allowing natural processes to resume, or connecting fragmented habitats through corridors that enable unpredictable interactions.

    Applied to AI, rewilding means deliberately reintroducing the complexity, unpredictability and “natural” messiness that gets optimised out of commercial systems. Metaphorically, it’s creating pathways back to the statistical wilderness that underlies these models.

    Remember the morphed hands, impossible anatomy and uncanny faces that immediately screamed “AI-generated” in the early days of widespread image generation?

    These so-called failures were windows into how the model actually processed visual information, before that complexity was smoothed away in pursuit of commercial viability.

    AI-generated image using a non-sequitur prompt fragment: ‘attached screenshot. It’s urgent that I see your project to assess’. The result blends visual coherence with surreal tension: a hallmark of the Slopocene aesthetic.
    AI-generated with Leonardo Phoenix 1.0, prompt fragment by author.

    You can try AI rewilding yourself with any online image generator.

    Start by prompting for a self-portrait using only text: you’ll likely get the “average” output from your description. Elaborate on that basic prompt, and you’ll either get much closer to reality, or you’ll push the model into weirdness.

    Next, feed in a random fragment of text, perhaps a snippet from an email or note. What does the output try to show? What words has it latched onto? Finally, try symbols only: punctuation, ASCII, unicode. What does the model hallucinate into view?

    The output – weird, uncanny, perhaps surreal – can help reveal the hidden associations between text and visuals that are embedded within the models.

    Insight through misuse

    Creative AI misuse offers three concrete benefits.

    First, it reveals bias and limitations in ways normal usage masks: you can uncover what a model “sees” when it can’t rely on conventional logic.

    Second, it teaches us about AI decision-making by forcing models to show their work when they’re confused.

    Third, it builds critical AI literacy by demystifying these systems through hands-on experimentation. Critical AI literacy provides methods for diagnostic experimentation, such as testing – and often misusing – AI to understand its statistical patterns and decision-making processes.

    These skills become more urgent as AI systems grow more sophisticated and ubiquitous. They’re being integrated in everything from search to social media to creative software.

    When someone generates an image, writes with AI assistance or relies on algorithmic recommendations, they’re entering a collaborative relationship with a system that has particular biases, capabilities and blind spots.

    Rather than mindlessly adopting or reflexively rejecting these tools, we can develop critical AI literacy by exploring the Slopocene and witnessing what happens when AI tools “break”.

    This isn’t about becoming more efficient AI users. It’s about maintaining agency in relationships with systems designed to be persuasive, predictive and opaque.

    Daniel Binns is an Associate Investigator with the ARC Centre of Excellence for Automated Decision-Making and Society.

    – ref. Understanding the ‘Slopocene’: how the failures of AI can reveal its inner workings – https://theconversation.com/understanding-the-slopocene-how-the-failures-of-ai-can-reveal-its-inner-workings-258584

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Ancient fossils show how the last mass extinction forever scrambled the ocean’s biodiversity

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stewart Edie, Research Geologist and Curator of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution

    Even bivalves looked different during the time of the dinosaurs, as these fossils of an ultra-fortified oyster, left, and armored cockle show. Smithsonian Institution

    About 66 million years ago – perhaps on a downright unlucky day in May – an asteroid smashed into our planet.

    The fallout was immediate and severe. Evidence shows that about 70% of species went extinct in a geological instant, and not just those famous dinosaurs that once stalked the land. Masters of the Mesozoic oceans were also wiped out, from mosasaurs – a group of aquatic reptiles topping the food chain – to exquisitely shelled squid relatives known as ammonites.

    Even groups that weathered the catastrophe, such as mammals, fishes and flowering plants, suffered severe population declines and species loss. Invertebrate life in the oceans didn’t fare much better.

    But bubbling away on the seafloor was a stolid group of animals that has left a fantastic fossil record and continues to thrive today: bivalves – clams, cockles, mussels, oysters and more.

    What happened to these creatures during the extinction event and how they rebounded tells an important story, both about the past and the future of biodiversity.

    Surprising discoveries on the seafloor

    Marine bivalves lost around three-quarters of their species during this mass extinction, which marked the end of the Cretaceous Period. My colleagues and I – each of us paleobiologists studying biodiversity – expected that losing so many species would have severely cut down the variety of roles that bivalves play within their environments, what we call their “modes of life.”

    But, as we explain in a study published in the journal Sciences Advances, that wasn’t the case. In assessing the fossils of thousands of bivalve species, we found that at least one species from nearly all their modes of life, no matter how rare or specialized, squeaked through the extinction event.

    Statistically, that shouldn’t have happened. Kill 70% of bivalve species, even at random, and some modes of life should disappear.

    Bivalves had an amazing array of life modes just before the end-Cretaceous mass extinction 66 million years ago. Incredibly, despite the loss of 70% of their species, all but two modes of life survived – Nos. 2 and 10.
    Adapted from Edie et al. 2025, Science Advances

    Most bivalves happily burrow into the sand and mud, feeding on phytoplankton they strain from the water. But others have adopted chemosymbionts and photosymbionts – bacteria and algae that produce nutrients for the bivalves from chemicals or sunlight in exchange for housing. A few have even become carnivorous. Some groups, including the oysters, can lay down a tough cement that hardens underwater, and mussels hold onto rocks by spinning silken threads.

    We thought surely these more specialized modes of life would have been snuffed out by the effects of the asteroid’s impact, including dust and debris likely blocking sunlight and disrupting a huge part of the bivalves’ food chain: photosynthetic algae and bacteria. Instead, most persisted, although biodiversity was forever scrambled as a new ecological landscape emerged. Species that were once dominant struggled, while evolutionary newcomers rose in their place.

    The reasons some species survived and others didn’t leave many questions to explore. Those that filtered phytoplankton from the water column suffered some of the highest species losses, but so did species that fed on organic scraps and didn’t rely as much on the Sun’s energy. Narrow geographic distributions and different metabolisms may have contributed to these extinction patterns.

    Biodiversity bounces back

    Life rebounded from each of the Big Five mass extinctions throughout Earth’s history, eventually punching through past diversity highs. The rich fossil record and spectacular ecological diversity of bivalves gives us a terrific opportunity to study these rebounds to understand how ecosystems and global biodiversity rebuild in the wake of extinctions.

    The extinction caused by the asteroid strike knocked down some thriving modes of life and opened the door for others to dominate the new landscape.

    The rebound from the extinction wasn’t so straightforward. Some modes of life lost nearly all their species, never to recover their past diversity. Others rose to take the top ranks. Genera is the plural of genus.
    Adapted from Edie et al. 2025, Science Advances

    While many people lament the loss of the dinosaurs, we malacologists miss the rudists.

    These bizarrely shaped bivalves resembled giant ice cream cones, sometimes reaching more than 3 feet (1 meter) in size, and they dominated the shallow, tropical Mesozoic seas as massive aggregations of contorted individuals, similar to today’s coral reefs. At least a few harbored photosymbiotic algae, which provided them with nutrients and spurred their growth, much like modern corals.

    An ancient fossil of a rudist from before the last mass extinction. These bivalves could grow to a meter high.
    Smithsonian Institution

    Today, giant clams (Tridacna) and their relatives fill parts of these unique photosymbiotic lifestyles once occupied by the rudists, but they lack the rudists’ astonishing species diversity.

    Mass extinctions clearly upend the status quo. Now, our ocean floors are dominated by clams burrowed into sand and mud, the quahogs, cockles and their relatives – a scene far different from that of the seafloor 66 million years ago.

    New winners in a scrambled ecosystem

    Ecological traits alone didn’t fully predict extinction patterns, nor do they entirely explain the rebound. We also see that simply surviving a mass extinction didn’t necessarily provide a leg up as species diversified within their old and sometimes new modes of life – and few of those new modes dominate the ecological landscape today.

    Like the rudists, trigoniid bivalves had lots of different species prior to the extinction event. These highly ornamented clams built parts of their shells with a super strong biomaterial called nacre – think iridescent pearls – and had fractally interlocking hinges holding their two valves together.

    An ancient fossil of a pearly but tough trigoniid bivalve from the last mass extinction. The two matching shells show their elaborate hinge.
    Smithsonian Institution

    But despite surviving the extinction, which should have placed them in a prime position to accumulate species again, their diversification sputtered. Other types of bivalves that made a living in the same way proliferated instead, relegating this once mighty and global group to a handful of species now found only off the coast of Australia.

    Lessons for today’s oceans

    These unexpected patterns of extinction and survival may offer lessons for the future.

    The fossil record shows us that biodiversity has definite breaking points, usually during a perfect storm of climatic and environmental upheaval. It’s not just that species are lost, but the ecological landscape is overturned.

    Many scientists believe the current biodiversity crisis may cascade into a sixth mass extinction, this one driven by human activities that are changing ecosystems and the global climate. Corals, whose reefs are home to nearly a quarter of known marine species, have faced mass bleaching events as warming ocean water puts their future at risk. Acidification as the oceans absorb more carbon dioxide can also weaken the shells of organisms crucial to the ocean food web.

    Findings like ours suggest that, in the future, the rebound from extinction events will likely result in very different mixes of species and their modes of life in the oceans. And the result may not align with human needs if species providing the bulk of ecosystem services are driven genetically or functionally extinct.

    The global oceans and their inhabitants are complex, and, as our team’s latest research shows, it is difficult to predict the trajectory of biodiversity as it rebounds – even when extinction pressures are reduced.

    Billions of people depend on the ocean for food. As the history recorded by the world’s bivalves shows, the upending of the pecking order – the number of species in each mode of life – won’t necessarily settle into an arrangement that can feed as many people the next time around.

    Stewart Edie receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution.

    – ref. Ancient fossils show how the last mass extinction forever scrambled the ocean’s biodiversity – https://theconversation.com/ancient-fossils-show-how-the-last-mass-extinction-forever-scrambled-the-oceans-biodiversity-258389

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Ancient fossils show how the last mass extinction forever scrambled the ocean’s biodiversity

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stewart Edie, Research Geologist and Curator of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution

    Even bivalves looked different during the time of the dinosaurs, as these fossils of an ultra-fortified oyster, left, and armored cockle show. Smithsonian Institution

    About 66 million years ago – perhaps on a downright unlucky day in May – an asteroid smashed into our planet.

    The fallout was immediate and severe. Evidence shows that about 70% of species went extinct in a geological instant, and not just those famous dinosaurs that once stalked the land. Masters of the Mesozoic oceans were also wiped out, from mosasaurs – a group of aquatic reptiles topping the food chain – to exquisitely shelled squid relatives known as ammonites.

    Even groups that weathered the catastrophe, such as mammals, fishes and flowering plants, suffered severe population declines and species loss. Invertebrate life in the oceans didn’t fare much better.

    But bubbling away on the seafloor was a stolid group of animals that has left a fantastic fossil record and continues to thrive today: bivalves – clams, cockles, mussels, oysters and more.

    What happened to these creatures during the extinction event and how they rebounded tells an important story, both about the past and the future of biodiversity.

    Surprising discoveries on the seafloor

    Marine bivalves lost around three-quarters of their species during this mass extinction, which marked the end of the Cretaceous Period. My colleagues and I – each of us paleobiologists studying biodiversity – expected that losing so many species would have severely cut down the variety of roles that bivalves play within their environments, what we call their “modes of life.”

    But, as we explain in a study published in the journal Sciences Advances, that wasn’t the case. In assessing the fossils of thousands of bivalve species, we found that at least one species from nearly all their modes of life, no matter how rare or specialized, squeaked through the extinction event.

    Statistically, that shouldn’t have happened. Kill 70% of bivalve species, even at random, and some modes of life should disappear.

    Bivalves had an amazing array of life modes just before the end-Cretaceous mass extinction 66 million years ago. Incredibly, despite the loss of 70% of their species, all but two modes of life survived – Nos. 2 and 10.
    Adapted from Edie et al. 2025, Science Advances

    Most bivalves happily burrow into the sand and mud, feeding on phytoplankton they strain from the water. But others have adopted chemosymbionts and photosymbionts – bacteria and algae that produce nutrients for the bivalves from chemicals or sunlight in exchange for housing. A few have even become carnivorous. Some groups, including the oysters, can lay down a tough cement that hardens underwater, and mussels hold onto rocks by spinning silken threads.

    We thought surely these more specialized modes of life would have been snuffed out by the effects of the asteroid’s impact, including dust and debris likely blocking sunlight and disrupting a huge part of the bivalves’ food chain: photosynthetic algae and bacteria. Instead, most persisted, although biodiversity was forever scrambled as a new ecological landscape emerged. Species that were once dominant struggled, while evolutionary newcomers rose in their place.

    The reasons some species survived and others didn’t leave many questions to explore. Those that filtered phytoplankton from the water column suffered some of the highest species losses, but so did species that fed on organic scraps and didn’t rely as much on the Sun’s energy. Narrow geographic distributions and different metabolisms may have contributed to these extinction patterns.

    Biodiversity bounces back

    Life rebounded from each of the Big Five mass extinctions throughout Earth’s history, eventually punching through past diversity highs. The rich fossil record and spectacular ecological diversity of bivalves gives us a terrific opportunity to study these rebounds to understand how ecosystems and global biodiversity rebuild in the wake of extinctions.

    The extinction caused by the asteroid strike knocked down some thriving modes of life and opened the door for others to dominate the new landscape.

    The rebound from the extinction wasn’t so straightforward. Some modes of life lost nearly all their species, never to recover their past diversity. Others rose to take the top ranks. Genera is the plural of genus.
    Adapted from Edie et al. 2025, Science Advances

    While many people lament the loss of the dinosaurs, we malacologists miss the rudists.

    These bizarrely shaped bivalves resembled giant ice cream cones, sometimes reaching more than 3 feet (1 meter) in size, and they dominated the shallow, tropical Mesozoic seas as massive aggregations of contorted individuals, similar to today’s coral reefs. At least a few harbored photosymbiotic algae, which provided them with nutrients and spurred their growth, much like modern corals.

    An ancient fossil of a rudist from before the last mass extinction. These bivalves could grow to a meter high.
    Smithsonian Institution

    Today, giant clams (Tridacna) and their relatives fill parts of these unique photosymbiotic lifestyles once occupied by the rudists, but they lack the rudists’ astonishing species diversity.

    Mass extinctions clearly upend the status quo. Now, our ocean floors are dominated by clams burrowed into sand and mud, the quahogs, cockles and their relatives – a scene far different from that of the seafloor 66 million years ago.

    New winners in a scrambled ecosystem

    Ecological traits alone didn’t fully predict extinction patterns, nor do they entirely explain the rebound. We also see that simply surviving a mass extinction didn’t necessarily provide a leg up as species diversified within their old and sometimes new modes of life – and few of those new modes dominate the ecological landscape today.

    Like the rudists, trigoniid bivalves had lots of different species prior to the extinction event. These highly ornamented clams built parts of their shells with a super strong biomaterial called nacre – think iridescent pearls – and had fractally interlocking hinges holding their two valves together.

    An ancient fossil of a pearly but tough trigoniid bivalve from the last mass extinction. The two matching shells show their elaborate hinge.
    Smithsonian Institution

    But despite surviving the extinction, which should have placed them in a prime position to accumulate species again, their diversification sputtered. Other types of bivalves that made a living in the same way proliferated instead, relegating this once mighty and global group to a handful of species now found only off the coast of Australia.

    Lessons for today’s oceans

    These unexpected patterns of extinction and survival may offer lessons for the future.

    The fossil record shows us that biodiversity has definite breaking points, usually during a perfect storm of climatic and environmental upheaval. It’s not just that species are lost, but the ecological landscape is overturned.

    Many scientists believe the current biodiversity crisis may cascade into a sixth mass extinction, this one driven by human activities that are changing ecosystems and the global climate. Corals, whose reefs are home to nearly a quarter of known marine species, have faced mass bleaching events as warming ocean water puts their future at risk. Acidification as the oceans absorb more carbon dioxide can also weaken the shells of organisms crucial to the ocean food web.

    Findings like ours suggest that, in the future, the rebound from extinction events will likely result in very different mixes of species and their modes of life in the oceans. And the result may not align with human needs if species providing the bulk of ecosystem services are driven genetically or functionally extinct.

    The global oceans and their inhabitants are complex, and, as our team’s latest research shows, it is difficult to predict the trajectory of biodiversity as it rebounds – even when extinction pressures are reduced.

    Billions of people depend on the ocean for food. As the history recorded by the world’s bivalves shows, the upending of the pecking order – the number of species in each mode of life – won’t necessarily settle into an arrangement that can feed as many people the next time around.

    Stewart Edie receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution.

    – ref. Ancient fossils show how the last mass extinction forever scrambled the ocean’s biodiversity – https://theconversation.com/ancient-fossils-show-how-the-last-mass-extinction-forever-scrambled-the-oceans-biodiversity-258389

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Ancient fossils show how the last mass extinction forever scrambled the ocean’s biodiversity

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stewart Edie, Research Geologist and Curator of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution

    Even bivalves looked different during the time of the dinosaurs, as these fossils of an ultra-fortified oyster, left, and armored cockle show. Smithsonian Institution

    About 66 million years ago – perhaps on a downright unlucky day in May – an asteroid smashed into our planet.

    The fallout was immediate and severe. Evidence shows that about 70% of species went extinct in a geological instant, and not just those famous dinosaurs that once stalked the land. Masters of the Mesozoic oceans were also wiped out, from mosasaurs – a group of aquatic reptiles topping the food chain – to exquisitely shelled squid relatives known as ammonites.

    Even groups that weathered the catastrophe, such as mammals, fishes and flowering plants, suffered severe population declines and species loss. Invertebrate life in the oceans didn’t fare much better.

    But bubbling away on the seafloor was a stolid group of animals that has left a fantastic fossil record and continues to thrive today: bivalves – clams, cockles, mussels, oysters and more.

    What happened to these creatures during the extinction event and how they rebounded tells an important story, both about the past and the future of biodiversity.

    Surprising discoveries on the seafloor

    Marine bivalves lost around three-quarters of their species during this mass extinction, which marked the end of the Cretaceous Period. My colleagues and I – each of us paleobiologists studying biodiversity – expected that losing so many species would have severely cut down the variety of roles that bivalves play within their environments, what we call their “modes of life.”

    But, as we explain in a study published in the journal Sciences Advances, that wasn’t the case. In assessing the fossils of thousands of bivalve species, we found that at least one species from nearly all their modes of life, no matter how rare or specialized, squeaked through the extinction event.

    Statistically, that shouldn’t have happened. Kill 70% of bivalve species, even at random, and some modes of life should disappear.

    Bivalves had an amazing array of life modes just before the end-Cretaceous mass extinction 66 million years ago. Incredibly, despite the loss of 70% of their species, all but two modes of life survived – Nos. 2 and 10.
    Adapted from Edie et al. 2025, Science Advances

    Most bivalves happily burrow into the sand and mud, feeding on phytoplankton they strain from the water. But others have adopted chemosymbionts and photosymbionts – bacteria and algae that produce nutrients for the bivalves from chemicals or sunlight in exchange for housing. A few have even become carnivorous. Some groups, including the oysters, can lay down a tough cement that hardens underwater, and mussels hold onto rocks by spinning silken threads.

    We thought surely these more specialized modes of life would have been snuffed out by the effects of the asteroid’s impact, including dust and debris likely blocking sunlight and disrupting a huge part of the bivalves’ food chain: photosynthetic algae and bacteria. Instead, most persisted, although biodiversity was forever scrambled as a new ecological landscape emerged. Species that were once dominant struggled, while evolutionary newcomers rose in their place.

    The reasons some species survived and others didn’t leave many questions to explore. Those that filtered phytoplankton from the water column suffered some of the highest species losses, but so did species that fed on organic scraps and didn’t rely as much on the Sun’s energy. Narrow geographic distributions and different metabolisms may have contributed to these extinction patterns.

    Biodiversity bounces back

    Life rebounded from each of the Big Five mass extinctions throughout Earth’s history, eventually punching through past diversity highs. The rich fossil record and spectacular ecological diversity of bivalves gives us a terrific opportunity to study these rebounds to understand how ecosystems and global biodiversity rebuild in the wake of extinctions.

    The extinction caused by the asteroid strike knocked down some thriving modes of life and opened the door for others to dominate the new landscape.

    The rebound from the extinction wasn’t so straightforward. Some modes of life lost nearly all their species, never to recover their past diversity. Others rose to take the top ranks. Genera is the plural of genus.
    Adapted from Edie et al. 2025, Science Advances

    While many people lament the loss of the dinosaurs, we malacologists miss the rudists.

    These bizarrely shaped bivalves resembled giant ice cream cones, sometimes reaching more than 3 feet (1 meter) in size, and they dominated the shallow, tropical Mesozoic seas as massive aggregations of contorted individuals, similar to today’s coral reefs. At least a few harbored photosymbiotic algae, which provided them with nutrients and spurred their growth, much like modern corals.

    An ancient fossil of a rudist from before the last mass extinction. These bivalves could grow to a meter high.
    Smithsonian Institution

    Today, giant clams (Tridacna) and their relatives fill parts of these unique photosymbiotic lifestyles once occupied by the rudists, but they lack the rudists’ astonishing species diversity.

    Mass extinctions clearly upend the status quo. Now, our ocean floors are dominated by clams burrowed into sand and mud, the quahogs, cockles and their relatives – a scene far different from that of the seafloor 66 million years ago.

    New winners in a scrambled ecosystem

    Ecological traits alone didn’t fully predict extinction patterns, nor do they entirely explain the rebound. We also see that simply surviving a mass extinction didn’t necessarily provide a leg up as species diversified within their old and sometimes new modes of life – and few of those new modes dominate the ecological landscape today.

    Like the rudists, trigoniid bivalves had lots of different species prior to the extinction event. These highly ornamented clams built parts of their shells with a super strong biomaterial called nacre – think iridescent pearls – and had fractally interlocking hinges holding their two valves together.

    An ancient fossil of a pearly but tough trigoniid bivalve from the last mass extinction. The two matching shells show their elaborate hinge.
    Smithsonian Institution

    But despite surviving the extinction, which should have placed them in a prime position to accumulate species again, their diversification sputtered. Other types of bivalves that made a living in the same way proliferated instead, relegating this once mighty and global group to a handful of species now found only off the coast of Australia.

    Lessons for today’s oceans

    These unexpected patterns of extinction and survival may offer lessons for the future.

    The fossil record shows us that biodiversity has definite breaking points, usually during a perfect storm of climatic and environmental upheaval. It’s not just that species are lost, but the ecological landscape is overturned.

    Many scientists believe the current biodiversity crisis may cascade into a sixth mass extinction, this one driven by human activities that are changing ecosystems and the global climate. Corals, whose reefs are home to nearly a quarter of known marine species, have faced mass bleaching events as warming ocean water puts their future at risk. Acidification as the oceans absorb more carbon dioxide can also weaken the shells of organisms crucial to the ocean food web.

    Findings like ours suggest that, in the future, the rebound from extinction events will likely result in very different mixes of species and their modes of life in the oceans. And the result may not align with human needs if species providing the bulk of ecosystem services are driven genetically or functionally extinct.

    The global oceans and their inhabitants are complex, and, as our team’s latest research shows, it is difficult to predict the trajectory of biodiversity as it rebounds – even when extinction pressures are reduced.

    Billions of people depend on the ocean for food. As the history recorded by the world’s bivalves shows, the upending of the pecking order – the number of species in each mode of life – won’t necessarily settle into an arrangement that can feed as many people the next time around.

    Stewart Edie receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution.

    – ref. Ancient fossils show how the last mass extinction forever scrambled the ocean’s biodiversity – https://theconversation.com/ancient-fossils-show-how-the-last-mass-extinction-forever-scrambled-the-oceans-biodiversity-258389

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Ancient fossils show how the last mass extinction forever scrambled the ocean’s biodiversity

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Stewart Edie, Research Geologist and Curator of Paleobiology, Smithsonian Institution

    Even bivalves looked different during the time of the dinosaurs, as these fossils of an ultra-fortified oyster, left, and armored cockle show. Smithsonian Institution

    About 66 million years ago – perhaps on a downright unlucky day in May – an asteroid smashed into our planet.

    The fallout was immediate and severe. Evidence shows that about 70% of species went extinct in a geological instant, and not just those famous dinosaurs that once stalked the land. Masters of the Mesozoic oceans were also wiped out, from mosasaurs – a group of aquatic reptiles topping the food chain – to exquisitely shelled squid relatives known as ammonites.

    Even groups that weathered the catastrophe, such as mammals, fishes and flowering plants, suffered severe population declines and species loss. Invertebrate life in the oceans didn’t fare much better.

    But bubbling away on the seafloor was a stolid group of animals that has left a fantastic fossil record and continues to thrive today: bivalves – clams, cockles, mussels, oysters and more.

    What happened to these creatures during the extinction event and how they rebounded tells an important story, both about the past and the future of biodiversity.

    Surprising discoveries on the seafloor

    Marine bivalves lost around three-quarters of their species during this mass extinction, which marked the end of the Cretaceous Period. My colleagues and I – each of us paleobiologists studying biodiversity – expected that losing so many species would have severely cut down the variety of roles that bivalves play within their environments, what we call their “modes of life.”

    But, as we explain in a study published in the journal Sciences Advances, that wasn’t the case. In assessing the fossils of thousands of bivalve species, we found that at least one species from nearly all their modes of life, no matter how rare or specialized, squeaked through the extinction event.

    Statistically, that shouldn’t have happened. Kill 70% of bivalve species, even at random, and some modes of life should disappear.

    Bivalves had an amazing array of life modes just before the end-Cretaceous mass extinction 66 million years ago. Incredibly, despite the loss of 70% of their species, all but two modes of life survived – Nos. 2 and 10.
    Adapted from Edie et al. 2025, Science Advances

    Most bivalves happily burrow into the sand and mud, feeding on phytoplankton they strain from the water. But others have adopted chemosymbionts and photosymbionts – bacteria and algae that produce nutrients for the bivalves from chemicals or sunlight in exchange for housing. A few have even become carnivorous. Some groups, including the oysters, can lay down a tough cement that hardens underwater, and mussels hold onto rocks by spinning silken threads.

    We thought surely these more specialized modes of life would have been snuffed out by the effects of the asteroid’s impact, including dust and debris likely blocking sunlight and disrupting a huge part of the bivalves’ food chain: photosynthetic algae and bacteria. Instead, most persisted, although biodiversity was forever scrambled as a new ecological landscape emerged. Species that were once dominant struggled, while evolutionary newcomers rose in their place.

    The reasons some species survived and others didn’t leave many questions to explore. Those that filtered phytoplankton from the water column suffered some of the highest species losses, but so did species that fed on organic scraps and didn’t rely as much on the Sun’s energy. Narrow geographic distributions and different metabolisms may have contributed to these extinction patterns.

    Biodiversity bounces back

    Life rebounded from each of the Big Five mass extinctions throughout Earth’s history, eventually punching through past diversity highs. The rich fossil record and spectacular ecological diversity of bivalves gives us a terrific opportunity to study these rebounds to understand how ecosystems and global biodiversity rebuild in the wake of extinctions.

    The extinction caused by the asteroid strike knocked down some thriving modes of life and opened the door for others to dominate the new landscape.

    The rebound from the extinction wasn’t so straightforward. Some modes of life lost nearly all their species, never to recover their past diversity. Others rose to take the top ranks. Genera is the plural of genus.
    Adapted from Edie et al. 2025, Science Advances

    While many people lament the loss of the dinosaurs, we malacologists miss the rudists.

    These bizarrely shaped bivalves resembled giant ice cream cones, sometimes reaching more than 3 feet (1 meter) in size, and they dominated the shallow, tropical Mesozoic seas as massive aggregations of contorted individuals, similar to today’s coral reefs. At least a few harbored photosymbiotic algae, which provided them with nutrients and spurred their growth, much like modern corals.

    An ancient fossil of a rudist from before the last mass extinction. These bivalves could grow to a meter high.
    Smithsonian Institution

    Today, giant clams (Tridacna) and their relatives fill parts of these unique photosymbiotic lifestyles once occupied by the rudists, but they lack the rudists’ astonishing species diversity.

    Mass extinctions clearly upend the status quo. Now, our ocean floors are dominated by clams burrowed into sand and mud, the quahogs, cockles and their relatives – a scene far different from that of the seafloor 66 million years ago.

    New winners in a scrambled ecosystem

    Ecological traits alone didn’t fully predict extinction patterns, nor do they entirely explain the rebound. We also see that simply surviving a mass extinction didn’t necessarily provide a leg up as species diversified within their old and sometimes new modes of life – and few of those new modes dominate the ecological landscape today.

    Like the rudists, trigoniid bivalves had lots of different species prior to the extinction event. These highly ornamented clams built parts of their shells with a super strong biomaterial called nacre – think iridescent pearls – and had fractally interlocking hinges holding their two valves together.

    An ancient fossil of a pearly but tough trigoniid bivalve from the last mass extinction. The two matching shells show their elaborate hinge.
    Smithsonian Institution

    But despite surviving the extinction, which should have placed them in a prime position to accumulate species again, their diversification sputtered. Other types of bivalves that made a living in the same way proliferated instead, relegating this once mighty and global group to a handful of species now found only off the coast of Australia.

    Lessons for today’s oceans

    These unexpected patterns of extinction and survival may offer lessons for the future.

    The fossil record shows us that biodiversity has definite breaking points, usually during a perfect storm of climatic and environmental upheaval. It’s not just that species are lost, but the ecological landscape is overturned.

    Many scientists believe the current biodiversity crisis may cascade into a sixth mass extinction, this one driven by human activities that are changing ecosystems and the global climate. Corals, whose reefs are home to nearly a quarter of known marine species, have faced mass bleaching events as warming ocean water puts their future at risk. Acidification as the oceans absorb more carbon dioxide can also weaken the shells of organisms crucial to the ocean food web.

    Findings like ours suggest that, in the future, the rebound from extinction events will likely result in very different mixes of species and their modes of life in the oceans. And the result may not align with human needs if species providing the bulk of ecosystem services are driven genetically or functionally extinct.

    The global oceans and their inhabitants are complex, and, as our team’s latest research shows, it is difficult to predict the trajectory of biodiversity as it rebounds – even when extinction pressures are reduced.

    Billions of people depend on the ocean for food. As the history recorded by the world’s bivalves shows, the upending of the pecking order – the number of species in each mode of life – won’t necessarily settle into an arrangement that can feed as many people the next time around.

    Stewart Edie receives funding from the Smithsonian Institution.

    – ref. Ancient fossils show how the last mass extinction forever scrambled the ocean’s biodiversity – https://theconversation.com/ancient-fossils-show-how-the-last-mass-extinction-forever-scrambled-the-oceans-biodiversity-258389

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ positions US energy to be more costly for consumers and the climate

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Daniel Cohan, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice University

    Proposed revisions to U.S. energy policy would likely raise consumer prices and climate-warming emissions. zpagistock/Moment via Getty Images

    When it comes to energy policy, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” – the official name of a massive federal tax-cut and spending bill that House Republicans passed in May 2025 – risks raising Americans’ energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

    The 1,100-page bill would slash incentives for green technologies such as solar, wind, batteries, electric cars and heat pumps while subsidizing existing nuclear power plants and biofuels. That would leave the country and its people burning more fossil fuels despite strong popular and scientific support for a rapid shift to renewable energy.

    The bill may still be revised by the Senate before it moves to a final vote. But it is a picture of how President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans want to reshape U.S. energy policy.

    As an environmental engineering professor who studies ways to confront climate change, I think it is important to distinguish which technologies could rapidly cut emissions or are on the verge of becoming viable from those that do little to fight climate change. Unfortunately, the House bill favors the latter while nixing support for the former.

    Renewable energy

    Wind and solar power, often paired with batteries, are providing over 90% of the new electricity currently being added to the grid nationally and around the world. Geothermal power is undergoing technological breakthroughs. With natural gas turbines in short supply and long lead times to build other resources, renewables and batteries offer the fastest way to satisfy growing demand for power.

    However, the House bill rescinds billions of dollars that the Inflation Reduction Act, enacted in 2022, devoted to boosting domestic manufacturing and deployments of renewable energy and batteries.

    It would terminate tax credits for manufacturing for the wind industry in 2028 and for solar and batteries in 2032. That would disrupt the boom in domestic manufacturing projects that was being stimulated by the Inflation Reduction Act.

    Deployments would be hit even harder. Wind, solar, geothermal and battery projects would need to commence construction within 60 days of passage of the bill to receive tax credits.

    In addition, the bill would deny tax credits to projects that use Chinese-made components. Financial analysts have called those provisions “unworkable,” since some Chinese materials may be necessary even for projects built with as much domestic content as possible.

    Analysts warn that the House bill would cut new wind, solar and battery installations by 20% compared with the growth that had been expected without the bill. That’s why BloombergNEF, an energy research firm, called the bill a “nightmare scenario” for clean energy proponents.

    However, one person’s nightmare may be another man’s dream. “We’re constraining the hell out of wind and solar, which is good,” said Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican backed by the oil and gas industry.

    Wind turbines and solar panels generate renewable energy side by side near Palm Springs, Calif.
    Mario Tama/Getty Images

    Efficiency and electric cars

    Cuts fall even harder on Americans who are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and energy costs. The bill repeals aid for home efficiency improvements such as heat pumps, efficient windows and energy audits. Homeowners would also lose tax credits for installing solar panels and batteries.

    For vehicles, the bill would not only repeal tax credits for electric cars, trucks and chargers, but it also would impose a federal $250 annual fee on vehicles, on top of fees that some states charge electric-car owners. The federal fee is more than the gas taxes paid by other drivers to fund highways and ignores air-quality and climate effects.

    Combined, the lost credits and increased fees could cut projected U.S. sales of electric vehicles by 40% in 2030, according to modeling by Jesse Jenkins of Princeton University.

    Nuclear power

    Meanwhile, the bill partially retains a tax credit for electricity from existing nuclear power plants. Those plants may not need the help: Electricity demand is surging, and companies like Meta are signing long-term deals for nuclear energy to power data centers. Nuclear plants are also paid to manage their radioactive waste, since the country lacks a permanent place to store it.

    For new nuclear plants, the bill would move up the deadline to 2028 to begin construction. That deadline is too soon for some new reactor designs and would rush the vetting of others. Nuclear safety regulators are awaiting a study from the National Academies on the weapons proliferation risks of the type of uranium fuel that some developers hope to use in newer designs.

    The House-passed bill would protect government subsidies for existing nuclear power plants, like the one in the background, while limiting support for wind turbines.
    Scott Olson/Getty Images

    Biofuels

    While cutting funding for electric vehicles, the bill would spend $45 billion to extend tax credits for biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

    Food-based biofuels do little good for the climate because growing, harvesting and processing crops requires fertilizers, pesticides and fuel. The bill would allow forests to be cut to make room for crops because it directs agencies to ignore the impacts of biofuels on land use.

    Hydrogen

    The bill would end tax credits for hydrogen production. Without that support, companies will be unlikely to invest in the seven so-called “hydrogen hubs” that were allocated a combined $8 billion under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021. Those hubs aim to attract $40 billion in private investments and create tens of thousands of jobs while developing cleaner ways to make hydrogen.

    The repealed tax credits would have subsidized hydrogen made emissions-free by using renewable or nuclear electricity to split water molecules. They also would have subsidized hydrogen made from natural gas with carbon capture, whose benefits are impaired by methane emissions from natural gas systems and incomplete carbon capture.

    However it’s made, hydrogen is no panacea. As the world’s smallest molecule, hydrogen is prone to leaking, which can pose safety challenges and indirectly warm the climate. And while hydrogen is essential for making fertilizers and potentially useful for making steel or aviation fuels, vehicles and heating are more efficiently powered by electricity than by hydrogen.

    Still, European governments and China are investing heavily in hydrogen production.

    As Congress deliberates on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the nation’s energy agenda is one of many issues being hotly debated.
    Kevin Carter/Getty Images

    Summing it up

    The conservative Tax Foundation estimates that the House bill would cut the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits by about half, saving the government $50 billion a year. But with fewer efficiency improvements, fewer electric vehicles and less clean power on the grid, Princeton’s Jenkins projects American households would pay up to $415 more per year for energy by 2035 than if the bill’s provisions were not enacted. If the bill’s provisions make it into law, the extra fossil fuel-burning would leave annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 1 billion tons higher by then.

    No one expected former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act to escape unscathed with Republicans in the White House and dominating both houses of Congress. Still, the proposed cuts target the technologies Americans count on to protect the climate and save consumers money.

    Daniel Cohan receives funding from the Carbon Hub at Rice University.

    – ref. How the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ positions US energy to be more costly for consumers and the climate – https://theconversation.com/how-the-big-beautiful-bill-positions-us-energy-to-be-more-costly-for-consumers-and-the-climate-257783

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ positions US energy to be more costly for consumers and the climate

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Daniel Cohan, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice University

    Proposed revisions to U.S. energy policy would likely raise consumer prices and climate-warming emissions. zpagistock/Moment via Getty Images

    When it comes to energy policy, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” – the official name of a massive federal tax-cut and spending bill that House Republicans passed in May 2025 – risks raising Americans’ energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

    The 1,100-page bill would slash incentives for green technologies such as solar, wind, batteries, electric cars and heat pumps while subsidizing existing nuclear power plants and biofuels. That would leave the country and its people burning more fossil fuels despite strong popular and scientific support for a rapid shift to renewable energy.

    The bill may still be revised by the Senate before it moves to a final vote. But it is a picture of how President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans want to reshape U.S. energy policy.

    As an environmental engineering professor who studies ways to confront climate change, I think it is important to distinguish which technologies could rapidly cut emissions or are on the verge of becoming viable from those that do little to fight climate change. Unfortunately, the House bill favors the latter while nixing support for the former.

    Renewable energy

    Wind and solar power, often paired with batteries, are providing over 90% of the new electricity currently being added to the grid nationally and around the world. Geothermal power is undergoing technological breakthroughs. With natural gas turbines in short supply and long lead times to build other resources, renewables and batteries offer the fastest way to satisfy growing demand for power.

    However, the House bill rescinds billions of dollars that the Inflation Reduction Act, enacted in 2022, devoted to boosting domestic manufacturing and deployments of renewable energy and batteries.

    It would terminate tax credits for manufacturing for the wind industry in 2028 and for solar and batteries in 2032. That would disrupt the boom in domestic manufacturing projects that was being stimulated by the Inflation Reduction Act.

    Deployments would be hit even harder. Wind, solar, geothermal and battery projects would need to commence construction within 60 days of passage of the bill to receive tax credits.

    In addition, the bill would deny tax credits to projects that use Chinese-made components. Financial analysts have called those provisions “unworkable,” since some Chinese materials may be necessary even for projects built with as much domestic content as possible.

    Analysts warn that the House bill would cut new wind, solar and battery installations by 20% compared with the growth that had been expected without the bill. That’s why BloombergNEF, an energy research firm, called the bill a “nightmare scenario” for clean energy proponents.

    However, one person’s nightmare may be another man’s dream. “We’re constraining the hell out of wind and solar, which is good,” said Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican backed by the oil and gas industry.

    Wind turbines and solar panels generate renewable energy side by side near Palm Springs, Calif.
    Mario Tama/Getty Images

    Efficiency and electric cars

    Cuts fall even harder on Americans who are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and energy costs. The bill repeals aid for home efficiency improvements such as heat pumps, efficient windows and energy audits. Homeowners would also lose tax credits for installing solar panels and batteries.

    For vehicles, the bill would not only repeal tax credits for electric cars, trucks and chargers, but it also would impose a federal $250 annual fee on vehicles, on top of fees that some states charge electric-car owners. The federal fee is more than the gas taxes paid by other drivers to fund highways and ignores air-quality and climate effects.

    Combined, the lost credits and increased fees could cut projected U.S. sales of electric vehicles by 40% in 2030, according to modeling by Jesse Jenkins of Princeton University.

    Nuclear power

    Meanwhile, the bill partially retains a tax credit for electricity from existing nuclear power plants. Those plants may not need the help: Electricity demand is surging, and companies like Meta are signing long-term deals for nuclear energy to power data centers. Nuclear plants are also paid to manage their radioactive waste, since the country lacks a permanent place to store it.

    For new nuclear plants, the bill would move up the deadline to 2028 to begin construction. That deadline is too soon for some new reactor designs and would rush the vetting of others. Nuclear safety regulators are awaiting a study from the National Academies on the weapons proliferation risks of the type of uranium fuel that some developers hope to use in newer designs.

    The House-passed bill would protect government subsidies for existing nuclear power plants, like the one in the background, while limiting support for wind turbines.
    Scott Olson/Getty Images

    Biofuels

    While cutting funding for electric vehicles, the bill would spend $45 billion to extend tax credits for biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

    Food-based biofuels do little good for the climate because growing, harvesting and processing crops requires fertilizers, pesticides and fuel. The bill would allow forests to be cut to make room for crops because it directs agencies to ignore the impacts of biofuels on land use.

    Hydrogen

    The bill would end tax credits for hydrogen production. Without that support, companies will be unlikely to invest in the seven so-called “hydrogen hubs” that were allocated a combined $8 billion under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021. Those hubs aim to attract $40 billion in private investments and create tens of thousands of jobs while developing cleaner ways to make hydrogen.

    The repealed tax credits would have subsidized hydrogen made emissions-free by using renewable or nuclear electricity to split water molecules. They also would have subsidized hydrogen made from natural gas with carbon capture, whose benefits are impaired by methane emissions from natural gas systems and incomplete carbon capture.

    However it’s made, hydrogen is no panacea. As the world’s smallest molecule, hydrogen is prone to leaking, which can pose safety challenges and indirectly warm the climate. And while hydrogen is essential for making fertilizers and potentially useful for making steel or aviation fuels, vehicles and heating are more efficiently powered by electricity than by hydrogen.

    Still, European governments and China are investing heavily in hydrogen production.

    As Congress deliberates on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the nation’s energy agenda is one of many issues being hotly debated.
    Kevin Carter/Getty Images

    Summing it up

    The conservative Tax Foundation estimates that the House bill would cut the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits by about half, saving the government $50 billion a year. But with fewer efficiency improvements, fewer electric vehicles and less clean power on the grid, Princeton’s Jenkins projects American households would pay up to $415 more per year for energy by 2035 than if the bill’s provisions were not enacted. If the bill’s provisions make it into law, the extra fossil fuel-burning would leave annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 1 billion tons higher by then.

    No one expected former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act to escape unscathed with Republicans in the White House and dominating both houses of Congress. Still, the proposed cuts target the technologies Americans count on to protect the climate and save consumers money.

    Daniel Cohan receives funding from the Carbon Hub at Rice University.

    – ref. How the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ positions US energy to be more costly for consumers and the climate – https://theconversation.com/how-the-big-beautiful-bill-positions-us-energy-to-be-more-costly-for-consumers-and-the-climate-257783

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ positions US energy to be more costly for consumers and the climate

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Daniel Cohan, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice University

    Proposed revisions to U.S. energy policy would likely raise consumer prices and climate-warming emissions. zpagistock/Moment via Getty Images

    When it comes to energy policy, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” – the official name of a massive federal tax-cut and spending bill that House Republicans passed in May 2025 – risks raising Americans’ energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

    The 1,100-page bill would slash incentives for green technologies such as solar, wind, batteries, electric cars and heat pumps while subsidizing existing nuclear power plants and biofuels. That would leave the country and its people burning more fossil fuels despite strong popular and scientific support for a rapid shift to renewable energy.

    The bill may still be revised by the Senate before it moves to a final vote. But it is a picture of how President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans want to reshape U.S. energy policy.

    As an environmental engineering professor who studies ways to confront climate change, I think it is important to distinguish which technologies could rapidly cut emissions or are on the verge of becoming viable from those that do little to fight climate change. Unfortunately, the House bill favors the latter while nixing support for the former.

    Renewable energy

    Wind and solar power, often paired with batteries, are providing over 90% of the new electricity currently being added to the grid nationally and around the world. Geothermal power is undergoing technological breakthroughs. With natural gas turbines in short supply and long lead times to build other resources, renewables and batteries offer the fastest way to satisfy growing demand for power.

    However, the House bill rescinds billions of dollars that the Inflation Reduction Act, enacted in 2022, devoted to boosting domestic manufacturing and deployments of renewable energy and batteries.

    It would terminate tax credits for manufacturing for the wind industry in 2028 and for solar and batteries in 2032. That would disrupt the boom in domestic manufacturing projects that was being stimulated by the Inflation Reduction Act.

    Deployments would be hit even harder. Wind, solar, geothermal and battery projects would need to commence construction within 60 days of passage of the bill to receive tax credits.

    In addition, the bill would deny tax credits to projects that use Chinese-made components. Financial analysts have called those provisions “unworkable,” since some Chinese materials may be necessary even for projects built with as much domestic content as possible.

    Analysts warn that the House bill would cut new wind, solar and battery installations by 20% compared with the growth that had been expected without the bill. That’s why BloombergNEF, an energy research firm, called the bill a “nightmare scenario” for clean energy proponents.

    However, one person’s nightmare may be another man’s dream. “We’re constraining the hell out of wind and solar, which is good,” said Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican backed by the oil and gas industry.

    Wind turbines and solar panels generate renewable energy side by side near Palm Springs, Calif.
    Mario Tama/Getty Images

    Efficiency and electric cars

    Cuts fall even harder on Americans who are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and energy costs. The bill repeals aid for home efficiency improvements such as heat pumps, efficient windows and energy audits. Homeowners would also lose tax credits for installing solar panels and batteries.

    For vehicles, the bill would not only repeal tax credits for electric cars, trucks and chargers, but it also would impose a federal $250 annual fee on vehicles, on top of fees that some states charge electric-car owners. The federal fee is more than the gas taxes paid by other drivers to fund highways and ignores air-quality and climate effects.

    Combined, the lost credits and increased fees could cut projected U.S. sales of electric vehicles by 40% in 2030, according to modeling by Jesse Jenkins of Princeton University.

    Nuclear power

    Meanwhile, the bill partially retains a tax credit for electricity from existing nuclear power plants. Those plants may not need the help: Electricity demand is surging, and companies like Meta are signing long-term deals for nuclear energy to power data centers. Nuclear plants are also paid to manage their radioactive waste, since the country lacks a permanent place to store it.

    For new nuclear plants, the bill would move up the deadline to 2028 to begin construction. That deadline is too soon for some new reactor designs and would rush the vetting of others. Nuclear safety regulators are awaiting a study from the National Academies on the weapons proliferation risks of the type of uranium fuel that some developers hope to use in newer designs.

    The House-passed bill would protect government subsidies for existing nuclear power plants, like the one in the background, while limiting support for wind turbines.
    Scott Olson/Getty Images

    Biofuels

    While cutting funding for electric vehicles, the bill would spend $45 billion to extend tax credits for biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

    Food-based biofuels do little good for the climate because growing, harvesting and processing crops requires fertilizers, pesticides and fuel. The bill would allow forests to be cut to make room for crops because it directs agencies to ignore the impacts of biofuels on land use.

    Hydrogen

    The bill would end tax credits for hydrogen production. Without that support, companies will be unlikely to invest in the seven so-called “hydrogen hubs” that were allocated a combined $8 billion under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021. Those hubs aim to attract $40 billion in private investments and create tens of thousands of jobs while developing cleaner ways to make hydrogen.

    The repealed tax credits would have subsidized hydrogen made emissions-free by using renewable or nuclear electricity to split water molecules. They also would have subsidized hydrogen made from natural gas with carbon capture, whose benefits are impaired by methane emissions from natural gas systems and incomplete carbon capture.

    However it’s made, hydrogen is no panacea. As the world’s smallest molecule, hydrogen is prone to leaking, which can pose safety challenges and indirectly warm the climate. And while hydrogen is essential for making fertilizers and potentially useful for making steel or aviation fuels, vehicles and heating are more efficiently powered by electricity than by hydrogen.

    Still, European governments and China are investing heavily in hydrogen production.

    As Congress deliberates on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the nation’s energy agenda is one of many issues being hotly debated.
    Kevin Carter/Getty Images

    Summing it up

    The conservative Tax Foundation estimates that the House bill would cut the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits by about half, saving the government $50 billion a year. But with fewer efficiency improvements, fewer electric vehicles and less clean power on the grid, Princeton’s Jenkins projects American households would pay up to $415 more per year for energy by 2035 than if the bill’s provisions were not enacted. If the bill’s provisions make it into law, the extra fossil fuel-burning would leave annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 1 billion tons higher by then.

    No one expected former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act to escape unscathed with Republicans in the White House and dominating both houses of Congress. Still, the proposed cuts target the technologies Americans count on to protect the climate and save consumers money.

    Daniel Cohan receives funding from the Carbon Hub at Rice University.

    – ref. How the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ positions US energy to be more costly for consumers and the climate – https://theconversation.com/how-the-big-beautiful-bill-positions-us-energy-to-be-more-costly-for-consumers-and-the-climate-257783

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ positions US energy to be more costly for consumers and the climate

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Daniel Cohan, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Rice University

    Proposed revisions to U.S. energy policy would likely raise consumer prices and climate-warming emissions. zpagistock/Moment via Getty Images

    When it comes to energy policy, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” – the official name of a massive federal tax-cut and spending bill that House Republicans passed in May 2025 – risks raising Americans’ energy costs and greenhouse gas emissions.

    The 1,100-page bill would slash incentives for green technologies such as solar, wind, batteries, electric cars and heat pumps while subsidizing existing nuclear power plants and biofuels. That would leave the country and its people burning more fossil fuels despite strong popular and scientific support for a rapid shift to renewable energy.

    The bill may still be revised by the Senate before it moves to a final vote. But it is a picture of how President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans want to reshape U.S. energy policy.

    As an environmental engineering professor who studies ways to confront climate change, I think it is important to distinguish which technologies could rapidly cut emissions or are on the verge of becoming viable from those that do little to fight climate change. Unfortunately, the House bill favors the latter while nixing support for the former.

    Renewable energy

    Wind and solar power, often paired with batteries, are providing over 90% of the new electricity currently being added to the grid nationally and around the world. Geothermal power is undergoing technological breakthroughs. With natural gas turbines in short supply and long lead times to build other resources, renewables and batteries offer the fastest way to satisfy growing demand for power.

    However, the House bill rescinds billions of dollars that the Inflation Reduction Act, enacted in 2022, devoted to boosting domestic manufacturing and deployments of renewable energy and batteries.

    It would terminate tax credits for manufacturing for the wind industry in 2028 and for solar and batteries in 2032. That would disrupt the boom in domestic manufacturing projects that was being stimulated by the Inflation Reduction Act.

    Deployments would be hit even harder. Wind, solar, geothermal and battery projects would need to commence construction within 60 days of passage of the bill to receive tax credits.

    In addition, the bill would deny tax credits to projects that use Chinese-made components. Financial analysts have called those provisions “unworkable,” since some Chinese materials may be necessary even for projects built with as much domestic content as possible.

    Analysts warn that the House bill would cut new wind, solar and battery installations by 20% compared with the growth that had been expected without the bill. That’s why BloombergNEF, an energy research firm, called the bill a “nightmare scenario” for clean energy proponents.

    However, one person’s nightmare may be another man’s dream. “We’re constraining the hell out of wind and solar, which is good,” said Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican backed by the oil and gas industry.

    Wind turbines and solar panels generate renewable energy side by side near Palm Springs, Calif.
    Mario Tama/Getty Images

    Efficiency and electric cars

    Cuts fall even harder on Americans who are trying to reduce their carbon footprints and energy costs. The bill repeals aid for home efficiency improvements such as heat pumps, efficient windows and energy audits. Homeowners would also lose tax credits for installing solar panels and batteries.

    For vehicles, the bill would not only repeal tax credits for electric cars, trucks and chargers, but it also would impose a federal $250 annual fee on vehicles, on top of fees that some states charge electric-car owners. The federal fee is more than the gas taxes paid by other drivers to fund highways and ignores air-quality and climate effects.

    Combined, the lost credits and increased fees could cut projected U.S. sales of electric vehicles by 40% in 2030, according to modeling by Jesse Jenkins of Princeton University.

    Nuclear power

    Meanwhile, the bill partially retains a tax credit for electricity from existing nuclear power plants. Those plants may not need the help: Electricity demand is surging, and companies like Meta are signing long-term deals for nuclear energy to power data centers. Nuclear plants are also paid to manage their radioactive waste, since the country lacks a permanent place to store it.

    For new nuclear plants, the bill would move up the deadline to 2028 to begin construction. That deadline is too soon for some new reactor designs and would rush the vetting of others. Nuclear safety regulators are awaiting a study from the National Academies on the weapons proliferation risks of the type of uranium fuel that some developers hope to use in newer designs.

    The House-passed bill would protect government subsidies for existing nuclear power plants, like the one in the background, while limiting support for wind turbines.
    Scott Olson/Getty Images

    Biofuels

    While cutting funding for electric vehicles, the bill would spend $45 billion to extend tax credits for biofuels such as ethanol and biodiesel.

    Food-based biofuels do little good for the climate because growing, harvesting and processing crops requires fertilizers, pesticides and fuel. The bill would allow forests to be cut to make room for crops because it directs agencies to ignore the impacts of biofuels on land use.

    Hydrogen

    The bill would end tax credits for hydrogen production. Without that support, companies will be unlikely to invest in the seven so-called “hydrogen hubs” that were allocated a combined $8 billion under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021. Those hubs aim to attract $40 billion in private investments and create tens of thousands of jobs while developing cleaner ways to make hydrogen.

    The repealed tax credits would have subsidized hydrogen made emissions-free by using renewable or nuclear electricity to split water molecules. They also would have subsidized hydrogen made from natural gas with carbon capture, whose benefits are impaired by methane emissions from natural gas systems and incomplete carbon capture.

    However it’s made, hydrogen is no panacea. As the world’s smallest molecule, hydrogen is prone to leaking, which can pose safety challenges and indirectly warm the climate. And while hydrogen is essential for making fertilizers and potentially useful for making steel or aviation fuels, vehicles and heating are more efficiently powered by electricity than by hydrogen.

    Still, European governments and China are investing heavily in hydrogen production.

    As Congress deliberates on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the nation’s energy agenda is one of many issues being hotly debated.
    Kevin Carter/Getty Images

    Summing it up

    The conservative Tax Foundation estimates that the House bill would cut the Inflation Reduction Act’s clean energy tax credits by about half, saving the government $50 billion a year. But with fewer efficiency improvements, fewer electric vehicles and less clean power on the grid, Princeton’s Jenkins projects American households would pay up to $415 more per year for energy by 2035 than if the bill’s provisions were not enacted. If the bill’s provisions make it into law, the extra fossil fuel-burning would leave annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 1 billion tons higher by then.

    No one expected former President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act to escape unscathed with Republicans in the White House and dominating both houses of Congress. Still, the proposed cuts target the technologies Americans count on to protect the climate and save consumers money.

    Daniel Cohan receives funding from the Carbon Hub at Rice University.

    – ref. How the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ positions US energy to be more costly for consumers and the climate – https://theconversation.com/how-the-big-beautiful-bill-positions-us-energy-to-be-more-costly-for-consumers-and-the-climate-257783

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: How your air conditioner can help the power grid, rather than overloading it

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Johanna Mathieu, Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering & Computer Science, University of Michigan

    Could this common home machinery help usher in more renewable energy? Holden Henry/iStock / Getty Images Plus

    As summer arrives, people are turning on air conditioners in most of the U.S. But if you’re like me, you always feel a little guilty about that. Past generations managed without air conditioning – do I really need it? And how bad is it to use all this electricity for cooling in a warming world?

    If I leave my air conditioner off, I get too hot. But if everyone turns on their air conditioner at the same time, electricity demand spikes, which can force power grid operators to activate some of the most expensive, and dirtiest, power plants. Sometimes those spikes can ask too much of the grid and lead to brownouts or blackouts.

    Research I recently published with a team of scholars makes me feel a little better, though. We have found that it is possible to coordinate the operation of large numbers of home air-conditioning units, balancing supply and demand on the power grid – and without making people endure high temperatures inside their homes.

    Studies along these lines, using remote control of air conditioners to support the grid, have for many years explored theoretical possibilities like this. However, few approaches have been demonstrated in practice and never for such a high-value application and at this scale. The system we developed not only demonstrated the ability to balance the grid on timescales of seconds, but also proved it was possible to do so without affecting residents’ comfort.

    The benefits include increasing the reliability of the power grid, which makes it easier for the grid to accept more renewable energy. Our goal is to turn air conditioners from a challenge for the power grid into an asset, supporting a shift away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energy.

    Adjustable equipment

    My research focuses on batteries, solar panels and electric equipment – such as electric vehicles, water heaters, air conditioners and heat pumps – that can adjust itself to consume different amounts of energy at different times.

    Originally, the U.S. electric grid was built to transport electricity from large power plants to customers’ homes and businesses. And originally, power plants were large, centralized operations that burned coal or natural gas, or harvested energy from nuclear reactions. These plants were typically always available and could adjust how much power they generated in response to customer demand, so the grid would be balanced between power coming in from producers and being used by consumers.

    But the grid has changed. There are more renewable energy sources, from which power isn’t always available – like solar panels at night or wind turbines on calm days. And there are the devices and equipment I study. These newer options, called “distributed energy resources,” generate or store energy near where consumers need it – or adjust how much energy they’re using in real time.

    One aspect of the grid hasn’t changed, though: There’s not much storage built into the system. So every time you turn on a light, for a moment there’s not enough electricity to supply everything that wants it right then: The grid needs a power producer to generate a little more power. And when you turn off a light, there’s a little too much: A power producer needs to ramp down.

    The way power plants know what real-time power adjustments are needed is by closely monitoring the grid frequency. The goal is to provide electricity at a constant frequency – 60 hertz – at all times. If more power is needed than is being produced, the frequency drops and a power plant boosts output. If there’s too much power being produced, the frequency rises and a power plant slows production a little. These actions, a process called “frequency regulation,” happen in a matter of seconds to keep the grid balanced.

    This output flexibility, primarily from power plants, is key to keeping the lights on for everyone.

    Power plants, like this one in Utah, adjust their output to match demand from electricity customers.
    Jason Finn/iStock / Getty Images Plus

    Finding new options

    I’m interested in how distributed energy resources can improve flexibility in the grid. They can release more energy, or consume less, to respond to the changing supply or demand, and help balance the grid, ensuring the frequency remains near 60 hertz.

    Some people fear that doing so might be invasive, giving someone outside your home the ability to control your battery or air conditioner. Therefore, we wanted to see if we could help balance the grid with frequency regulation using home air-conditioning units rather than power plants – without affecting how residents use their appliances or how comfortable they are in their homes.

    From 2019 to 2023, my group at the University of Michigan tried this approach, in collaboration with researchers at Pecan Street Inc., Los Alamos National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, with funding from the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.

    We recruited 100 homeowners in Austin, Texas, to do a real-world test of our system. All the homes had whole-house forced-air cooling systems, which we connected to custom control boards and sensors the owners allowed us to install in their homes. This equipment let us send instructions to the air-conditioning units based on the frequency of the grid.

    Before I explain how the system worked, I first need to explain how thermostats work. When people set thermostats, they pick a temperature, and the thermostat switches the air-conditioning compressor on and off to maintain the air temperature within a small range around that set point. If the temperature is set at 68 degrees, the thermostat turns the AC on when the temperature is, say, 70, and turns it off when it’s cooled down to, say, 66.

    Every few seconds, our system slightly changed the timing of air-conditioning compressor switching for some of the 100 air conditioners, causing the units’ aggregate power consumption to change. In this way, our small group of home air conditioners reacted to grid changes the way a power plant would – using more or less energy to balance the grid and keep the frequency near 60 hertz.

    Moreover, our system was designed to keep home temperatures within the same small temperature range around the set point.

    Smart thermostats could have frequency regulation capabilities available to interested consumers, to help balance the electricity grid.
    Danielle Mead/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    Testing the approach

    We ran our system in four tests, each lasting one hour. We found two encouraging results.

    First, the air conditioners were able to provide frequency regulation at least as accurately as a traditional power plant. Therefore, we showed that air conditioners could play a significant role in increasing grid flexibility. But perhaps more importantly – at least in terms of encouraging people to participate in these types of systems – we found that we were able to do so without affecting people’s comfort in their homes.

    We found that home temperatures did not deviate more than 1.6 Fahrenheit from their set point. Homeowners were allowed to override the controls if they got uncomfortable, but most didn’t. For most tests, we received zero override requests. In the worst case, we received override requests from two of the 100 homes in our test.

    In practice, this sort of technology could be added to commercially available internet-connected thermostats. In exchange for credits on their energy bills, users could choose to join a service run by the thermostat company, their utility provider or some other third party.

    Then people could turn on the air conditioning in the summer heat without that pang of guilt, knowing they were helping to make the grid more reliable and more capable of accommodating renewable energy sources – without sacrificing their own comfort in the process.

    Johanna Mathieu works for the University of Michigan. She has received funding from the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, ARPA-E, and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. She is affiliated with the IEEE.

    – ref. How your air conditioner can help the power grid, rather than overloading it – https://theconversation.com/how-your-air-conditioner-can-help-the-power-grid-rather-than-overloading-it-256858

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Energy Star, on the Trump administration’s target list, has a long history of helping consumers’ wallets and the planet

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Magali A. Delmas, Professor of Management, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles

    The blue Energy Star label is widely recognized across the U.S. Alex Tai/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

    Since the early 1990s, the small blue Energy Star label has appeared on millions of household appliances, electronics and even buildings across the United States. But as the Trump administration considers terminating some or all of the program, it is worth a look at what exactly this government-backed label means, and why it has become one of the most recognizable environmental certifications in the country.

    Energy Star was launched by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 1992 and later expanded in partnership with the Department of Energy with a simple goal: making it easier for consumers and businesses to choose energy-efficient products, helping them reduce energy use and save money, without sacrificing quality or performance.

    As a scholar of energy conservation, I have studied the Energy Star program’s development and public impact, including how it has shaped consumer behavior and environmental outcomes.

    According to the EPA, it has saved consumers an average of US$15 billion a year on energy costs since its inception, a massive return on a program that costs taxpayers an estimated $32 million a year.

    How Energy Star works

    When you see an Energy Star label on a product, it means that product has met strict energy efficiency standards set by the EPA in collaboration with the U.S. Department of Energy, which tests how much energy appliances use. The federal agencies also consult with product manufacturers, utilities and others to figure out how best to improve products and determine how cost-effective changes might be.

    Products that earn the Energy Star certification typically use significantly less energy than standard models, often between 10% and 50% less. The energy – and financial – savings can add up quickly, especially when homes or buildings have multiple Energy Star appliances and systems.

    Energy Star itself does not manufacture or sell products. Instead, it acts as a trusted third-party certifier, providing consumers and businesses with reliable information and clear labeling. It also offers information to help people estimate energy savings and compare long-term costs, making it easier to identify high-performing, cost-effective options. Manufacturers participating in Energy Star seek to improve their environmental reputation and increase their market share, giving them a strong incentive to meet the program’s efficiency criteria.

    Today, the label appears on refrigerators, dishwashers, laptops, commercial buildings and even newly built homes. The government says people in more than 90% of American households recognize the label.

    Energy Star-certified appliances include upright freezers, clothes washers and many other types of home equipment, which use between 10% and 50% less energy than uncertified items.
    AP Photo/Joshua A. Bickel

    People don’t always choose efficient products

    Energy Star seeks to tackle a wide range of problems that can result in people deciding not to buy energy-efficient products.

    One problem is that efficient models often come with higher up-front costs. While efficient models save money over time, that higher purchase price can discourage buyers. Energy Star helps counter this problem by clearly showing how much money can be saved on energy costs over the lifetime of the product – as compared with noncertified products – and by offering rebates that reduce the initial expense.

    Another problem involves what economists call “split incentives.” A landlord might not want to pay a higher price up front for energy-efficient appliances if the tenants are the ones who will save money on the utility bills. And renters may not want to spend a lot of money on appliances or equipment in a place they do not own. Energy Star tries to bridge this divide by promoting whole-building certifications, which encourage landlords to invest in their buildings’ energy efficiency with the goal of making their properties more attractive to tenants.

    The countless varieties of refrigerators, dishwashers, air conditioners and other items on the market can also create confusion. Consumers who just look at manufacturers’ promotional material may find it very hard to determine which appliances truly deliver better energy efficiency. The Energy Star label makes this comparison easier: If the label is there, it is among the most efficient choices available.

    And consumers are often skeptical of manufacturers’ claims – especially when it comes to new technologies or environmental promises. Energy Star’s status as a program backed by the government, rather than a private company, gives it a level of independence and credibility that many other labels lack. People know the certification is based on science, not sales tactics.

    Lastly, Energy Star helps overcome the problem that many people are not aware of how much energy their appliances consume, or how those choices contribute to climate change. By connecting everyday products to larger environmental outcomes, Energy Star helps consumers understand the effects of their decisions, without needing to become energy experts.

    The program delivers real results

    Since its inception, more than 800,000 appliance models have earned Energy Star certification based on the criteria for their type of product.

    The same principles that make the label valuable for consumer appliances – independent certification, clear metrics and a focus on results – have proved equally effective in real estate. Nearly 45,000 commercial buildings and industrial plants have earned certification. And there have been more than 2.5 million Energy Star-certified homes and apartments built in the U.S.

    In 2023 alone, over 190,000 new homes and apartments were certified, representing more than 12% of all new residential construction nationwide.

    Energy Star-certified homes are designed to be at least 10% more energy efficient than those built to standard building codes, with more insulation and windows and lights that are energy-efficient, as well as appliances. These enhancements can translate to better quality, comfort and long-term cost savings for homeowners.

    Commercial buildings, which account for about 18% of total U.S. energy use, have also benefited substantially. Research I was involved in found that certified commercial buildings use an average of 19% less energy than their noncertified counterparts.

    Computers can sleep, too – not just cats. Both types conserve energy.
    Markus Scholz/picture alliance via Getty Images

    Why government leadership matters

    Energy Star’s status as a government-led label contributes to its credibility as a more neutral and science-based source of information than commercial labels.

    Energy Star’s government connections also bring scale: By requiring federal purchases to have Energy Star certifications, the federal government can influence manufacturers. For example, a federal executive order in 1993 required government agencies to purchase only computers that had been Energy Star-certified, which required them to have energy-saving sleep functions.

    In response, manufacturers began including the feature so they could sell their products to the government. Consumers soon came to expect the sleep feature on all computers.

    A quiet success story in energy and climate

    Energy Star does not grab headlines. It does not rely on regulation or mandates. Yet it has quietly become one of the most effective tools the U.S. has for improving energy efficiency across homes, offices and public buildings.

    That said, the program is not without its limitations. Some critics have pointed out that not all certified products consistently perform at the highest efficiency levels. Other critics note that the benefits of Energy Star are more accessible to wealthier consumers who can afford up-front investments, even with available rebates. And the EPA itself has, at times, struggled to manage the certification process and update standards in line with the latest technological advances.

    At a time when energy costs and climate concerns are rising, Energy Star stands out as a rare example of a practical, nonpartisan program that delivers real benefits. It helps individuals, businesses and communities save money, lower emissions and take part in a more sustainable future – one smart decision at a time.

    Magali Delmas received funding from the US EPA in 2002 for research on Environmental Management Strategies and Corporate Performance.

    – ref. Energy Star, on the Trump administration’s target list, has a long history of helping consumers’ wallets and the planet – https://theconversation.com/energy-star-on-the-trump-administrations-target-list-has-a-long-history-of-helping-consumers-wallets-and-the-planet-258152

    MIL OSI –