NewzIntel.com

Category: MIL-Submissions

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market

    Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By John Weigand, Professor Emeritus of Architecture and Interior Design, Miami University

    Rethinking the college major could help colleges better understand what employers and students need. Westend61/Getty Images

    Colleges and universities are struggling to stay afloat.

    The reasons are numerous: declining numbers of college-age students in much of the country, rising tuition at public institutions as state funding shrinks, and a growing skepticism about the value of a college degree.

    Pressure is mounting to cut costs by reducing the time it takes to earn a degree from four years to three.

    Students, parents and legislators increasingly prioritize return on investment and degrees that are more likely to lead to gainful employment. This has boosted enrollment in professional programs while reducing interest in traditional liberal arts and humanities majors, creating a supply-demand imbalance.

    The result has been increasing financial pressure and an unprecedented number of closures and mergers, to date mostly among smaller liberal arts colleges.

    To survive, institutions are scrambling to align curriculum with market demand. And they’re defaulting to the traditional college major to do so.

    The college major, developed and delivered by disciplinary experts within siloed departments, continues to be the primary benchmark for academic quality and institutional performance.

    This structure likely works well for professional majors governed by accreditation or licensure, or more tightly aligned with employment. But in today’s evolving landscape, reliance on the discipline-specific major may not always serve students or institutions well.

    As a professor emeritus and former college administrator and dean, I argue that the college major may no longer be able to keep up with the combinations of skills that cross multiple academic disciplines and career readiness skills demanded by employers, or the flexibility students need to best position themselves for the workplace.

    Students want flexibility

    The college curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.
    MoMo Productions/Digital Vision via Getty Images

    I see students arrive on campus each year with different interests, passions and talents – eager to stitch them into meaningful lives and careers.

    A more flexible curriculum is linked to student success, and students now consult AI tools such as ChatGPT to figure out course combinations that best position them for their future. They want flexibility, choice and time to redirect their studies if needed.

    And yet, the moment students arrive on campus – even before they apply – they’re asked to declare a major from a list of predetermined and prescribed choices. The major, coupled with general education and other college requirements, creates an academic track that is anything but flexible.

    Not surprisingly, around 80% of college students switch their majors at least once, suggesting that more flexible degree requirements would allow students to explore and combine diverse areas of interest. And the number of careers, let alone jobs, that college graduates are expected to have will only increase as technological change becomes more disruptive.

    As institutions face mounting pressures to attract students and balance budgets, and the college major remains the principal metric for doing so, the curriculum may be less flexible now than ever.

    How schools are responding

    The college major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge.
    Fuse/Corbia via Getty Images

    In response to market pressures, colleges are adding new high-demand majors at a record pace. Between 2002 and 2022, the number of degree programs nationwide increased by nearly 23,000, or 40%, while enrollment grew only 8%. Some of these majors, such as cybersecurity, fashion business or entertainment design, arguably connect disciplines rather than stand out as distinct. Thus, these new majors siphon enrollment from lower-demand programs within the institution and compete with similar new majors at competitor schools.

    At the same time, traditional arts and humanities majors are adding professional courses to attract students and improve employability. Yet, this adds credit hours to the degree while often duplicating content already available in other departments.

    Importantly, while new programs are added, few are removed. The challenge lies in faculty tenure and governance, along with a traditional understanding that faculty set the curriculum as disciplinary experts. This makes it difficult to close or revise low-demand majors and shift resources to growth areas.

    The result is a proliferation of under-enrolled programs, canceled courses and stretched resources – leading to reduced program quality and declining faculty morale.

    Ironically, under the pressure of declining demand, there can be perverse incentives to grow credit hours required in a major or in general education requirements as a way of garnering more resources or adding courses aligned with faculty interests. All of which continues to expand the curriculum and stress available resources.

    Universities are also wrestling with the idea of liberal education and how to package the general education requirement.

    Although liberal education is increasingly under fire, employers and students still value it.

    Students’ career readiness skills – their ability to think critically and creatively, to collaborate effectively and to communicate well – remain strong predictors of future success in the workplace and in life.

    Reenvisioning the college major

    Assuming the requirement for students to complete a major in order to earn a degree, colleges can also allow students to bundle smaller modules – such as variable-credit minors, certificates or course sequences – into a customizable, modular major.

    This lets students, guided by advisers, assemble a degree that fits their interests and goals while drawing from multiple disciplines. A few project-based courses can tie everything together and provide context.

    Such a model wouldn’t undermine existing majors where demand is strong. For others, where demand for the major is declining, a flexible structure would strengthen enrollment, preserve faculty expertise rather than eliminate it, attract a growing number of nontraditional students who bring to campus previously earned credentials, and address the financial bottom line by rightsizing curriculum in alignment with student demand.

    One critique of such a flexible major is that it lacks depth of study, but it is precisely the combination of curricular content that gives it depth. Another criticism is that it can’t be effectively marketed to an employer. But a customized major can be clearly named and explained to employers to highlight students’ unique skill sets.

    Further, as students increasingly try to fit cocurricular experiences – such as study abroad, internships, undergraduate research or organizational leadership – into their course of study, these can also be approved as modules in a flexible curriculum.

    It’s worth noting that while several schools offer interdisciplinary studies majors, these are often overprescribed or don’t grant students access to in-demand courses. For a flexible-degree model to succeed, course sections would need to be available and added or deleted in response to student demand.

    Several schools also now offer microcredentials– skill-based courses or course modules that increasingly include courses in the liberal arts. But these typically need to be completed in addition to requirements of the major.

    We take the college major for granted.

    Yet it’s worth noting that the major is a relatively recent invention.

    Before the 20th century, students followed a broad liberal arts curriculum designed to create well-rounded, globally minded citizens. The major emerged as a response to an evolving workforce that prioritized specialized knowledge. But times change – and so can the model.

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

    – ref. Why the traditional college major may be holding students back in a rapidly changing job market – https://theconversation.com/why-the-traditional-college-major-may-be-holding-students-back-in-a-rapidly-changing-job-market-258383

    MIL OSI –

  • 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-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 –

  • 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 –

  • 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 –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Waiting for Godot has been translated into Afrikaans: what took so long

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Rick de Villiers, Associate professor, University of the Free State

    At last, the most infamous latecomer in all of literature has arrived – not in the flesh, but in South Africa’s Afrikaans language. Irish playwright Samuel Beckett’s best-known drama, Waiting for Godot, now also lives as Ons Wag vir Godot.

    Published and staged in 2024, the translation was inspired by the official centenary of Afrikaans in 2025.

    As a Beckett scholar, I think it’s worth asking why Afrikaans is so late on the scene – and why it matters.

    Godot in many tongues

    First written in French, En attendant Godot was published in 1952 and debuted on stage the next year.

    The action involves two tramps, Vladimir and Estragon, who have a series of absurd conversations and encounters as they wait for a man called Godot who never arrives. Beckett would self-translate the drama into English in 1954, calling it “a tragicomedy in two acts”.

    Since then, translations of the play have exploded. By 1969 – the year of Beckett’s Nobel Prize for Literature – Waiting for Godot could already be read in dozens of languages, including Albanian, Marathi, and even Icelandic.

    Samuel Beckett and South Africa

    Beckett’s connections with South Africa are surprisingly varied. As a young man, he unsuccessfully applied for a lectureship at the University of Cape Town. His 1951 novel, Molloy, was translated from French into English with the help of a South African student, Patrick Bowles. And in 1968, Beckett made a donation to the then-banned resistance party, the African National Congress, in the form of a manuscript for auction.

    This gesture was unprecedented for the Irish writer, who was wary of political causes. Yet not only did Beckett feel strongly enough about apartheid’s injustices to make this donation, he also refused to let anyone perform his plays before South Africa’s racially segregated audiences.



    Read more:
    The case of the acclaimed South African novel that ‘borrows’ from Samuel Beckett

    Already in 1963 Beckett had signed the petition Playwrights Against Apartheid. He would continue to refuse performance rights in South Africa until 1980, when the Baxter Theatre was allowed to stage Waiting for Godot with a racially integrated cast.

    Nevertheless, unauthorised Godots materialised before this. Athol Fugard, the South African playwright whose own dramas were influenced by Beckett, directed one of the earliest South African productions in 1962. Featuring an all-black cast, it testified to the play’s political charge, which Fugard emphasised:

    Vladimir and Estragon … were at Sharpeville or the first in at Auschwitz.

    It’s reasonable to think that Beckett would have supported this protest performance. But he would probably have denounced the first and unofficial Afrikaans version, Afspraak met Godot, translated by Suseth Brits and performed in 1970 at the Potchefstroom University College (now North-West University) behind closed doors.

    For different reasons, Beckett would also have frowned on the substantial “borrowings” in Afrikaans novelist Willem Anker’s 2014 novel, Buys.

    Domesticating a European classic

    Fully sanctioned by Beckett’s estate and beautifully translated (from the French and English) by now-retired professor of French at the University of the Free State Naòmi Morgan, Ons Wag vir Godot arrives at a different moment altogether.

    The translation retains the gallows humour of the original while adding local flavour. For instance, where Vladimir originally names the Eiffel Tower as a picturesque site to commit suicide, his Afrikaans counterpart nominates Van Stadensbrug, a bridge over a ravine in the Eastern Cape. The slave-like Lucky once entertained his master with European dances: “the farandole, the fling, the brawl, the jig, the fandango”. These now become a South African mix: “volkspele, die riel, die pantsula, selfs die horrelpyp” (folk games, riel dance, pantsula dance, a hiding).

    In translation-speak, Ons Wag vir Godot is therefore fully “domesticated”: the play’s universality comes through even though – and perhaps even more so because – it’s anchored in a particular place and time.

    This struck me when I attended the play’s limited-run production, expertly directed by Dion van Niekerk, at the 2024 Vrystaat Kunstefees (Free State arts festival). Its set managed to thread together subtle South African roadside details: a toppled rubbish bin, pylons on the horizon, a (broken) picnic bench.

    In the text itself, we encounter familiar place names, sayings and cultural clues. Consider how Beckett’s abstract phrase “the essential doesn’t change” is grounded in African mythology: “Jakkals verander van hare, maar nie van streke nie” (The leopard doesn’t change its spots). Then there’s the charming touch of the dog in Vladimir’s song snatching “’n stukkie wors” (a piece of sausage particular to South Africa) rather than a measly “bone”.

    Godot and the Afrikaans canon

    Ons Wag vir Godot achieves its most profound tribute to Beckett and Afrikaans through its intertextual richness. Both the French and English originals are highly allusive texts: they invoke other works of literature to increase their range of meaning and subtlety. Morgan is attuned to this subtlety and to the parallels to be found in Afrikaans literature. There are references to works by canonical Afrikaans writers like Eugène Marais, Totius and C.J. Langenhoven, each adding its own resonance.



    Read more:
    Koos Prinsloo: the cult Afrikaans writer has been translated to English – here’s a review

    Yet the dilemma any translator faces is not so much in bringing in the new, but in striking a balance with the old. Consider the judicious swapping of a line from Percy Bysshe Shelley for a line from C. Louis Leipoldt.

    In the English version, Estragon looks up forlornly at the moon and half-quotes the English Romantic poet: “Pale for weariness … Of climbing heaven and staring on the likes of us.” In the Afrikaans, he gives us a fragment from the wistful poem, Die Moormansgat: “ek kyk na die lig van die volle silwermaan” (I behold the light of the full silver moon). At face value, this lacks the detached, woeful quality of Shelley’s line. But read in the context of Leipoldt’s poem, it is every bit as poignant.

    The virtue of waiting

    “Vladimir would agree,” Morgan concludes in the preface to her translation, “that a century is a decent amount of time to hone a language for the translation of one of the best-known dramas in world literature”.



    Read more:
    Animal Farm has been translated into Shona – why a group of Zimbabwean writers undertook the task

    And indeed, the riches of the Afrikaans language are on display in this sensitive, witty and allusive rendering of Beckett’s European classic. But it’s also true that a certain amount of political baggage had to be shaken off before such a feat could be realised – not just in the right words, but in the right spirit. Of course, if Beckett’s play teaches us anything, it’s the virtue of waiting.

    Rick de Villiers 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. Waiting for Godot has been translated into Afrikaans: what took so long – https://theconversation.com/waiting-for-godot-has-been-translated-into-afrikaans-what-took-so-long-257345

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Highways to hell: west Africa’s road networks are the preferred battleground for terror groups

    Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Olivier Walther, Associate Professor in Geography, University of Florida

    What’s the connection between roads and conflict in west Africa? This may seem like an odd question. But a study we conducted shows a close relationship between the two.

    We are researchers of transnational political violence. We analysed 58,000 violent events in west Africa between 2000 to 2024. Our focus was on identifying patterns of violence in relation to transport infrastructure.

    Anecdotal evidence suggests that roads, bridges, pipelines and other transport systems are increasingly attacked across west Africa, but little is known about the factors that explain when, where and by whom.

    Violence in west Africa involves a complex mix of political, economic and social factors. Weak governance, corruption, urban-rural inequalities and marginalised populations have been exploited by numerous armed groups, including transnational criminal networks and religious extremists.

    West Africa has been one of the world’s most violent regions since the mid 2010s. In 2024 alone, the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data initiative recorded over 10,600 events of political violence in the region. These ranged from battles between armed groups, explosions and other forms of remote violence, to attacks on unarmed civilians. An estimated 25,600 people were killed. This has been the status quo in the region for nearly a decade.

    The results of our study show that 65% of all the attacks, explosions, and violence against civilians recorded between 2000 and 2024 were located within one kilometre of a road.

    Only 4% of all events were located further than 10km from a road. This pattern was consistent across all road types but most pronounced near highways and primary roads.

    We think the reason for this pattern is that there is fierce competition between state and non-state actors for access to and use of roads.

    Governments need well-developed road networks for a host of reasons, including the ability to govern, enabling economic activity, and security. Roads enable military mobility and reduce potential safe havens for insurgents in remote regions.

    Insurgent groups also see transport networks as prime targets. They create opportunities to blockade cities, ambush convoys, kidnap travellers, employ landmines, and destroy key infrastructure.

    Our research is part of a long line of work that explored the role of infrastructure in relation to security in west Africa. Our latest research reinforces earlier findings linking the two. Transport networks have become battlegrounds for extremist groups seeking to destabilise states, isolate communities and expand their influence.

    The network

    The west African road network is vast, estimated at over 709,000km of roads by the Global Roads Inventory Project. It compares unfavourably with other African regions. For example, paved roads remain relatively scarce in west Africa (17% of the regional network) when compared with north Africa (83%).

    Poorly maintained roads impose costs on west African countries. They increase transport time of perishable goods, shorten the operational life of trucks, cause more accidents, and reduce social interactions between communities.

    Still, significant variations in road quality are found across the region. The percentage of paved roads ranges from a high of 37% in Senegal to just over 7% in Mali. Nigeria has the largest road network in west Africa with an estimated 195,000km, but much of it has deteriorated because of poor maintenance.

    Road-related violence is on the rise

    We found that road-related attacks have been on the rise since jihadist groups emerged in the mid-2010s. Only 31 ambushes against convoys were reported in Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali and Niger from 2000-2015, against 497 from 2016-2023.

    Attacks frequently occur along the same road segments, such as around Boni in the Gourma Mounts, where Jama’at Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM) conducted nine attacks against Malian forces and Wagner mercenaries between 2019 and 2024.

    Violence was the most clustered near roads in 2011, with 87% of all violent events located within 1km of a road. Our analysis shows that, though still high, there’s been a decline post-2000: 59% in 2022 and 60% in 2024. This evolution reflects the ruralisation of conflict in west Africa. As jihadist insurgents target rural areas and small towns more and more, an increasing share of violent events also occurs far away from roads.

    We’ve studied the root causes of west Africa’s violence for nearly a decade, documenting the ever-intensifying costs paid by its people. In the process, we’ve uncovered overlooked aspects of the turmoil, including the centrality of the road networks to an understanding of where the violence is happening.

    The most dangerous roads of west Africa

    Our findings show that violence against transport infrastructure is very unevenly distributed in west Africa and that specific road segments have been repeatedly targeted. This was particularly the case in the Central Sahel, Lake Chad basin, and western Cameroon.

    For example, the 350km ring road linking Bamenda to Kumbo and Wum in Cameroon is the most violent road in west Africa, with 757 events since 2018, due to the conflict between the government and the Ambazonian separatists.

    The longest segments of dangerous roads are in Nigeria, particularly those connecting Maiduguri in Borno State to Damaturu, Potiskum, Biu and Bama.

    In the central Sahel, the road between Mopti/Sévaré and Gao is by far the most violent transport axis, with 433 events since the beginning of the civil war in Mali in 2012. South of Gao, National Road 17 leading to the Nigerien border, and National Road 20 heading east toward Ménaka have experienced 177 and 139 events respectively since the Islamic State – Sahel Province (ISSP) intensified its activities in the region in 2017.

    In Burkina Faso, all the roads leading to Djibo near the border with Mali have experienced high levels of violence since the early 2020s.

    Building transport infrastructure to promote peace

    Roads are an important part of state counterinsurgency strategies and a strategic target for local militants. Yes, as our work highlights, transport infrastructure is largely ignored in debates that emphasise more state interventions as a means of combating insecurity. Sixty years after the independence of many west African countries, road accessibility remains elusive in the region.

    Peripheral cities such as Bardaï, Bilma, Kidal and Timbuktu, where rebel movements have historically developed, are still not connected to the national network by tarmac roads.

    The duality of the transport infrastructure, as both a facilitator and target of violence, has put government forces at a disadvantage. Regular forces are heavily constrained by the sparsity and poor conditions of the road network, which makes them vulnerable to attacks without necessarily allowing them to project their military power over long distances.

    Rather than building transport infrastructure, states have focused on strengthening security by investing in military bases. The military coups in Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger have further reinforced this trend, with the creation of a joint force by the countries of the Alliance of Sahel States.

    Strengthening security has taken precedence over developmental support for peripheral communities, who experience the worst of the violence.

    Olivier Walther receives funding from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Alexander John Thurston receives funding from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    Steven Radil receives funding from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

    – ref. Highways to hell: west Africa’s road networks are the preferred battleground for terror groups – https://theconversation.com/highways-to-hell-west-africas-road-networks-are-the-preferred-battleground-for-terror-groups-258517

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: There is no loneliness epidemic – so why do we keep talking as if there is?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Brendan Kelly, Professor of Psychiatry, Trinity College Dublin

    fran_kie/Shutterstock.com

    Most people experience periods of loneliness, isolation or solitude in their lives. But these are different things, and the proportion of people feeling lonely is stable over time. So why do we keep talking about an epidemic of loneliness?

    Before the COVID pandemic, several studies showed that rates of loneliness were stable in England, the US, Finland, Sweden and Germany, among other places, over recent decades.

    While COVID changed many things, loneliness levels quickly returned to pre-pandemic levels. In 2018, 34% of US adults aged 50 to 80 years reported a lack of companionship “some of the time” or “often”. That proportion rose to 42% during the pandemic but fell to 33% in 2024.

    That’s a lot of lonely people, but it is not an epidemic. In some countries, such as Sweden, loneliness is in decline – at least among older adults.

    Despite these statistics, the idea that loneliness is increasing is pervasive. For example in 2023, the US surgeon general warned about an “epidemic of loneliness and isolation”. The UK even has a government minister with an explicit responsibility for addressing loneliness.

    Loneliness is a problem, even if it is not an epidemic. Social connection is important for physical and mental health. Many people feel lonely in a crowd or feel crowded when alone. In 2023, the World Health Organization announced a “Commission on Social Connection”. The WHO is right: we need to reduce loneliness in our families, communities and societies.

    But the idea that loneliness is an “epidemic” is misleading and it draws us away from sustainable solutions, rather than towards them. It suggests that loneliness is a new problem (it is not), that it is increasing (it is not), that it is beyond our control (it is not), and that the only appropriate reaction is an emergency one (it is not).

    In the short term, loneliness is an undesirable psychological state. In the long term, it is a risk factor for chronic ill health.

    Loneliness is not a sudden crisis that needs a short-term fix. It is a long-term challenge that requires a sustained response. An emergency reaction is not appropriate – a measured response is. Initiatives by the US surgeon general and WHO are welcome, but they should be long-term responses to an enduring problem, not emergency reactions to an “epidemic”.

    Vivek Murthy, the former US surgeon general warned about an epidemic of loneliness in America.
    lev radin/Shutterstock

    Medicalising normal human experience

    Conceptual clarity is essential if true loneliness is to be addressed. Pathologising all instances of being alone risks medicalising normal human experiences such as solitude. Some people feel alive only in crowds, but others were born lighthouse keepers. In a hyper-connected world, loneliness should be solvable, but solitude must be treasured.

    So, if there is no loneliness epidemic, why do we keep talking as if there is? Media framing of the issue and the human tendency to panic reinforce each other. We click into news stories based on subjective resonance rather than objective evidence.

    Human behaviour is shaped primarily by feelings, not facts. We dramatise, panic, and overstate negative trends. If trends are positive, we focus on minor counter-trends, ignore statistics and make things up.

    In the case of loneliness, the problem is real, even if the “epidemic” is not. Loneliness is part of the human condition, but alleviating each other’s loneliness is also part of who we are – or who we can become.

    Addressing loneliness is not about solving a short-term problem or halting an “epidemic”. It means learning to live with each other in new, more integrated ways that meet our emotional needs. Loneliness is not the problem. It is a consequence of living in societies that are often disconnected and fragmented.

    The solution? We cannot change the essentials of human nature – and nor should we try. But we can be a little kinder to ourselves, speak to each other a little more, and cultivate compassion for ourselves and other people.

    We need to connect with each other better and more. We can. We should. We will.

    Brendan Kelly 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. There is no loneliness epidemic – so why do we keep talking as if there is? – https://theconversation.com/there-is-no-loneliness-epidemic-so-why-do-we-keep-talking-as-if-there-is-259072

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Choosing to be an orphan: for some Kenyan families it’s a strategy for survival

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Andreana Prichard, Associate Professor of Honors and African History, University of Oklahoma

    In the world of international child development and orphan care, it’s not uncommon for children with families to declare themselves orphans. In fact, this practice can be traced back to precolonial times in Kenya.

    Andreana Prichard has done research on the practice in Kenya. We asked her to share her insights into it.

    Why do some people in Kenya assume the identity of ‘orphan’?

    We often think of “orphans” as children who have lost both parents and who lack kin networks. One might ask why someone would “opt in” to orphan status when they do not fall within the classical definition of the term.

    In my paper I look at the issue of orphanhood over the last 160 years. Case studies from Kenya I examine illustrate that the practice I define as “opting in” to orphanhood has precolonial roots. I define “opting in” as choosing to take on the label of being an orphan. This can be done by parents, relatives or even, in some instances, the child. This is because the label “orphan” has come to confer unique opportunities.

    The practice became increasingly popular in the mid-1990s, when parents in eastern and southern Africa who had contracted HIV began to die in large numbers. Activists feared many children would be left without caregivers.

    In response, the number of orphanages proliferated as humanitarian actors, churches and states inundated east Africa with orphan-focused NGOs.

    In 2020, officials in Kenya estimated that there were at least 910 residential institutions for children in the country (of which 581 were registered), housing between 26,198 and 85,733 Kenyan children.

    The predicted “orphan crisis” never materialised, partly because families and communities stepped in to care for newly parentless children. But the idea of an “orphan crisis” remained, and so did the funding and infrastructure.

    This phenomenon occurred across the continent, not just in Kenya. However, its effects were felt particularly acutely in eastern and southern Africa where HIV/Aids prevalence rates were higher and where there was more western tourism.

    Today, many African families see orphan-focused NGOs as a path to access education and improve their lives. My research shows that children themselves sometimes affiliate with an institution that provides shelter, food and schooling. Children facing abuse from caregivers may also prefer the relative anonymity and safety of an institution.

    In some cases, receiving orphan services actually raises the status of the “orphan” child above that of other children. They have access to more material resources than they might have had in their villages or at home. They might have more leisure time and less work. They may have access to better bedding, shoes and clothing. They are also likely able to attend school more consistently and have a real opportunity to attend university.

    Does ‘opting in’ have a long history?

    Yes, it does.

    In the precolonial period, most parentless or vulnerable children were cared for through lasting community support systems. Orphanhood, as it exists today as a child lacking support, protection, or care from kin, was largely avoided.

    However, the late 19th to mid-20th centuries brought new actors to the east African region. The practice of “opting in” became a strategic, temporary option used by families to access services from western humanitarians.

    The earliest example of this shift I found in my research is from the 1890s. Fearing their children would be caught in the Indian Ocean slave trade, African parents sometimes chose to send their children to British missions until the region was safe. They knew the missionaries opposed the slave trade and knew they offered food and medical care.

    African parents thought they were making temporary arrangements to keep their children safe. Missionaries, however, understood parents to have abandoned their children. When parents returned to repay the debt – with agricultural produce or trade goods – and to reclaim their children, missionaries refused them.

    In another example from Kenya in the 1950s, the British colonial government opened “reform schools” for young men. The Wamumu Approved School was renowned for the relative quality of education it provided. But the state admitted only the “most vulnerable” for a free education. Feeling they had no way to access Wamumu, students claimed to be orphans.

    What have been the negative effects of Kenya’s orphan system?

    There are several problems with creating a situation in which people present themselves as vulnerable just to gain safety or improve their social and economic standing.

    First, research has shown that building orphanages in poor communities incentivises parents to abandon their children if they’re not also given the help to remain together.

    Second, research shows that children are often put at risk in these institutions. Institutionalisation exposes children to risks such as sexual abuse, gender-based violence and neglect.

    Third, orphanages have become so lucrative that African orphanage owners will go to great lengths to fit African children into the categories westerners wish to fund. The phenomenon of “paper orphans” is a prime example. “Paper orphans” are children who are recruited from their homes by proprietors (or middlemen/brokers) of orphanages and residential-care facilities. Fraudulent documentation is created for them – often including false death certificates of parents and new identity registration documents – rendering them orphans on paper, and vulnerable in practice.

    What should be done?

    Governments in Europe, Central Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean are trying to phase out orphanages, as are some African countries.

    Based on my research I believe that working with families to support vulnerable children in their homes of origin or with extended families is a better option. This can be done through assistance programmes for vulnerable families as well as child welfare programmes. These allow families to remain intact when experiencing hardship.

    Kenya is taking steps to do this by replacing orphanages and other forms of residential children’s homes with family-based, foster and community-based care and other forms of assistance. Family strengthening approaches include positive parenting instruction, life skills training, and income-generating activities, as well as supportive supervision.

    In addition to this, missionary and voluntourism trips to orphanages and residential care facilities should be banned or limited.

    Andreana Prichard received funding from the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad Grant.

    – ref. Choosing to be an orphan: for some Kenyan families it’s a strategy for survival – https://theconversation.com/choosing-to-be-an-orphan-for-some-kenyan-families-its-a-strategy-for-survival-247371

    MIL OSI –

  • MIL-OSI Submissions: Kenya’s peacebuilding efforts hold valuable lessons for the rest of the world, but gaps remain

    Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Leonor Oliveira Toscano, PhD Candidate in Political Science, University of Oslo

    Kenya has been praised as a “model for the world” when it comes to peacebuilding efforts to manage outbreaks of violence within its borders. The country has systematically put in place a peacebuilding architecture rooted in a history of local peace initiatives. These date back to the early 1990s.

    Over this period, the Wajir Peace and Development Committee emerged in the country’s north-eastern region. The committee successfully addressed decades of inter-clan violence in Wajir, an arid county bordering Somalia. It also inspired the emergence of numerous local peace committees across the country.

    These committees have been set up in some other African countries – like Ghana, South Africa, Sierra Leone and Burundi – and continue to contribute informally to local peacebuilding in these states.



    Read more:
    Training local leaders in mediation can reduce violence: positive results in Nigeria

    In Kenya, the committees became institutionalised after post-election violence in 2007-08 and a mediation process led by former UN secretary general Kofi Annan. They now form part of the national peacebuilding architecture.

    Violence triggered by the contested 2007 presidential election outcome resulted in the killing of more than 1,000 people. The mediation process led to a power-sharing agreement signed by the presidential contenders Mwai Kibaki and Raila Odinga.

    The country’s peacebuilding architecture is now supported by several policies and frameworks. These include the constitution of 2010. The system that’s been built has the capacity to connect a wide variety of peacebuilding actors – both state and non-state, formal and informal – at all levels of society. This helps resolve conflict and build resilience.

    The Kenyan government initiated a review of the peacebuilding architecture in 2023. It involved a lengthy consultation process and high levels of participation among Kenyans. The National Steering Committee on Peacebuilding and Conflict Management led the way, assisted by an independent panel of 13 peacebuilding experts.

    Released at the end of 2024, the review looked at the strengths and weaknesses of the architecture.

    It offers a vision for building a robust peacebuilding system, along with an actionable roadmap. One lesson is that Kenya can use the capacities and unique approaches of different peacebuilding actors. At the local level, peace committees showed that they made contributions to early warning systems and building confidence in communities.

    However, insufficient resources and a consistent focus on electoral violence prevent the system from addressing other drivers of conflict.

    The strengths

    Local peace committees, with membership typically drawn from ordinary citizens, religious groups or local civil society organisations, play a crucial role. They support dialogue around conflict issues. They promote trust and understanding, and can build a constructive environment for conflict resolution.

    Their information gathering feeds into the regional Intergovernmental Authority on Development’s Conflict Early Warning and Response System (CEWARN) to prevent election violence. Local peace committees have contributed to negotiating local disputes. They have also helped de-polarise ethnic identities and facilitated local peace agreements. One example was the Modogashe Declaration. It sets ground rules to solve conflict and local disputes over pasture, water access and cattle rustling.



    Read more:
    Kenya violence: 5 key drivers of the decades-long conflict in the north and what to do about them

    We are researchers in Norway on a project focusing on civilian agency, local peace and resilience building. Our own interviews with committee members in Nakuru – a county greatly affected by the violence in 2007-08 – found that peace committee members continued to work together and share conflict-sensitive information with local stakeholders. These include administration officers and religious leaders, and covered periods during and after the 2022 elections.

    Further, local peace committees can offer women valuable opportunities for participation in conflict management. This contributes to their protection, for example from sexual violence.

    The weaknesses

    Despite these successes, Kenya’s peacebuilding architecture faces pressing challenges.

    First, local peace committees aren’t perfect. They can be manipulated by politicians seeking to build local support. They can also compete with traditional actors such as elders in conflict resolution.

    Kenya’s institutionalisation of local peacebuilding strengthened information flow across all levels. But it also threatens to undermine local peacebuilding agency and autonomy. Formalising local peace committees can spur an unhealthy monetisation of peacebuilding, with some members joining for financial gain. This threatens to erode the voluntary character of peacebuilding as a common good and undermine genuine priorities for peace.



    Read more:
    How women in Kenya mobilised for peace after surviving violence

    Second, elite-level politics in Kenya creates the persistent risk of electoral violence. This diverts attention and resources away from other long-standing causes of conflict. The drivers of violence in Kenya are varied and region specific. They include disputes over access to land, and marginalisation of ethnic and religious communities. Climate change threatens to worsen competition and conflict between pastoralists and farming communities.

    Our analysis of event data from Armed Conflict Location & Event Data shows that communal violence is the deadliest form of political violence in Kenya. For their part, fatalities related to election violence have decreased. This underscores the urgent need to consistently invest in prevention and local peacebuilding beyond narrow electoral periods.

    Fatalities in Kenya by type of armed violence: 2010-2023

    Electoral competition can escalate violence between pastoralists and farmers, but it’s the persistence of communal conflicts that represents a serious threat. Communal violence particularly affects Kenya’s arid and semi-arid areas in the Rift Valley, eastern and north-eastern regions.

    What next

    Our interviews with local peace committee members show that funding for their activities diminishes outside election years. This hampers their capacity to address conflict outside these periods.

    Yet research has shown that local peacebuilding can build social resilience against recurrent communal violence. Peacebuilding interventions grounded in local realities are also vital for countering insurgent violence. This is especially important as counterterrorism operations by state forces often trigger cycles of violence rather than resolving underlying issues.



    Read more:
    Drivers of electoral violence in Kenya: red flags to watch out for

    Our research finds that Kenyans place significant trust in local peacebuilders, such as community leaders, elders and women. The review of the country’s peacebuilding architecture proposes a 40% quota for women, youth and people with disabilities in local peace committees.

    However, quotas alone may not be sufficient to address the political and cultural challenges that entrench inequality.

    Ultimately, political elites need to transform Kenya’s “win at all costs” politics. This way, the country’s mediators and peacebuilders can address the deep social and economic grievances that underpin cycles of violence.

    Leonor Toscano’s doctoral research is supported by the grant from the European Research Council’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (852816; PI: Jana Krause). Leonor Toscano conducted interviews with LPC members in Kenya.

    Jana Krause received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme under grant number 852816 (ResilienceBuilding).

    Marika Miner’s post-doctoral research is also supported by the grant from the European Research Council’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program (852816; PI: Jana Krause).

    – ref. Kenya’s peacebuilding efforts hold valuable lessons for the rest of the world, but gaps remain – https://theconversation.com/kenyas-peacebuilding-efforts-hold-valuable-lessons-for-the-rest-of-the-world-but-gaps-remain-257761

    MIL OSI –