Inconvenient truth: Droughts shrink hydropower, pose risk to global push to clean energy

Inconvenient truth: Droughts shrink hydropower, pose risk to global push to clean energy

Hoover Dam reservoir sinks to record low, in sign of extreme Western U.S. drought.
SACRAMENTO, Calif./BRASILIA/SHANGHAI (Reuters) – Severe droughts are drying up rivers and reservoirs vital for the production of zero-emissions hydropower in several countries around the globe, in some cases leading governments to rely more heavily on fossil fuels.

The emerging problems with hydropower production in places like the United States, China and Brazil represent what scientists and energy experts say is going to be a long-term issue for the industry as climate change https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/once-in-50-year-heat-waves-now-happening-every-decade-un-climate-report-2021-08-09 triggers more erratic weather and makes water access less reliable.

They also could pose a threat to international ambitions to fight global warming by hindering one of the leading forms of existing clean power. Hydropower is the world’s top source of clean energy and makes up close to 16% of world electricity generation, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

This year, climate-driven droughts have triggered the biggest disruptions in hydropower generation in decades in places like the western United States and Brazil. China is still recovering from the effects of last year’s severe drought on hydro production in Yunnan province in the southwestern part of the country.

Elsewhere, too much water is the problem.

Last year in Malawi, for example, flooding and debris from megastorms forced two power stations to go offline, reducing hydropower capacity from 320 megawatts (MW) to 50 MW, according to the IEA.

Those effects have forced power grid operators to rely more heavily on thermal power plants, often fired by natural gas or coal, and to ask businesses to curtail electricity use to prevent outages, according to Reuters interviews with grid operators and regulators.

“When we’re talking about hydropower we’re really talking about making sure we have enough water to get electricity,” said Kristen Averyt, a research professor focusing on climate resilience at the University of Nevada in Las Vegas. “What does that hydro generation get replaced with?”

SHUTDOWN AT LAKE OROVILLE

In California, the State Water Project was forced to shut down a 750-MW hydroelectric power plant at Lake Oroville this month for the first time since it was built in 1967 because of low water levels. In good years, the plant can power half a million homes.

Power facilities at Lake Shasta, the largest reservoir in the federal government’s Central Valley Project in California, were also generating about 30% less power than usual this summer, said Cary Fox, a team leader for the Bureau of Reclamation’s operations in the state.

The lake usually provides about 710 MW during the summer, but in July was producing only 500 MW, Fox said.

At the huge 2,000 MW Hoover Dam on the Colorado River at the border of Nevada and Arizona, production was also down by about 25% last month, the agency said.

One megawatt can power up to 1,000 U.S. homes.

Tight power supplies in California, driven in part by low hydropower production, led Governor Gavin Newsom to issue an order on July 30 allowing industrial power consumers to run on diesel generators and engines that emit more greenhouse gases. [

The order also allowed ships at port to use diesel generators instead of plugging into the grid, and lifted restrictions on the amount of fuel natural gas plants can use to generate power.

Environmentalists have criticized the move, saying it will worsen air quality in California and undermine the state’s efforts to fight climate change.

Tim Welch, director of hydropower research at the U.S. Department of Energy, said the department is researching ways that dams can more efficiently store water during rainy periods so it can be reserved for use during droughts.

Hydropower plants in the United States are capable of producing about 80 gigawatts (GW) of energy, about 7% of total energy production, Welch said.

DROUGHT IN BRAZIL

In Brazil, where hydroelectric power is the top source of electricity at 61%, drought recently cut water flows into hydro dams to a 91-year low, the country’s mines and energy minister said.

To offset the drop in hydropower, the country is seeking to activate thermoelectric plants, mainly powered by natural gas, threatening to drive up greenhouse gas emissions. In July, sector regulator Aneel raised the most expensive electricity rate by 52%, due to the drought crisis.

Severe weather events like the current drought will become increasingly frequent with climate change, and Brazilians will need to change their attitudes about water, said José Marengo, a climatologist at the government’s disaster monitoring center.

“People always thought that water is unlimited, but it really isn’t,” Marengo said.

Brazil Mines and Energy Minister Bento Albuquerque said in an online briefing with reporters that a boom in the construction of power lines to reroute electricity to where it is needed and diversification away from hydro to solar and wind will help the country deal with such events in the future, and prevent the need for water rationing.

Even so, Brazil will remain reliant on hydropower for years. By 2030, the energy ministry predicts 49% of electricity will come from hydro. The country is also maintaining plans to build more hydro plants, exploring potential cross-border dam projects with Bolivia, Guyana and Argentina, as well as building 2 GW worth of small dams domestically.

DAMS – SAVE THE PLANET OR HARM IT?

Last year’s drought in China’s Yunnan province slashed hydro power generation by nearly 30% during the first five months of 2020, according to official data. Output this year remains curtailed by around 10%.

Yunnan usually accounts for roughly a quarter of China’s total hydro generation, and the province is home to several aluminum smelting businesses that require vast quantities of power to operate. The province restricted metal producers’ power use earlier this year, forcing some smelting capacity to be temporarily shut.

More disruptions are expected.

A recent study by researchers in Nanjing looked at the potential impact of climate change and rising temperatures on hydropower generation in Yunnan. Their models showed decreases in rain and snowfall during the October-April drought season and increases in the summer rainy season.

To even out the variability, the researchers proposed more storage capacity – more dams and reservoirs.

But the diversions could worsen droughts elsewhere, according to experts. China’s giant reservoirs https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mekong-river-idUSKCN21V0U7 on the upper reaches of the Mekong River in Yunnan have already been blamed https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mekong-river-idUSKBN2AC0K0 for reducing downstream flows – affecting water access in Thailand, Cambodia https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mekong-river-cambodia-idUSKBN2B002T and Myanmar.

(Reporting by Sharon Bernstein in Sacramento, California, Jake Spring in Brasilia, David Stanway in Shanghai; Editing by Marguerita Choy)

Former ambassador to Afghanistan blames Taliban surge on Trump ‘delegitimizing’ Afghan government

Yahoo – News

Former ambassador to Afghanistan blames Taliban surge on Trump ‘delegitimizing’ Afghan government

Former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Ryan Crocker appeared Thursday on Anderson Cooper 360, where he blamed former President Trump for the Taliban’s recent surge in the country. Trump had planned to meet with Taliban leaders and the Afghan president at Camp David in 2019. After the meeting was canceled, a U.S. representative for Afghanistan met with Taliban leaders in Qatar in February 2020, where both sides signed a peace agreement. It’s at that meeting that Crocker believes the current situation in Afghanistan was born. Not only were there no representatives from the Afghan government present at the meeting, but Afghanistan was asked to make certain concessions to the Taliban.

“In my view, we bear a major responsibility for this. Began under President Trump when he authorized negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban without the Afghan government in the room. That was a key Taliban demand. We acceded to it, and it was a huge demoralizing factor for the Afghan government and its security forces,” Crocker said. “We pressed them to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners. Eventually they did it, and watched them go back into the fight against the people who released them. So this is a year and a half worth of demoralization.”

Crocker, who was appointed to his position by President George W. Bush, believes the U.S. pulling troops out of the country, which was part of the 2020 agreement, means the end for Afghan forces.

“Now this abrupt withdrawal on our part, I think, solidifies it,” Crocker said. “So it’s like any complex phenomenon. There are a number of reasons for the collapse, I think, of the Afghan forces, but we cannot ignore that we had a central role in delegitimizing them and their government.”

As the Taliban continues to capture major cities with seemingly little to no resistance, Crocker reiterated that the failure can be traced back to the supposed peace agreement.

“We were a major backer, of course, of the state and of its security forces. Symbolism counts, and the symbol of the U.S. military affecting a complete and final withdrawal was devastating,” Crocker said. “And again, it didn’t happen overnight. This demoralization process, if you will, began the first day we sat down with the Taliban and excluded the Afghan government.”

Former Ambassador to Afghanistan says Trump is responsible for ‘demoralizing’ Afghan forces

Former Ambassador to Afghanistan says Trump is responsible for ‘demoralizing’ Afghan forces

On Anderson Cooper 360 Thursday, former U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, blamed former President Trump for the current situation in Afghanistan. The Taliban has been surging through the country, capturing cities with seemingly little to no resistance from Afghan forces as the U.S. pulls troops out. Crocker believes Afghan forces were demoralized when a U.S. representative met with Taliban leaders in early 2020 without representation from the Afghan government.

“In my view, we bear a major responsibility for this. Began under President Trump when he authorized negotiations between the U.S. and the Taliban without the Afghan government in the room. That was a key Taliban demand. We acceded to it, and it was a huge demoralizing factor for the Afghan government and its security forces,” Crocker said. “We pressed them to release 5,000 Taliban prisoners. Eventually they did it, and watched them go back into the fight against the people who released them. So this is a year and a half worth of demoralization.”

Donald’s Plot Against America

Donald’s Plot Against America

Now, he and his GOP enablers are peddling the Second Big Lie: that January 6 was just legitimate protest. It’s the crucial ingredient in convincing America to return them—and him—to power.

Win McNamee / Getty Images

I felt as though I had stumbled across a crime scene so violent that I couldn’t process it, let alone synthesize the images in front of me. The parts remained stubbornly separate, and there was no way to grasp the meaning of the whole.

In the early afternoon of January 6, while the mob was still swarming the stairs of the Capitol, I was asked in an interview what I thought of the unfolding situation. I watched the crowd that had been stoked that morning by my uncle, and by Republicans like Ted Cruz, Josh Hawley, and Mo Brooks, with their Confederate flags, their MAGA hats, and their Camp Auschwitz shirts; I watched the smoke (the origin of which I couldn’t yet discern) drift through the air, and I heard their shouts of grievance and anger. It looked like a scene from a failed country whose government had just been toppled, a banana republic; but it was the United States of America, my country, our country, and, knowing who was responsible for the chaos here, the first word that came to my mind was “tawdry.”

Of course, it was so much more than that—so much more dangerous and serious than that, as we would eventually find out. At around 2:15, while Republicans Cruz and Paul Gosar were objecting to the legitimate results of the election, the insurrectionists breached the Capitol, Congress was adjourned, and frantic attempts were made to get the vice president and all of the senators and representatives to safety.

Two hours later, the Georgia Senate race was called for Jon Ossoff. It mattered, certainly; it meant that the Democrats would control the Senate. But there was no room for celebration. After four years of Donald’s incessant attacks and ineptitude, we were already exhausted. Joe Biden’s victory was supposed to have offered us some reprieve, but having given Donald room to promote his Big Lie, elected Republicans had now granted him the opportunity to incite an insurrection. So there would be no respite from the madness, from Donald’s particular blend of mendacity, cruelty, and destructiveness. There would be no celebrating.

Mary Trump

PHOTOGRAPH BY DINA LITOVSKY/REDUX FOR THE NEW REPUBLIC

That horrific day—which we now know General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, referred to as a “Reichstag moment”—was bracketed by Donald’s incendiary speech given just before noon and a video released two hours after the Capitol had been breached that added more fuel to the fire. The speech itself was full of grievances—lies about the “landslide election” that had been stolen from him, threats to Mike Pence, whom he led the crowd to believe had the power to overturn the results of the election, fabulations about people voting as Santa Claus and Democrats’ taking down statues of Jefferson and Lincoln, and calls to action demanding that the crowd force Congress to “do the right thing.” In the 62 second video, Donald says the word peace three times, presumably because somebody convinced him he had to distance himself from the role he played in stoking the mob’s violence; but, because he can never help himself in these instances, he kept hammering away at what was supposedly stolen from them. The video sickened me just as the “apology” video he recorded after the Access Hollywood tape was released had sickened me. I feared the same result—that there would be no consequences.

That night, after I was finally able to turn off the news, the only two things I knew with absolute certainty were: one, that for the first time in our nation’s history there had not been a peaceful transfer of power, because my uncle, who could not accept his resounding defeat and the humiliation that came with it, had attempted to inspire a coup; and two, the next two weeks before Joe Biden’s inauguration would be the most dangerous this country had ever lived through.

On November 7, after Joe Biden was declared the winner, Donald began peddling the Big Lie—massive voter fraud and cheating by Democrats had turned Donald’s landslide victory into a loss. The phrase “the Big Lie,” coined by Adolf Hitler, describes the technique of saying something so outrageously false that people will believe it simply because they think nobody would have the audacity to lie so brazenly. This has been a specialty of Donald’s since, as a teenager, he had to convince his father everything he did was always the biggest, the greatest, and the best. Back then, his lies protected him from his father’s wrath. The Big Lie about the election protected him from having to face the deep narcissistic wound he’d suffered after losing to Biden. In addition, it kept his base riled up—keeping them afraid of what a Biden administration planned to take away from them (or force upon them) and enraged by what he claimed had been stolen from them.

In Donald’s January 6 video, the Second Big Lie was born. By telling them that they are loved and special, he transformed the violent anti-American mob into patriots who had merely been trying to save their country from the Democratic Party’s treasonous attempt to steal the election from him—and therefore from them. We’ve seen how this has become a strategy for almost every single Republican politician as well. Despite the testimony given by D.C. police officers Daniel Hodges and Michael Fanone, Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn, and Capitol Police Sgt. Aquilino Gonell in front of the House select committee on July 27, which was impossible for any empathetic human being to watch without feeling a visceral rage and profound sadness, this will continue to be the Republican strategy. They know that if midterm voters still remember the truth about January 6, they’re in trouble. The insurrection of January 6 should have been a wake-up call. It looks, instead, to have been a dress rehearsal.

In the mind-bogglingly long and destabilizing year since the publication of my first book, Too Much and Never Enough, America’s weaknesses and structural deficiencies have been laid bare because one man, Donald John Trump, did something none of his predecessors would have dreamed of doing—through his destruction of norms, he actively set out to undermine and dismantle the very institutions that were designed, in part, to protect us from leaders like him. Keeping him in check required a functioning legislative branch and Cabinet secretaries, like the attorney general or the head of health and human services—who were willing to act with some independence—to put country over party. But having shown himself incapable of building anything, Donald has always been expert at tearing things down. In this endeavor, he has had plenty of sycophants, enablers, and users, just as he has throughout his life. And Republicans saw a way to make the most of it.

As a politician, Donald has benefited greatly from his rabid base of supporters. He embodies their fear and gives expression to their grievance. He doesn’t just give them permission to indulge in their white supremacy; he champions it. He makes them feel good about their prejudices. Following him by denying the virus or claiming immunity from it is another way for them to feel superior. It’s bizarre, because in the process they are putting themselves and those they love at risk, but it is similar to the function lynching has historically served for white people. Lynchings are not only about showing the power of the aggressor but also about demonstrating the other person’s weakness and total subservience. That makes sense in the context of what white supremacists and white supremacy were trying to accomplish, because, in an incurably racist society, the power so clearly belonged to the one race, and the vulnerabilities so clearly belonged to the other. The response to Covid—the denialism and disdain for science—functions the same way, but in this case, whether they acknowledge the reality and the risk or not, the denialists are victims, too. These are devout (for lack of a better word) Republicans. If the people they’ve voted for, at every level of government, equate mask-wearing with being liberal or claim that worrying about catching a deadly virus somehow makes you weak, you will follow their lead. Donald took it a step further. In order to demonstrate their allegiance and support, it was no longer enough for them to attend a rally. They had to do so in the middle of a deadly pandemic without social distancing or wearing a mask

That’s the part that is confounding. But it demonstrates how deeply it matters to them that they, at least in their own minds, maintain a position of superiority over those they consider less-than—particularly Black Americans and immigrants—and stay connected to a man who, through a mesmerizing dance of his followers’ micro-concessions and his own micro-aggressions against them, keeps them in thrall. That their children are dying or their parents and friends are dying isn’t beside the point—it is the point.

It’s impossible to understand the appeal Donald has for his followers if we try to do so from the perspective of people who value honor, decency, empathy, and kindness in their leaders. It isn’t that they see things in Donald that aren’t there. They identify with what is—the brazenness of his lies, his ability to commit crimes with impunity, his bottomless sense of grievance, his monumental insecurity, his bullying, and, perhaps most intriguing, the fact that he is an inveterate failure who keeps being allowed to succeed. Donald is their proxy and their representative. And their ardor has only seemed to grow since his loss. We need only look at data from North Carolina Senate candidate Ted Budd’s campaign to see how complete this identification is. When Republican primary voters were told that Budd had been endorsed by Donald, there was a 45-point net swing in his favor, skyrocketing him to a 19-point lead over his primary opponent. The idea that any other one-term president (George H.W. Bush or Jimmy Carter) would have had the same kind of influence is laughable. On the other hand, though, neither one of them would have tried.

By the same token, elected Republicans, Donald’s chief enablers, see Donald as a means of perpetuating their own power. But they aren’t just putting up with the worst of him simply because they see him as a means to an end. He is them. They value his mendacity and his name-calling and his autocracy because these work for them as well.

Republicans counter truth with absurdity, rendering the truth inoperable. Now a party of fascists, they call Democrats socialist communist Marxists, which is effective in part because it is so nonsensical and in part because they are never asked to define the terms. They cover up their massive (and successful) efforts at voter suppression with wild claims of widespread voter fraud, which essentially doesn’t exist—31 incidents in over a billion votes cast, a number so vanishingly small as to have no meaning.

The main mechanism by which they can successfully carry out these sleights of hand is fear. Whether it’s drug dealers from Mexico or caravans from Central America or Democratic presidents coming for your guns, abolishing religion, or letting gay people get married, they need to keep their voters afraid.

Mr. Lockwood, the frame-narrator of Wuthering Heights, describes a feverish nightmare in which, during a blizzard, he sees a child outside his window begging to be let in. He is so undone by the appearance of this wraith that he drags its wrist across the broken pane of glass, until its blood soaks his bedsheets. “Terror made me cruel,” he says. Fear is a deeply unpleasant emotion, and Republicans have become expert at stoking it, on the one hand, and transforming it into anger on the other. This state of affairs makes it much easier for their followers to become comfortable with the cruelty of their leaders—whether of policy or of action—as long as it is directed at groups they’ve been told they should fear. It also makes it easier for the Republican rank and file to be comfortable with their own cruelty—it feels better than fear, and it allows them to delude themselves into thinking they have some measure of control, because they have been granted permission by the powers that be to express their cruelty with impunity.

Elected Republicans have become Donald’s greatest enablers since his father, Fred. For all of their professed reluctance and half-hearted attempts to keep Donald at arm’s length, almost every single elected Republican at every level of government, either tacitly or enthusiastically, very quickly came to support his breaches—against decency, the rule of law, and the Constitution. Kevin McCarthy went from being one of Donald’s critics in the immediate aftermath of January 6 to pretending that creating a commission to find out what happened on that day was somehow a partisan witch hunt. Elise Stefanik intuited that going all in with Donald would be her best chance for advancement. The number three Republican in Congress, Liz Cheney, had the audacity to stand up against the Big Lie, for which she was removed from her leadership position and replaced by Stefanik.

The most dangerous Republican enabler by far is, of course, Mitch McConnell, who saw an opportunity that even he probably never dared hope for: The guy in the Oval Office wouldn’t just sign off on every aspect of the Republicans’ agenda, he would push the envelope—of decorum, of autocracy—so far that the system itself could be used to create permanent minority rule. Donald showed his party (and yes, it is his party) the limits of pretending to care about good governance or play by the rules. He also showed them the utility of not just stoking racism and hatred of the Other—in the form of immigrants, Democrats, and even epidemiologists—but championing those who espoused them.

McConnell is the greatest traitor to this country since Robert E. Lee (with the difference that McConnell has been trying to take our country down from within). He has always been expert at using existing rules and procedures in ways they weren’t intended to be used, and yet—whether it was denying Merrick Garland a hearing, pushing through Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation, or ending the filibuster as it applied to Supreme Court nominees but employing it to block legislation that would expand voting rights—his anti-democratic maneuvers have been performed within the bounds of the system. The fact that he’s misusing the system outlined in the Constitution isn’t an exoneration of him, however; it’s a condemnation of the Constitution’s limitations. The definition of treason in the Constitution is so narrow (levying war against the country or giving aid and comfort to the enemy) that a case could never be made against him. It would be difficult, however, to find anybody in modern times who has so undermined our democracy.

This destruction of norms by Donald and other Republicans in the executive and legislative branches has happened so quickly, and has been so thorough, that it’s clear the seeds of it must have been planted a long time ago. It was possible for Donald, the weakest man I have ever known, to exploit the weaknesses in the system not because he introduced them, but because they were there for him to exploit in the first place.

These situations are not the result of four years or even four decades of poor governance—although the worsening of the problem has certainly accelerated since Ronald Reagan’s disastrous presidency. The combination of “trickle-down” economics, his devastating handling of the AIDS crisis, and the intensification of the “War on Drugs,” with all of its racist implications, accelerated the divide between Americans along economic, cultural, and racial dimensions. But we really need to go back to this country’s inception to understand how we got here and to assess how we can possibly repair the extensive damage. With Joe Biden’s election, we did indeed snatch democracy from the jaws of autocracy—a rarity in human history. But as the insurrection of January 6 made clear, we are not out of the woods yet—far from it.

I contend that we have arrived at this fraught political moment in which it feels that everything is at stake because of our long history of, on the one hand, failing to hold powerful white men accountable and, on the other, the normalization of white supremacy. How else do we grapple with the fact that we Americans appear so spectacularly vulnerable to corrupt and incompetent leaders? How else do we understand the breathtaking extent to which the federal government, because of the cynicism, selfishness, and opportunism of one man, proved incapable of managing the crises of Covid and the ensuing economic fallout? How else do we explain the effectiveness of Donald’s strategy of race-based division? And how do we avoid acknowledging that supporting him or even accepting him meant that institutionalized racism was not only not a deal breaker, it was an effective political strategy?

American terrorists, January 6, 2021

ASHLEY GILBERTSON/VII/REDU​X

The initial response of Donald’s administration to the pandemic was driven by his inability to take it seriously. Once the virus had undeniably taken hold here, Donald hung on to the fact that it had originated in China, which allowed him to make it about the Other from the outset. In spring of 2020, when Covid was spreading almost exclusively in blue states, and later, when it became clear that Black Americans were being disproportionately affected, it was easier for him to dismiss the danger. Even when it became clear that no one was safe, he made the case that Americans had to choose between combating the virus and saving the economy, squandering what could have been an extraordinarily unifying moment for this country. But Donald has no interest in unity. He thrives on division and chaos—much of it racially driven. We saw this in the way he exploited the backlash against Barack Obama’s presidency, thereby giving his base permission to express their racism even more openly and proudly.

The Republicans haven’t lost their way. They have, instead, found it. And it has led them straight toward unabashed white supremacy and fascism. This is nothing new. We saw what happened after the Civil War. The traitors of the Confederacy were given a pass by the North, and the promise to grant freedmen and women their 40 acres was largely reneged in the interest of reestablishing “national unity.” Because of the enormity of the North’s postbellum failures and the terrorist tactics employed by the re-empowered Southern Redeemers—those believers in the Lost Cause, who are the direct ancestors of those who sullied the Capitol Rotunda with their Confederate flags—the Black vote in the South was all but eliminated. The large majority of the electorate of the Southern slave states remained racist and reactionary, allowing the South to continue as a closed, fascist state for another century.

Only the Democrats and the media can save democracy from fascism. But the Democrats are split between the activists who understand the stakes, and the institutionalists who keep following a rule book the Republicans lit on fire a long time ago. On the one side, the progressives and pragmatists, senators like Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy, and Amy Klobuchar, seem to understand the urgency of the problem—American democracy can’t survive if we fail to realize that the United States Senate is currently operating under the tyranny of the minority. On the other side, institutionalists like Joe Manchin and Dianne Feinstein cling to the idea that maintaining long-standing mechanisms like the filibuster, which is not in the Constitution and impedes the Senate’s ability to act democratically, is more important than enacting legislation that would, on the one hand, help the American people in substantive ways while bolstering Biden’s presidency and, on the other, prevent the Republican Party from turning this country into an apartheid state. It remains to be seen whether President Biden himself, who understands the workings of the body in which he served for almost 40 years, will be able to transcend his own institutionalist leanings. His July 13 speech on voting rights was a powerful repudiation of Republican voter suppression—but he didn’t mention the filibuster once.

 

What happens next also depends on how the media portray what’s currently going on. In 2016, the media lent Donald’s run a gravitas and seriousness it hadn’t earned. The Senate’s failure to convict him of impeachment the first time around was a crucial moment, as it allowed Donald to campaign for the 2020 election as if he were a legitimate candidate—but this time with all of the attendant powers of incumbency, including the massive bullhorn. By asking him questions they would ask any other candidate, the media didn’t just confer upon him legitimacy, they erased the fact that he was a traitor to his country who had been impeached for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress after seeking the help of a foreign power (for the second time) in undermining his political opponent. Anybody who was paying attention knew the trial Republicans put on was a sham, a shabby bit of political theater, the outcome of which was a foregone conclusion. “I am trying to give a pretty clear signal I have made up my mind,” said Senator Lindsey Graham before the trial even began. “I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here.”

Since the election was called for Joe Biden, the media have done reasonably well calling the Big Lie what it is, and yet Republicans who lie about the Big Lie continue to be given a platform. There are propaganda outlets, led by Fox News, that amplify the lies of the Republican Party while distorting (or ignoring) facts. Many in the mainstream media, however, act as if journalistic neutrality means giving both sides equal time no matter the content of their message.

The Republicans continue to think that Donald is somebody whom they need. While it’s true that Trumpism, so-called, doesn’t scale, and that only Donald can carry the mantle of Trumpism, the fact that it’s not a winning formula (after all, Republicans, largely thanks to Donald, lost the House, the Senate, and the White House) is completely irrelevant. They continue to embrace Donald because they need him to keep the Big Lie alive in order to maintain the support of the base, so they can advance their voter-suppression legislation while continuing to cast doubt on the last election by pushing for audits in states, like Arizona, where the popular voter margin was narrow.

Every undemocratic facet of our system—from the filibuster to the Electoral College to voter suppression to failing to make the District of Columbia a state—favors Republicans. They have no incentive to change anything. Tens of millions of voters may be effectively disenfranchised by their legislation and faux-audits, but their voters are not. The endgame is to make it impossible for people who would vote against them to vote at all. In a country of changing demographics and increasing openness to diversity, at a time when elected Republicans are on the wrong side of almost every issue—gun safety, taxes, voting rights—they know the only way for them to cling to power is to cheat, and if there is one skill the de facto leader of their party has, it’s his ability to cheat his way out of—or into—just about anything.

Trumpism doesn’t need to scale. Republicans just need to keep that 35 percent so riled up that the base seems bigger than it is while they quietly make sure the rest of us don’t have a voice.

The stakes are incredibly high in every election going forward. The 2020 election was more important than 2016, and 2022 will be more important than 2020. We can’t discount the pernicious influence of white supremacy, which is not just an extremist movement. It’s not just the KKK, the Proud Boys, the Oath Keepers. It is the mainstream of the Republican Party, and we don’t need to qualify it.

Not only can’t Republicans give up their white supremacy, it turns out they don’t have to. It has been and continues to be a winning strategy. Donald got 62 million votes in 2016 and 74 million votes in 2020. Though Biden’s win was decisive, Republicans overall beat expectations, picking up seats in the House and becoming a minority in the Senate that, because of the filibuster, functionally leaves them with an enormous amount of leverage. We desperately needed a total repudiation of Donald and his Republican enablers. We did not get one.

It’s a tragedy, but it comes from having for decades convinced their electorate to vote against its own economic self-interest in the name of racial superiority. Their attitudes in this matter are positional. The question for them isn’t just “Am I doing well?” but “Am I doing better than?” And we all know who it is they need to be outperforming. As long as that is what matters to them, they will double down on white supremacy and hatred of the other side while maintaining their ability to do so through gerrymandering and voter suppression. That’s all they’ve got.

On July 6, President Biden tweeted, “Six months ago today, insurrectionists carried out a violent and deadly assault on our Capitol. It was a test of whether our democracy could survive. Half a year later we can declare unequivocally that democracy did prevail. Now, it falls on all of us to protect and preserve it.”

This well-intentioned statement misses the mark. The danger hasn’t passed—in fact, as Republicans continue their almost universal support for the first Big Lie, while using it to promote hundreds of sweeping voter-suppression laws in almost every state, they are now lining up behind the Second Big Lie, which is that the insurrection of January 6 was an inside job perpetrated by the FBI, or that the violent attempt to disrupt the peaceful transfer of power with the intention of hunting down the speaker of the House and hanging the vice president was a fun-filled protest carried out by wonderful real Americans like Ashli Babbitt, the latest martyr to their cause. Now, those who participated (and their supporters) are being told that it is they who have been wronged, it is they who are the patriots, and only they whose voices deserve to be heard.

Republicans have made it clear that going forward they will embrace whichever version of the Second Big Lie is most useful in the moment—causing the kind of cognitive dissonance they have become quite comfortable with. It’s absurd—but it’s also effective with enough of their voters that we can’t dismiss it, just as we can’t dismiss Donald. It’s exhausting. And it’s infuriating. But we look away at our peril. Democrats need to accept that there is no longer anything to hope for from their Republican colleagues. For all intents and purposes, we currently live in a country with only one functioning political party that is working to make the lives of all Americans better, only one party that believes in democracy.

Democrats must stop squandering their advantage as they waste time waiting for Republicans to feel shame. They have none. Over the four years Donald was in the Oval Office, there were any number of opportunities for Republicans to break with a man who, at every turn, undermined everything they claimed to have stood for—law and order, the military, moral conservatism, fiscal responsibility, and small government. And yet they never did.

January 6 should have been a wake-up call for all of us, Republicans in particular. Initially at least, some of them had been scared enough by a mob intent on committing violence against any member of Congress they came across to recognize that the monster they’d deluded themselves into thinking they controlled could not, after all, be tamed. Instead, they have followed Donald’s lead. Less than six months after the fact, Georgia Representative Andrew Clyde claimed the insurrection was a “bold-faced lie” and nothing more than “a normal tourist visit,” despite the fact that there is a photo of him rushing to help barricade the door against the mob. Donald continues to double down on his claim that these were peaceful people and actually said “there was such love at that rally.” There has been no pushback from Republican leadership. There can’t be. They know that any investigation into what happened that day is a losing proposition for them—either because they’ve been covering it over or because they’re guilty of sedition. They also know that the 2022 election will turn in part on how many Americans they can convince of the Second Big Lie: that the insurrection never happened.

And as far as the 2024 presidential election is concerned, I initially thought Donald wouldn’t run. Even if he managed to convince himself that he had won but the Democrats had somehow stolen the victory from him, his defeat was so resounding, I believed that, although he might pretend to run as a way to raise money and keep the spotlight on himself, he would never put himself in that position again. Now I’m not so sure. As has been the case since my grandfather discovered that his second son could be of use to him, everything has broken his way. In this case, almost the entire Republican Party has backed not one but two Big Lies that benefit him. If enough people buy into the Second Big Lie, if enough of those voter-suppression laws pass and Republicans make significant gains in Congress and state legislatures in 2022, Donald might begin to think that a win in 2024 would be a sure thing for him, and he might make the decision to run after all. And if he were to win … there would be no coming back from that.

Record Salmon in One Place. Barely Any in Another. Alarm All Around.

Record Salmon in One Place. Barely Any in Another. Alarm All Around.

An aerial view of the Yukon River in Alaska, Aug. 3, 2021. (Ash Adams/The New York Times)
An aerial view of the Yukon River in Alaska, Aug. 3, 2021. (Ash Adams/The New York Times)

 

This summer, fishers in the world’s largest wild salmon habitat pulled a record-breaking 65 million sockeye salmon from Alaska’s Bristol Bay, beating the 2018 record by more than 3 million fish.

But on the Yukon River, about 500 miles to the north, salmon were alarmingly absent. This summer’s chum run was the lowest on record, with only 153,000 fish counted in the river at the Pilot Station sonar — a stark contrast to the 1.7 million chum running in year’s past. The king salmon runs were also critically low this summer — the third lowest on record. The Yukon’s fall run is also shaping up to be sparse.

The disparity between the fisheries is concerning — a possible bellwether for the chaotic consequences of climate change; competition between wild and hatchery fish; and commercial fishing bycatch.

“This is something we’ve never seen before,” said Sabrina Garcia, a research biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. “I think that we’re starting to see changes due to climate change, and I think that we’re going to continue to see more changes, but we need more years of data.”

The low runs have had ripple effects for communities along the Yukon River and its tributaries — the Andreafski, Innoko, Anvik, Porcupine, Tanana and Koyukuk rivers — resulting in a devastating blow to the people relying on salmon as a food staple, as feed for sled dogs and as an integral and enriching cultural tradition spanning millenniums.

“We have over 2,000 miles of river, and our numbers are so low,” said Serena Fitka, the executive director of the Yukon River Drainage Fisheries Association. “Where are all our fish? That’s the question hanging over everyone’s head.”

Because the critically low runs of chinook and chum didn’t meet escapement goals, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game prohibited subsistence, commercial and sports fishing on all of the Yukon, leaving nearly 50 communities with basically no salmon.

“When we have a disaster of this magnitude, where people are worried about their food security, they’re worried about their spiritual security, they’re worried about the future generations’ ability to continue our way of life and culture — our leadership is very anxious,” said Natasha Singh, who is general counsel for the Tanana Chiefs Conference, a tribal organization representing 42 villages in an interior Alaska region nearly the size of Texas. “Our people are very anxious. They want to remain Athabascan-Dene. They want to remain Native, and that’s at risk.”

It’s not the first time salmon runs on the Yukon River and its tributaries have plummeted, but this summer’s record low numbers feel particularly distressing. A large stretch of the Yukon River carries only two of the five species of salmon found in Alaska: chinook and chum.

“When one species crashes, we’re kind of shocked, but we’re OK because we know we can eat from the other stock,” said Ben Stevens, the tribal resource commission manager for Tanana Chiefs Conference. “But, this year is unprecedented in that we don’t have either stock there. They’re both in the tank.”

Yukon River chinook salmon have been in decline for decades, shrinking in size and in quantity as the years pass. The region is also seeing mass die-offs of salmon. In 2019, thousands of chum carcasses washed up on the banks of the Yukon River and its tributaries, which scientists blamed on heat stress from water temperatures nearing 70 degrees, about 10-15 degrees higher than typical for the area.

While warming waters can create an inhospitable habitat for salmon, some research indicates that the heat benefited the sockeye in Bristol Bay, boosting the food supply for young salmon.

Some fish processors are donating excess fish from Bristol Bay to communities along the Yukon. SeaShare and other Alaska fish processors are coordinating donations, and more salmon is expected to be shipped in the next few weeks.

“It’s so heartwarming to have our fellow Alaskans reach out and provide donations,” Stevens said. “I’m just kind of sad that we’ve allowed the situation to get this bad.”

Stevens is a Koyukon Athabascan from Stevens Village, a small community northwest of Fairbanks, Alaska, where the Trans-Alaska Pipeline crosses over the Yukon River. He toured the region last month to hear how communities are coping with the low runs. He said people are scared about a winter with no food, and for the consequences that come with being disconnected from the land and animals. With the loss of fish also comes “the incredible loss of culture,” Stevens said.

Meat harvested from the land is a core food for people living off Alaska’s road system, whose communities are accessible only by boat or plane. Steep shipping costs and long travel times make fresh food at village stores prohibitively expensive and limited; the custom of harvesting food together with friends and family goes back thousands of years.

No salmon also means no fish camp — an annual summer practice where families gather along the rivers to catch, cut and preserve salmon for the winter, and where important life lessons and values are passed down to the next generation.

“We go out and we pass on our tradition over thousands of years from the young to the old,” said PJ Simon, a chief and chairman of the Tanana Chiefs Conference. “That’s our soul. That’s our identity. And that’s where we get our courage, our craftsmanship, for everything that has led up to where we are today.”

Model and activist Quannah Chasinghorse, 19, travels to her family’s fish camp every summer. Chasinghorse is Han Gwich’in and Oglala Lakota, and is from the Eagle, Alaska.

“Every time I go out to fish camp there’s something new I notice that’s different — due to climate change, due to so many different things — and it breaks my heart because I want to be able to bring my children, and I want them to experience how beautiful these lands are,” Chasinghorse said. “I want to see younger generations fishing and laughing and having fun and knowing what it’s like to work hard out on the land.”

The future of Yukon salmon runs remains uncertain. But there’s still time for fishers in the region to adapt to the effects of climate change and to different management approaches, said Singh, the attorney. If salmon are allowed to rebound, then “our children will be fishing people,” she said.

“We shouldn’t conclude that climate change is going to change our fisheries to the point where we have to give up our identity,” Singh said.

Stevens said state and federal natural resource managers “need more Indigenous science” and more “traditional resource management principles in play right now.”

“I think we need folks to know that the last great salmon run on this globe, the last wild one, is about ready to end,” Stevens said. “But, we can stop it.”

© 2021 The New York Times Company

Days of hot weather grip Southern Europe, North Africa

Associated Press

Days of hot weather grip Southern Europe, North Africa

 

ROME (AP) — Stifling heat kept its grip on much of Southern Europe on Thursday, driving people indoors at midday, spoiling crops, triggering drinking water restrictions, turning public libraries into cooling “climate shelters” and complicating the already difficult challenge firefighters faced battling wildfires.

In many places, forecasters said worse was expected to come.

In Italy, 15 cities received warnings from the health ministry about high temperatures and humidity with peaks predicted for Friday. The cities included Rome, Florence and Palermo, but also Bolzano, which is usually a refreshing hot-weather escape in the Alps,

The local National Health Service offices in Rome and Bologna telephoned older residents who live alone to see if they needed groceries or medicines delivered so they wouldn’t venture out in the searing heat.

The Italian air force, which oversees the national weather service, said the interior parts of the islands of Sardinia and Sicily could expect to see temperatures upwards of 40 degrees Celsius (104 F) by Friday. By early afternoon on Thursday in Rome, the city famous for its ornamental as well as strategically placed sidewalk drinking fountains sizzled in 38 C (100 F) heat.

“I drink a lot of water, more water, more water and more water,” said Hank Heerat, a tourist from the Netherlands cycling down the broad boulevard flanking the Roman Forum.

At the ancient Colosseum, Civil Protection volunteers distributed hundreds of bottles of water to visitors.

In Serbia, the spell of hot, dry weather prompted four municipalities to declare an emergency after Rzav River levels plummeted, endangering water supplies. Authorities imposed drinking water restrictions affecting some 250,000 people, while the army brought in water tanks for public use.

“We have a period of severe drought, we cannot take any more water from the river,” Zoran Barac, the head of a local water supply utility, told state broadcaster RTS.

In Spain, the national weather service warned temperatures could hit 44 C (111 F) in some areas in coming days. Parts of the northeastern Catalonia region were forecast to reach 42 C (107.6 F) on Thursday.

Authorities in Barcelona, the Catalan capital, designated 162 museums, libraries, schools and other public places around the city as “climate shelters.” The sites offered an escape from the heat, cool drinking water and staff trained in dealing with heatstroke.

The surge in temperatures, due to a mass of hot, dry air from Africa, was expected to ease starting on Monday on the Iberian peninsula.

While Southern Europe is known for sunny, hot summers, climate scientists say there’s little doubt climate change from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas is driving extreme events such as heat waves, droughts and wildfires, which they say are likely to happen more frequently as Earth warms.

A German tourist in Rome concurred.

Because of climate change, “temperatures are very high. So I think it’s a better option is to reduce the carbon dioxide from the cars and travel more with the metro,” said Philippe Kutaski near the Colosseum in Rome.

As in past years, Croatia’s Adriatic Sea resorts were hosting hundreds of thousands of tourists. But those stepping out of the sea sweltered as temperatures reached 39 C (102 F) on the coast on Wednesday.

Crops and farm animals were suffering from days of extremely high temperature, too.

The Italian agriculture lobby Coldiretti said Thursday that 20% of the tomato crop in Italy’s south was lost due to torrid heat and humidity. Italy exports nearly 2 billion euros ($2.4 billion) worth of tomatoes and tomato products like canned or bottled sauce throughout the world.

Dairy farmers in southern Italy estimated that the heat wave meant cows were eating less, producing 20% less milk and drinking double the usual amount of water.

While much attention has focused on southern Europe’s heat crisis, it was even hotter on the North African shore of the Mediterranean Sea. Temperatures hit 50 C (122 F) in Tunisia, a record high for the country. The last previous high was 48.2 C (nearly 119 F) in 1968.

In Algeria, most of the regions of the north of the country have been placed on alert for heat waves. Fires ravaging mountain forests and villages in Algeria’s Berber region have killed at least 65 people, including 28 soldiers.

Blazes have devoured forest and brush areas in Greece and in southern Italy for days.

In Italy, temperatures in the mid-40s C (over 110 F) in inland parts of Sardinia, Calabria and Sicily made for ripe fire conditions. But long spells of drought also were blamed. By the start of summer in Italy, vegetation had already withered from lack of rain and “essentially became fuel” for wildfires, Italian Civil Protection official Luigi D’Angelo told Italian state TV.

Michele Calamaio in Rome, Barry Hatton in Lisbon, Jovana Gec in Belgrade, Sylvie Corbet in Paris, contributed reporting.

An estimated 300 trillion invasive mussels blanket Lake Michigan. Eradication may be impossible, but small-scale removal efforts could be the answer

An estimated 300 trillion invasive mussels blanket Lake Michigan. Eradication may be impossible, but small-scale removal efforts could be the answer

 

SLEEPING BEAR DUNES NATIONAL LAKESHORE — The divers leaned back from the edge of the boat and splashed into water, bobbing up for a moment before dropping down to a world just a few miles off the northern Michigan coast — and worlds away from the one above the surface.

Today in Lake Michigan, quagga mussels, Eastern European invaders generally smaller than a stamp, reign over an upended underwater ecosystem. The mussels arrived in the Great Lakes more than three decades ago, eating, excreting and spreading zealously ever since, attaching themselves to everything from water intakes to shipwrecks, and all the while filtering life out of the food chain and a $7 billion fishing industry.

But solutions in open water, at least on a small scale, are starting to seem possible to soften the bivalves’ brunt.

Experiments are playing out in Lake Michigan with hopes of restoring fish spawning habitat. Manually removing mussels, with another invasive species offering an assist, has kept rocks clear. Other treatments from copper compounds to genetic biocontrol are in the mix as a collaborative dedicated to mussel control plans for the future.

The Lake Michigan survey on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 180-foot Lake Guardian research vessel, generally conducted every five years, just wrapped up. The bottom-dwelling census is essential to understanding what mussels have done to the lake in the last 30 years, and what they may do next.

Large-scale eradication is still a daunting idea with how many invasive mussels blanket Lake Michigan. By comparison, during peak migration, 30 million birds might fly over Illinois in a night. About 3 trillion trees cover the entire earth. The human body? Somewhere in the tens of trillions of cells.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists estimate about 300 trillion mussels in the lake from the 2015 count — and the mollusks are growing at deeper sites, and growing larger.

More than a decade ago, between regular dives off the Wisconsin shore, Harvey Bootsma, a professor at the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, told the Chicago Tribune the lake was “changing faster than we can study it.”

There are now more than 185 nonnative species in the Great Lakes region; some sneaked in through ships and human-made connections, while others, such as coho and king salmon, were introduced by people. Some acclimated with negligible — or even beneficial — consequences. The invasive mussels are among the most notorious of the unexpected visitors.

On top of the ecological damage caused to native mussels, fish and even shorebirds, they’ve cost billions — from clogging water intakes and power infrastructure, to damaging boats and docks.

Zebra mussels came first; the Caspian Sea travelers discharged in the 1980s, likely via ship-stabilizing ballast water. Quagga mussels, filter feeders armed with a more impressive propagation arsenal, arrived soon after.

Unlike zebra mussels, which generally attach to hard surfaces and stick to shallower water, quaggas tolerate colder temperatures, softer sediment and outcompete zebras with less food available, meaning they now dominate Lake Michigan — and most of the Great Lakes. Only Lake Superior has been largely spared due to the lake’s chillier conditions and lack of calcium, which mussels need to strengthen their shells.

Years later, Bootsma is still studying how the mussels have transformed Lake Michigan, suiting up and diving down to an underwater laboratory.

“What we’ve learned in the Great Lakes is that prevention is a lot cheaper than trying to implement cures,” Bootsma said. “So it’s really important for us now to understand how we can prevent such dramatic changes happening in the future.”

As zebra and quagga mussels engulfed Lake Michigan, their colonies transforming rocks into shelled clumps and the lake bed into serrated carpet, they gobbled up phytoplankton at the base of the food web.

In the last 30 years, the bottom-dwelling czars have changed the look and chemistry of the lake: the water’s clearer, algae heartier, plankton scarcer. The nutrients — in the mussels’ control.

But, despite the improbability, if not impossibility, of large-scale mussel removal in Lake Michigan, Bootsma said it’s valid to ask: “Could we do it at scales large enough that there could be some positive impacts?”

Today, it’s still a challenge to get people to understand the widespread implications of the mussels, Bootsma said, because “most people don’t see what’s under the surface.”

Zebra mussels on a Lake Michigan Beach

If you went to Yellowstone National Park and discovered the bison were gone, you might be upset, he said. “The changes that have happened in the Great Lakes are more dramatic than that.”

Underwater landscape

 

On recent sunny days near Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, a boy in a red jersey cast a fishing line from an old wooden dock; a woman on the beach, legs crossed, read a newspaper under a blue-green striped umbrella; from the top of a bluff, Lake Michigan’s surface flickered like the last moments of a firework. All along the shore you could spot the broken halves of bleached mussel shells.

A few miles out on the lake, framed by the towering dunes, U.S. Geological Survey scientists dove down to get a good look at Good Harbor Reef, a mix of cobblestones and sandy stretches.

They’d usually be diving to collect samples, said research fisheries biologist Peter Esselman, but as part of a project with the National Park Service, they were collecting 360-degree video footage to help people understand the underwater landscape — and its challenges. At Sleeping Bear, that includes invasive species.

On one dive, Glen Black, a biological science technician, scooped up mussels and crunched them in his hand for the video.

Along the lake bottom was another invasive species, Black said, the round goby — an invasive fish also from Eastern seas, now plentiful in Lake Michigan.

“You just see the bottom moving everywhere,” he said.

Esselman came up from a dive and stretched his hands beyond half a foot: “The algae’s about this high.”

As the mussels occupied the reef, so did nuisance cladophora algae, which appears to be linked to botulism outbreaks that left piles of birds — including endangered Great Lakes piping plovers — dead in the sand.

The mussels also choked historically important spawning grounds, just a few miles from Leland Harbor and Fishtown, where you can line up for fresh lake trout and whitefish.

The reef has subhabitats of sorts, some more optimal for fish spawning and mussel attachment than others, said Ben Turschak, a fisheries research biologist with the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The department is working with the park service and geological survey to map and identify fish spawning habitat.

“That’ll help prioritize any kind of restoration or protection that we would do in the future,” Turschak said.

The places where native fish spawn aren’t infinite, said Brenda Moraska Lafrancois, aquatic ecologist with the National Park Service. “So we don’t need an infinite amount of invasive mussel removal effort either.”

“I think we’re actually getting to a point where you can envision a future where the most important parts of Good Harbor Reef are restored to some semblance of natural habitat,” she said.

Round goby’s role

The story of mussel removal in Lake Michigan is also the story of the reef, where researchers have tested hypotheses related to algae, mussels and bottom-dwellers for more than a decade. In 2016, they scraped off nearly 1 million mussels from an area the size of a studio apartment.

Scientists thought the mussels, whose millions of young float in the water and then settle down to colonize, might re-blanket the rocks after a year or two.

Five years later, some mussels occupy crevices, but the rocks are still largely mussel free.

Scientists think the round goby helped.

“They like small mussels because their shells are easier to crush and they’re easier to digest,” Bootsma said. “So we think what’s happening is that those rocks that we scraped just can’t get recolonized because anytime some small mussels settle on them and try to start growing, the gobies pick them off right away.”

Scientists are studying how the goby might give back to the food web; the fish are credited with reviving the Lake Erie water snake population. But they devour other small invertebrates — and native fish eggs.

Bootsma’s team set up a cage this summer with mussel-free rocks that are inaccessible to the gobies to see whether the mussels can recolonize.

“If the round gobies had gotten to the Great Lakes first, we might have avoided a lot of problems with invasive mussels,” Lafrancois said. But “invasive mussels are also probably part of why round gobies had such an easy time establishing here.”

The mussels also fed a “perfect storm for algae,” Bootsma said.

Nuisance cladophora algae was prevalent before controls aimed at reducing phosphorus from sewage pollution, farm runoff and detergents in the 1970s were put into place. The decaying shaglike mats announce their presence via a stench of rotting eggs.

Capable of filtering the entirety of Lake Michigan in less than two weeks, the mussels allowed more sunlight to reach the lake bottom where the algae grows — Lake Michigan is now sometimes clearer than Lake Superior — and their excreted nutrients offered an extra boost to algae growth.

In the removal patch, phosphorus content is lower in the algae on previously cleared rocks, in line with scientists’ hypotheses. But algae has returned to the rocks — another piece of the puzzle that keeps sending them underwater.

Ripple effects

In 2014, the EPA approved open water use of the molluscicide Zequanox, a treatment made up of dead cells from a soil bacteria that specifically targets mussels by destroying their digestive systems. A year later, the Invasive Mussel Collaborative formed.

“People thought, well, maybe there is something we can do about this,” said Erika Jensen, executive director of the Great Lakes Commission. “And we don’t just need to throw up our hands and accept that they’re here.”

As the collective, including the Great Lakes Commission, Geological Survey, NOAA and the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, among others, began to think about potential sites for mussel control projects, Good Harbor Reef, already a testing ground, was a natural fit.

But there were questions about how and where Zequanox could be used, and what would happen to a post-mussel ecosystem if they suddenly disappeared.

“If we were to be able to control them or suppress their populations to a significant degree, what ripple effects does that have for the rest of the ecosystem?” Jensen said. “And we still don’t have all the answers to that.”

A frame and tarp system was designed to pump Zequanox to cordoned-off areas of Good Harbor Reef over a few days in August 2019.

Bad weather caused delays — a challenge of working in open water — but mussel density was soon reduced by 95%.

Since, populations have crept back up more than the manual removal site; scientists think the treatment missed some mussels underneath rocks. But they’re still not as abundant as surrounding areas.

This summer, Bootsma hopes to try another control method at Good Harbor involving tarps — cheaper and less logistically demanding, but one that may take a lot longer to work.

The mussels would essentially be starved and smothered.

Aside from removal efforts, the findings from Good Harbor can help contribute to the development of mathematical models to play out future scenarios.

“You can say to the model, OK, now let’s see what happens to Lake Michigan if we reduce the number of mussels to 50% of what they are now, or if we warm the lake up by 3 degrees as a result of climate change,” Bootsma said. “And that’s really useful for managers because we want to know, for example, is there going to be more or less plankton in the future to support the food web and important fish in the lake?”

Growing larger

Lowell Friedman looked out on calm water and a smoky sky at Leland Harbor. He and his wife, a Michigan native, came to buy fresh fish on vacation. And, as kayakers, they’re familiar with invasive mussels.

“In the last 10 years we’ve now seen it move from just boaters to everything that enters the water has to be checked for mussels,” Friedman said.

The checks aren’t much of an inconvenience, and they’re necessary, he said, listing off the damage mussels have caused. And, Friedman said, “It keeps the ecosystem out of balance.”

A group within the mussel collaborative is developing a list of high-priority locations where control may be beneficial, looking at factors including: fish spawning and nursery habitat, cladophora algae and native mussel distribution, water intake infrastructure, and threatened and endangered fish species.

“They’re not good for fisheries, that’s for sure,” said Bob Lambe, executive secretary of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission.

Some Great Lakes fish have struggled through overfishing, pollution, the arrival of alewives and the devastation wrought by the invasive blood-sucking sea lamprey. Species like lake trout and salmon are somewhat stable in Lake Michigan, Lambe said, but mostly through aggressive restocking rather than natural reproduction.

In the latest survey of Lake Michigan prey fish, food for salmon and trout, their collective weight is comparable to surveys since the mid-2000s. But it’s still a fraction compared with earlier decades.

The mussels are faring better.

 

In 2015, 300 trillion mussels were counted in Lake Michigan, a drop from 480 trillion a decade ago, said Ashley Elgin, a research scientist with NOAA’s Great Lakes Environmental Research Laboratory. But they’re growing larger and heavier, increasing from about 40 million tons to 50 million tons, collectively weighing more than 300,000 hefty blue whales.

The overall mussel population may be stabilizing, but in deeper offshore reaches, which comprise more than half of the lake, populations have grown slowly and steadily.

“Monitoring’s important so that we have our finger on the pulse with what’s happening with the population,” Elgin said. “Mussels are one of the major drivers and major stressors in the lake, so to understand where their populations are at helps us understand how the rest of the food web is responding.”

Monitoring food-web changes

During the Lake Michigan survey on the Lake Guardian, scientists send down devices called Ponar grabs, which scoop up the lake bottom for sampling.

Throughout Ponarpalooza — the affectionate term given to the survey — there’s excitement, and trepidation, in seeing food-web changes firsthand. The bottom-dwellers are good indicators of ecosystem health and change, said EPA environmental scientist Beth Hinchey Malloy.

“Everybody gathers around on the back deck when they’re bringing up those Ponars from the deep sites, because the big question is, are we going to find diporeia or not?” Malloy said. “And when you find them, a big cheer erupts on that back deck.”

Before mussels, diporeia, a shrimplike fish food, were the predominant bottom-dwellers, and an energy-rich food source. The “Snickers bars of the deep,” Elgin said. But they keep disappearing.

Scientists on the Lake Guardian also used video technology, a newer tool to assess mussel coverage. A map from SUNY Buffalo State scientists is expected soon.

“There’s a lot of anticipation to see what these population curves are going to look like with this new data from 2021,” Malloy said.

How climate change may affect mussel populations — as even the depths of Lake Michigan are warming — is another question. Warming water may help mussel growth, Elgin said, but may also hamper food availability.

For now, with populations in the hundreds of trillions, the mussels are a driving force.

“The quagga and zebra mussels, they’re true ecosystem engineers,” Elgin said.

Advocates and officials are still fighting for more stringent ballast water regulations to prevent the next invader from occupying waterways.

Scientists, meanwhile, fixate on the ones already here, building on each small victory.

Greek wildfires a major ecological catastrophe, PM says

Greek wildfires a major ecological catastrophe, PM says

 

ATHENS, Greece (AP) — Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis on Thursday described the devastating wildfires that burned across the country for more than a week as the greatest ecological catastrophe Greece had seen in decades.

 

The fires broke out as the country roasted during the most intense and protracted heat wave experienced since 1987. Hundreds of wildfires erupted across the country, stretching Greece’s firefighting capabilities to the limit and leading the government to appeal for help from abroad. Hundreds of firefighters, along with planes, helicopters and vehicles, arrived from 24 European and Middle Eastern countries to assist.

“We managed to save lives, but we lost forests and property,” Mitsotakis said, describing the wildfires as “the greatest ecological catastrophe of the last few decades.”

Speaking during a news conference in Athens, his first since the fires broke out, Mitsotakis said authorities had faced around 100 active blazes each day. By Thursday, the situation was much improved, with most large wildfires on the wane.

But the prime minister warned the danger of more blazes was still present.

“We are in the middle of August and it’s clear we will have difficult days ahead of us” until the main season during which fires break out is over, he said.

“The climate crisis — I’d like to use this term, and not climate change — the climate crisis is here, and it shows us everything needs to change” he said, adding he was ready to make the “bold changes” needed.

“This is a common crisis for all of us,” he said.

Several Mediterranean countries have suffered intense heat and quickly spreading wildfires in recent weeks, including Turkey, where at least eight people have died, and Italy. In Algeria, wildfires in the mountains have killed at least 65 people.

Worsening drought and heat – both linked to climate change – have also fueled wildfires this summer in the Western United States and in Russia’s northern Siberia region. Scientists say there is little doubt that climate change from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas is driving more extreme events.

Greece’s largest fire broke out on the country’s second-largest island of Evia on Aug. 3 and was still smoldering on Thursday, after having destroyed most of the island’s north.

More than 50,900 hectares were damaged in northern Evia, according to mapping from the European Union’s Copernicus Emergency Management Service. Entire mountains of mainly pine forest have been reduced to wastelands of blackened stumps, while olive and fig tree plantations and vineyards were also destroyed.

More than 850 firefighters, including hundreds from the Ukraine, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Poland and Moldova, were continuing efforts to prevent flare-ups in the area, assisted by four helicopters and three aircraft, including the massive Ilyushin 11-76 water-dropping planes sent by Russia.

The government prioritized protecting lives in its fire response, issuing dozens of evacuation orders for villages in the path of the flames. In that respect, the policy appears to have worked. One volunteer firefighter died while working in an area north of Athens hit by a major fire, after being hit by a falling electricity pole. Four volunteer firefighters have been hospitalized with burns, including two in critical condition in intensive care.

Greek authorities had been anxious to avoid a repetition of the summer of 2018, when a fast-moving wildfire engulfed a seaside settlement near Athens, killing more than 100 people, including some who drowned trying to escape by sea.

But the current tactic of evacuation orders has come under criticism by many residents and local officials in areas affected by this year’s fires, who have argued the orders were premature. They point to those who ignored the evacuation messages, staying behind to fight the flames and managing to save their homes.

“We managed to protect thousands of people. But we lost forests and property,” Mitsotakis said during his press conference. “And we are here to talk about everything … (including) where nature found us unprepared.”

The government has also come under criticism for not deploying enough firefighting planes and helicopters, and not sending them soon enough, particularly to Evia. Authorities have countered that the aircraft were flying wherever possible, but that the entire firefighting fleet cannot be airborne at the same time, as some need to land for essential servicing.

Asked about the cause of the fires, and whether an organized campaign of arson was suspected, Mitsotakis said it was “certain that some of the fires in the last few days were the result of arson.” Several people have been arrested over the past few days on suspicion of attempting to start fires, including some who are accused of doing so deliberately.

However, he added it was unclear whether this was a result of an organized plan, and noted that the hot, dry conditions had aided the spread of wildfires.

Follow all AP stories on climate change issues at https://apnews.com/hub/climate

Debt in a warm climate: coronavirus and carbon set scene for default

Debt in a warm climate: coronavirus and carbon set scene for default

Villagers attempt to put out a wildfire, in Achallam village

 

LONDON (Reuters) -Where COVID-19 has precipitated unprecedented debts, climate change could trigger defaults across a planet which a United Nations panel says is dangerously close to runaway warming.

To avert disaster, countries are committing to carbon cutting steps. But these will be costly and likely to add to a global debt pile which asset manager Janus Henderson estimates ballooned to $62.5 trillion by the end of last year.

With floods and wildfires devastating the world, estimates vary on how much damage warming will inflict on its economy.

But a report earlier this year by BofA put it at $54-69 trillion by 2100, which compares to a valuation of the entire global economy of around $80 trillion.

The financial repercussions could manifest themselves in under a decade, a study by index provider FTSE Russell warns.

The first climate-linked credit rating downgrades are set to hit countries soon, the report’s co-author and FTSE Russell’s senior sustainable investment manager, Julien Moussavi, added.

In a worst-case “hot house world” scenario developing countries including Malaysia, South Africa, Mexico and even wealthier economies such as Italy may default on debt by 2050.

In another, where governments are initially slow to react, states including Australia, Poland, Japan and Israel, will be at risk of default and ratings downgrades too, the study concluded.

While developing countries are inherently more vulnerable to rising sea levels and drought, richer ones will not escape the climate change fallout, such studies show.

“You can talk about climate change and its impact and it won’t be long before someone talks about Barbados, Fiji, or the Maldives,” Moritz Kraemer, chief economist at Countryrisk.io and former head of sovereign ratings at S&P Global.

“What was a surprise to me is the impact on higher-rated, richer countries,” Kraemer added.

Another study by a group of universities including Cambridge concluded that 63 countries – roughly half the number rated by S&P Global, Moody’s and Fitch – could see credit ratings cut by 2030 because of climate change.

China, Chile, Malaysia, and Mexico would be the hardest hit with six notches of downgrades by the end of the century, it said, while the United States, Germany, Canada, Australia, India, and Peru could see around four.

The corresponding increase in borrowing costs would add $137–$205 billion to countries’ combined annual debt service payments by 2100, this study estimated.

Ratings downgrades typically raise borrowing costs, especially if they cause countries to be ejected from bond indexes tracked by funds managing trillions of dollars.

WARNING LIGHT

Developed countries are ramping up spending to temper climate damage, with Germany creating a 30 billion euro recovery fund after recent floods, while Singapore is budgeting the equivalent of $72 billion to protect against rising sea levels in the next century.

For emerging economies, already scarred by COVID-19, the climate crisis will heap on more pressure.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) warns that a 10 percentage-point rise in climate change vulnerability, as measured by the Notre Dame Global Adaptation Initiative index, is associated with an increase of over 150 basis points in long-term government bond spreads for developing nations.

The average rise across all countries was 30 bps.

The U.N. environment programme estimates that in developing countries, annual adaptation costs will be as much as $300 billion in 2030, rising to $500 billion in 2050.

As a percentage of gross domestic product, sovereign debt is still about 60% in emerging economies, data from the Institute of International Finance (IIF) shows, versus 100% or so in the United States and Britain, and 200% in Japan,.

The rise from pre-pandemic levels of around 52% is a particular concern. European, U.S. and Japanese central banks are essentially underwriting state borrowing, but this is not possible in poor countries, who must ultimately repay debt.

“How do you enable the sort of funding that is required given the high debt levels and the importance of the ratings frameworks?” Sonja Gibbs, director for global capital markets at the IIF said.

(Reporting by Dhara Ranasinghe and Karin Strohecker; Editing by Sujata Rao and Alexander Smith)

The New U.N. Climate Report Shows an Even Hotter Future—Unless We Start Acting

The New U.N. Climate Report Shows an Even Hotter Future—Unless We Start Acting

Photo credit: Trevor Bexon - Getty Images
Photo credit: Trevor Bexon – Getty Images

 

The new U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report on the current climate crisis has made news this week for offering a bleak picture of the state of global climate change, especially poignant while major fires and heat waves blanket California, Greece, and Siberia. The world could look very different, with more and more extreme weather and heat effects, unless we change global industry very soon.

The report is based on the contributions of over 200 scientists from around the world, and it combines more than 14,000 research works into one master report on the state of the entire world’s climate as both a point in time and as part of our near and further future.

Humans are causing the change

The report explicitly calls out the human effects on things like greenhouse gas emissions that have caused the climate to warm and change compared with a control simulation where there are no human activities. To make this comparison, the report’s authors compared attribution studies from around the world that showed a persistent, notable increase in global temperature and “well-mixed greenhouse gases” that are attributable to human activities like industry.

Aerosols mask some of our impact

Aerosols are clouds of particulate that can act as tiny sunblocks basically, helping to keep heat out by bouncing it away back into space. Aerosol cooling, the IPCC says, has helped to “mask” or mitigate the human impact on climate change. Aerosols are generated by industry in the form of black carbon soot, for example, and in nature as volcanic ash. Some scientists want to try solar geoengineering, a process in which we intentionally use aerosols as a way to mitigate climate change, but so far, scientists have hesitated to commit to studies in this space.

Extreme weather has increased and will continue

Heat waves have increased in severity and frequency, while cold extreme events have decreased as the planet is warmed. Even heavy rain events have increased in frequency and severity, along with an increase in tropical cyclones. The report says compound extreme events around the world, like heat and drought, have increased since the 1950s, likely caused by anthropogenic, or humanmade, climate change.

The report says it’s “very likely” that precipitation events like monsoon rains will continue to increase, with a rate of 7% more daily precipitation events for each degree of climate change—a proportional increase as the Earth grows warmer. In some scenarios where the climate changes just 1.0 or 1.8° Celsius, that may seem like not such a big deal. But without changes to global emissions, our temperature could increase 5° Celsius or more.

Hot temperature extremes like heatwaves that previously happened once in ten years will be up to 9.4 times more likely to occur depending on just how much the global average temperature increases, up to 5° Celsius. Hot temperature extremes that happened once in fifty years will be up to 39.2 times more likely to occur based on the degree of warming. Heavy precipitation will be up to 2.7 times more likely to occur, and droughts will be up to 4.1 times more likely to occur.

It’s going to get hotter, but by how much?

The report posits five possible futures to explore the impact of climate change. These range from the most conservative estimate, where the surface warms just 1.8° Celsius by 2050, to where the surface warms 5.7° Celsius, both compared to the control time period 1850-1900.

“The last time global surface temperature was sustained at or above 2.5°C higher than 1850–1900 was over 3 million years ago,” the report explains.

The report also explains that land mass as well as Arctic ice are likely to bear the brunt of surface cooling compared with the oceans, which makes sense considering how much more energy it takes to heat deep water compared with air or the surface of a solid material. (Think about frying an egg versus boiling a pot of water for pasta.)

The Arctic may melt

Permafrost is the term for soil and ice that are permanently frozen, often above the Arctic Circle or at high elevations of lower latitudes. The report says that permafrost and sea ice will both melt severely under all five of the report’s theoretical futures, from conservative to most extreme: “The Arctic is likely to be practically sea ice free in September at least once before 2050 under the five illustrative scenarios considered in this report, with more frequent occurrences for higher warming levels.” Permafrost thaw alters the arctic climate as well as releasing trapped greenhouse gases that were previously held in frozen “carbon sink” conditions.

We’ll exceed nature’s carbon sinks

The oceans and land masses both absorb some amount of carbon, which has started to lead to the acidification of the oceans, for example. Acidification reduces sealife’s access to building blocks like calcium carbonate, killing off shelled organisms. In the IPCC’s five future scenarios, all exceed nature’s ability to absorb carbon emissions, but this number grows larger as the emissions far overtake how much our oceans and land can absorb.

Many changes will take millennia to reach equilibrium

The report states that many of the changes we have induced with human global emissions will last for millennia even without any further heating or increased carbon emissions. Sea levels will continue to rise, they say, because of the warming deep ocean and other changes that are already set into motion. Glaciers will continue to melt for “decades or centuries.”

There’s still hope, and a mandate for change

In the report’s most conservative future, the climate still changes up to almost 2° Celsius by 2050—this isn’t a fantasy future where nothing bad happens. But even so, we have the opportunity, the necessity, to rapidly reduce emissions around the world and curb many of the effects of climate change during the 21st century.

“From a physical science perspective, limiting human-induced global warming to a specific level requires limiting cumulative CO2 emissions, reaching at least net zero CO2 emissions, along with strong reductions in other greenhouse gas emissions,” the report explains. “Strong, rapid and sustained reductions in CH4 emissions would also limit the warming effect resulting from declining aerosol pollution and would improve air quality.”

If we make serious changes today, like reduction of global carbon emissions from heavy industry, that means we could begin to see reversals in some of the telltale effects of climate change beginning in as little as 20 years, which is the blink of an eye in Earth’s lifetime but a key window of time for humankind.