vox--2020-09-30--The reviews are in: The first presidential debate was a disaster

The reviews are in for the first presidential debate of the 2020 general election , and there seems to be a consensus : that was a complete disaster .
From ABC News to CNN to Fox News , TV hosts and other commentators agreed that the first debate devolved into an incoherent mess — largely because President Donald Trump wouldn ’ t allow former Vice President Joe Biden to speak , repeatedly flaunting the rules on time limits by interrupting his Democratic opponent .
Immediately after the debate , ABC News host George Stephanopoulos called out what he described as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his life .
“ I have to speak personally here , ” he said .
“ As somebody who ’ s watched presidential debates for 40 years , as somebody who ’ s moderated presidential debates , as somebody who ’ s prepared candidates for presidential debates , as somebody who ’ s covered presidential debates , that was the worst presidential debate I have ever seen in my life.
” “ That was a hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck , ” Tapper said .
“ That was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , it wasn ’ t even in a debate .
It was a disgrace .
And it ’ s primarily because of President Trump .
… We ’ ll talk about who won the debate , who lost the debate , but I can tell you one thing for sure : The American people lost tonight , because that was horrific.
” CNN correspondent Dana Bash agreed with Tapper .
“ That was a shitshow , ” she said .
“ We ’ re on cable , we can say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ little bit crude , but that was really the phrase that I ’ m getting from people on both sides of the aisle on text , and it ’ s the only phrase that I can think of to really describe it.
” On NBC News , Savannah Guthrie kicked off the discussion this way : “ We need to just pause for a moment , and say , ‘ That was crazy.
’ What was that ?
” “ It was a train wreck , ” NBC News anchor Chuck Todd responded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wreck of the making of one person .
I mean , we know who did it .
President Trump did this.
” MSNBC anchor Brian Williams agreed : “ What a dark event we have just witnessed.
” CBS News political analyst John Dickerson said , “ When the stakes were that high , the debate couldn ’ t have been lower .
It was not an equal opportunity experience .
The president of the United States … was by far responsible for a greater share of the jaggedness at a time when @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fox News anchor Sean Hannity , a consistent ally of the president , conceded the debate didn ’ t go how a lot of people would have liked , although he spun his criticism so as not to solely impugn Trump : “ I grew up .
I played hockey .
We dropped the gloves every day .
Some people probably think it ’ s too hot , but it was both sides.
” Later , on Fox & Friends First in the morning , political analyst Ron Meyer echoed the sentiment that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wasn ’ t much great about this debate .
In my opinion , it could be one of the worst debates in televised American history.
” Flipping through news channels last night and this morning , it ’ s the overwhelming takeaway from the debate : Regardless of which candidate you prefer , it was a debacle .
Will you help keep Vox free for all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little @ @ @ @

The reviews are in for the first presidential debate of the 2020 general election, and there seems to be a consensus: It was a complete disaster.
From ABC News to CNN to Fox News, TV hosts and other commentators agreed that the first debate devolved into an incoherent mess — largely because President Donald Trump wouldn’t allow former Vice President Joe Biden to speak, repeatedly flouting the rules on time limits by interrupting his Democratic opponent.
Immediately after the debate, ABC News host George Stephanopoulos called out what he described as the worst debate he had seen in his life.
“I have to speak personally here,” he said. “As somebody who’s watched presidential debates for 40 years, as somebody who’s moderated presidential debates, as somebody who’s prepared candidates for presidential debates, as somebody who’s covered presidential debates, that was the worst presidential debate I have ever seen in my life.”
.@GStephanopoulos: "I have to speak personally here...that was the worst presidential debate I have ever seen in my life." https://t.co/5Bl4Ob3O2t #Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/FxMlSbshiw — ABC News (@ABC) September 30, 2020
CNN anchor Jake Tapper echoed the sentiment.
“That was a hot mess inside a dumpster fire inside a train wreck,” Tapper said. “That was the worst debate I have ever seen. In fact, it wasn’t even in a debate. It was a disgrace. And it’s primarily because of President Trump. … We’ll talk about who won the debate, who lost the debate, but I can tell you one thing for sure: The American people lost tonight, because that was horrific.”
CNN correspondent Dana Bash agreed with Tapper. “That was a shitshow,” she said. “We’re on cable, we can say that. Apologies for being maybe a little bit crude, but that was really the phrase that I’m getting from people on both sides of the aisle on text, and it’s the only phrase that I can think of to really describe it.”
"That was a hot mess, inside a dumpster fire, inside a train wreck,” says @JakeTapper about the first presidential debate between Pres. Trump and Joe Biden. “We’ll talk about who won the debate, who lost the debate ... One thing for sure, the American people lost.” #Debates2020 pic.twitter.com/wjMnUmt2WS — The Lead CNN (@TheLeadCNN) September 30, 2020
On NBC News, Savannah Guthrie kicked off the discussion this way: “We need to just pause for a moment, and say, ‘That was crazy.’ What was that?”
“It was a train wreck,” NBC News anchor Chuck Todd responded. “But it was a train wreck of the making of one person. I mean, we know who did it. President Trump did this.”
WATCH: After more than an hour and a half of the first presidential debate, @chucktodd says, "It was a train wreck."
"I don't know how that helped anybody" #debates2020 pic.twitter.com/ZrUjSbPnyW — Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) September 30, 2020
MSNBC anchor Brian Williams agreed: “What a dark event we have just witnessed.”
Brian Williams begins #MSNBC2020 post-debate coverage:
“What a dark event we have just witnessed.” pic.twitter.com/pVZNTq7xwN — MSNBC (@MSNBC) September 30, 2020
CBS News political analyst John Dickerson said, “When the stakes were that high, the debate couldn’t have been lower. It was not an equal opportunity experience. The president of the United States … was by far responsible for a greater share of the jaggedness at a time when America does not need jagged.”
.@jdickerson on the first presidential debate: "When the stakes were that high, the debate couldn’t have been lower" #debates2020 https://t.co/a7VWn5npT9 pic.twitter.com/jdjhrnz3W3 — CBS News (@CBSNews) September 30, 2020
Even Fox News anchor Sean Hannity, a consistent ally of the president, conceded the debate didn’t go how a lot of people would have liked, although he spun his criticism so as not to solely impugn Trump: “I grew up. I played hockey. We dropped the gloves every day. Some people probably think it’s too hot, but it was both sides.”
Later, on Fox & Friends First in the morning, political analyst Ron Meyer echoed the sentiment that emerged elsewhere: “Honestly, there wasn’t much great about this debate. In my opinion, it could be one of the worst debates in televised American history.”
Flipping through news channels last night and this morning, it’s the overwhelming takeaway from the debate: Regardless of which candidate you prefer, it was a debacle.


vox--2020-09-30--Joe Biden’s most surprising, and possibly important, answer of the debate

President Donald Trump ’ s performance at the first debate was bizarre , cruel , and at times , truly dangerous .
For all those reasons , it probably had the net effect of making it likelier that Joe Biden wins the presidency — that ’ s certainly what the betting markets thought , and what the snap polls suggest — and Democrats take back the Senate .
So it ’ s worth noting a particularly surprising and consequential answer Biden gave early on Tuesday night , one that may shape the course of his presidency .
Throughout the debate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has already decried , or disavow policies he has already disavowed .
And Biden did so eagerly .
Asked to say “ law and order , ” he said it .
Challenged to speak positively of law enforcement , he did .
Pushed to denounce violent protesters , he called for their prosecution .
Attacked for his plans to defund the police , pass a $ 100 trillion Green New Deal , and abolish private insurance , Biden said he opposed all of those ideas .
“ He just lost the left , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it all the more notable that when moderator Chris Wallace asked Biden to “ tell the American people tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the court , ” Biden refused .
“ Whatever position I take on that , that will become the issue , ” he replied .
On the merits , this is a dodge .
Those are consequential questions of governance , and Biden is running for president .
His views are supposed to become flashpoints in the election .
But in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ did take , both for and against controversial policies , it was telling .
Biden could have dismissed both ideas .
At another time , he doubtlessly would have dismissed both ideas .
That he refused to do so now reflects how far he ’ s moved , how far he believes his party has moved , or both .
Biden ’ s answers track what you ’ re hearing from moderate Senate Democrats these days .
The conservative National Review , for instance , has been trying to get moderate Democrats on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ finding that the voices who were once reliable opponents to these ideas are increasingly leaving the door ajar .
Asked about filibuster reform , for instance , Sen. Jon Tester ( D-MT ) , once a strong opponent , said , “ I still support the filibuster , but , like I said , we ’ ll see what happens with the other side .
Who knows what ’ s going to happen ?
” Asked about court-packing , Sen. Bob Casey ( D-PA ) said , “ I think we ’ ve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election.
” Biden ’ s refusal to foreclose his options for making ambitious legislative governance possible again , both by returning to a Senate where a simple majority can pass legislation and to a Supreme Court balanced between liberal and conservative justices , reflects a sea change occurring among Senate Democrats more broadly .
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has disabused even moderate Democrats of their more hopeful notions of how governance might work , and there ’ s a growing recognition that polarized parties can no longer furnish the bipartisan coalitions necessary @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democrats face a choice between their agenda or the Senate ’ s current rulebook , and increasingly , they know it .
The question shadowing Biden ’ s campaign is whether his oft-voiced nostalgia for the Senate that was will render him paralyzed by the Senate that is ; whether he will be too attached to a past era in American politics to make the decisions necessary to govern well in this one .
Early in the campaign , I was reasonably sure it would .
I ’ m less so now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ all ?
The United States is in the middle of one of the most consequential presidential elections of our lifetimes .
It ’ s essential that all Americans are able to access clear , concise information on what the outcome of the election could mean for their lives , and the lives of their families and communities .
That is our mission at Vox .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone understand this presidential election : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

President Donald Trump’s performance at the first debate was bizarre, cruel, and at times truly dangerous. For all those reasons, it probably had the net effect of making it likelier that Joe Biden wins the presidency — that’s certainly what the betting markets thought and what the snap polls suggest — and Democrats take back the Senate. So it’s worth noting a particularly surprising and consequential answer Biden gave early on Tuesday night, one that may shape the course of his presidency.
Throughout the debate, Trump demanded Biden decry things he has already decried, or disavow policies he has already disavowed. And Biden did so eagerly. Asked to say “law and order,” he said it. Challenged to speak positively of law enforcement, he did. Pushed to denounce violent protesters, he called for their prosecution. Attacked for his plans to defund the police, pass a $100 trillion Green New Deal, and abolish private insurance, Biden said he opposed all of those ideas. “He just lost the left,” Trump muttered angrily.
Which made it all the more notable that when moderator Chris Wallace asked Biden to “tell the American people tonight whether or not you will support either ending the filibuster or packing the Court,” Biden refused. “Whatever position I take on that, that will become the issue,” he replied.
On the merits, this is a dodge. Those are consequential questions of governance, and Biden is running for president. His views are supposed to become flash points in the election. But in the context of all the sharp positions Biden did take, both for and against controversial policies, it was telling. Biden could have dismissed both ideas. At another time, he doubtlessly would have dismissed both ideas. That he refused to do so now reflects how far he’s moved, how far he believes his party has moved, or both.
Biden’s answers track what you’re hearing from moderate Senate Democrats these days. The conservative National Review, for instance, has been trying to get moderate Democrats on the record on both issues, and finding that the voices who were once reliable opponents to these ideas are increasingly leaving the door ajar. Asked about filibuster reform, for instance, Sen. Jon Tester (D-MT), once a strong opponent, said, “I still support the filibuster, but, like I said, we’ll see what happens with the other side. Who knows what’s going to happen?” Asked about court-packing, Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) said, “I think we’ve got to wait to get through the election.”
Biden’s refusal to foreclose his options for making ambitious legislative governance possible again, by returning to both a Senate where a simple majority can pass legislation and a Supreme Court balanced between liberal and conservative justices, reflects a sea change occurring among Senate Democrats more broadly. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has disabused even moderate Democrats of their more hopeful notions of how governance might work, and there’s a growing recognition that polarized parties can no longer furnish the bipartisan coalitions necessary to pass even modest legislative agendas. Democrats face a choice between their agenda and the Senate’s current rulebook, and increasingly, they know it.
The question shadowing Biden’s campaign is whether his oft-voiced nostalgia for the Senate that was will render him paralyzed by the Senate; that is, whether he will be too attached to a past era in American politics to make the decisions necessary to govern well in this one. Early in the campaign, I was reasonably sure it would. I’m less so now.


vox--2020-09-30--Why we’re more confident than ever that climate change is driving disasters

Share All sharing options for : Why we ’ re more confident than ever that climate change is driving disasters Back in 2017 , record-breaking hurricanes like Maria and wildfires like Tubbs hammered the United States .
But the specific role of long-term global warming was a tentative part of the discussion , with scientists speaking of it cautiously , in broad strokes .
Compare that with 2020 , where researchers now have far more data showing just how much climate change affects the frequency and likelihood of heat waves ( and fires that follow them ) , ocean heat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That has risen alongside a growing public awareness of how climate change is playing out .
A 2019 Pew Research poll found that 62 percent of Americans said climate change was impacting their local community .
CBS News reported that a majority of Americans now believe climate change is contributing to extreme weather .
In turn , more public officials and media personalities are directly connecting climate change to some of the disasters underway .
During Tuesday ’ s first 2020 presidential debate , moderator Chris Wallace posed a question to President @ @ @ @ @ @ @ raging in the West : “ Do you believe that human pollution , greenhouse gas emissions , contributes to the global warming ?
” Wallace asked .
“ I think a lot of things do , ” Trump responded , before launching into a meandering answer blaming California ’ s wildfires solely on forest management .
That such a question was asked during a presidential debate is a stark shift from the 2016 campaign , where climate change barely came up at all , let alone its role in disasters .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from , ‘ Was this event due to climate change ?
’ to , ‘ How was this event changed because of climate change ?
’ ” said Kevin Reed , an associate professor at Stony Brook University who leads the climate extremes modeling group .
“ The science has definitely improved .
But I think a big part of what ’ s improved is also the dialogue about trying to understand the nuances of what is the impact of climate change on extreme events.
” While the long-term heating of the planet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is not the “ cause ” of massive wildfires and powerful hurricanes , it can be a component in their severity , frequency , or likelihood .
We have more certainty about that , thanks to an emerging scientific field known as extreme-event attribution .
Here , scientists construct models to evaluate the counterfactual of what would have happened in a certain event without climate change and compare it to observed results .
Scientists working in this field acknowledge that for phenomena as complicated as wildfires and hurricanes , there are many other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ variability from climate cycles like El Niño , as well as policy decisions like the suppression of naturally occurring wildfires and allowing forest fuel to accumulate .
Yet as even attribution science has become more and more important to the public understanding of climate change and extreme events , some in conservative circles dismiss it , particularly around the disasters this year .
President Trump has long been dismissive of climate change .
When told about the role of climate change in wildfires during a White House briefing , he said , “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You just watch.
” Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler also diminished the role of climate change in wildfires .
“ I do believe most of it is forest management issues , ” he told Cheddar on September 22 .
Some right-wing personalities have been much more blunt , claiming such events have “ nothing to do with climate change.
” Others promoted conspiracy theories like the one claiming wildfires are purely due to a wave of arson .
Understanding the interplay of all the variables in extreme weather isn ’ t just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ climate change in disasters affects how we plan for the future , how we reduce risk , and how we adapt .
That ’ s why it ’ s worth highlighting how our understanding of these phenomena has improved in recent years , why it ’ s important to unpack how rising average temperatures are fueling destruction , and why it ’ s critical to address these concerns now .
Just this past weekend , another round of wildfires ignited in Northern California , prompting middle-of-the-night emergency evacuation orders in places like Butte @ @ @ @ @ @ @ blazes have killed at least three people .
By Wednesday evening , the Glass Fire in Napa and Sonoma Counties and the Zogg Fire in Shasta County , California , had together consumed close to 100,000 acres .
Meanwhile , the National Weather Service has issued a red-flag warning for wide swaths of Southern California as another heat wave and high winds are raising fire risks .
These blazes are only adding to what has already been an unprecedented wildfire season across much of the Western United States .
In California , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on record in terms of area burned .
And more blazes are likely in store .
Wildfires are a natural and essential part of many ecosystems , particularly in the Western United States .
Periodic fires help clear decay in forest and grasslands , help plants germinate , and return vital nutrients to soils .
However , humans have been making wildfires worse in recent years , expanding their scale and their devastation .
People are building closer to fire-prone regions , increasing the opportunities to ignite fires and raising the damage tolls @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , decades of suppressing naturally occurring fires have led to vegetation in these ecosystems accumulating to high levels so that when they do dry out , there ’ s far more fuel to burn .
In some forests , that fuel also changes the nature of fires , from low-intensity burns close to the forest floor to towering flames that torch tree canopies .
And humans are changing the climate .
There ’ s now a growing pool of research identifying the specific role of human-caused climate change in wildfires .
A study @ @ @ @ @ @ @ examined Australia ’ s massive bushfires this year .
It found that climate change increased the likelihood of the conditions that fueled the blazes by at least 30 percent .
Another study looking at 2017 ’ s record-breaking fire season in British Columbia reported that climate change made the conditions behind those fires two to four times more likely and increased the burned area between seven- and elevenfold .
In Arizona and New Mexico between 1984 and 2015 , a study in the journal Forest Ecology and Management found that climate change is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One key risk factor for wildfires is the vapor pressure deficit .
This is the difference between how much moisture the air could hold and how much moisture is actually there .
Air can absorb about 7 percent more water for every degree Celsius the air warms .
But just because the air can hold on to more moisture doesn ’ t mean that it does .
A high vapor deficit means that the air is very dry , which means it can draw more moisture out of vegetation .
That leaves grasses @ @ @ @ @ @ @ burn .
This year , California experienced some of the highest vapor pressure deficits in decades , leaving the state ’ s forests and its semi-arid shrub land known as chaparral parched as record-breaking heat baked the state .
Scientists have found that this metric has been increasing since the 1970s due to climate change .
“ Among the many processes important to California ’ s diverse fire regimes , warming‐driven fuel drying is the clearest link between anthropogenic climate change and increased California wildfire activity to date , ” researchers wrote in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Future .
John Abatzoglou , one of the co-authors of the study and an associate professor of climatology at the University of California Merced , however , noted that there are also unique elements at play in every wildfire .
“ The climate change argument is going to be the strongest for measures of fuel dryness , measures of vapor pressure deficits , and less so for individual weather events , ” he said .
“ Each fire has its own story.
” One variation between wildfires is in the ecosystems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forests burn typically burn at different times of year , frequency , and intensity compared to coastal redwood forests or chaparral across Southern California .
These ecosystems all receive a distinct combination of rainfall , heat , humidity , and vegetation , so the effects of climate change don ’ t emerge in all these areas in the same way at the same time .
Another variable is how the fires burn .
Some smolder across forest floors while others produce towering flames that tear through tree canopies .
Some wildfires inch across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ winds can consume a football field ’ s worth of vegetation in minutes .
But there are long-term changes underway that could have an impact on all of these blazes .
In a 2016 study , Abatzoglou reported that half of the increasing fuel dryness in western forests since the 1970s was attributable to climate change caused by humans .
California is also still reeling from the effects of a massive drought from 2011 until 2017 that helped kill off more than 140 million trees across the state .
That drought was exacerbated @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increased the likelihood of extreme drought in the region .
And it ’ s not just the summer heat that ’ s rising due to climate change .
Winters are warming up too .
In fact , in some parts of the country , winters are warming faster than summers .
That has critical effects on fire activity and lays the foundation for major fires months in advance .
Snow accumulated in the winter in places like the Sierra Nevada acts as a battery for water .
As it melts throughout the spring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But with shorter winters , less snow has time to build up , leading to drier vegetation .
As winters warm up , snowpack can melt earlier in the spring , which leads to a process that causes soils to become drier , an effect that can compound over years .
That reduces the amount of water available to plants .
Snow also reflects sunlight back into space , and with less snow on the ground , the soil can absorb more heat and dry out further .
A warmer winter also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ than snow .
Rain doesn ’ t store as easily , so it can contribute to flooding early in the season but quickly run off into the ocean , leaving less moisture for the rest of the year .
“ From a climate change perspective , we ’ ve been predicting lower snowpack values , ” said Sarah Kapnick , deputy division leader at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at NOAA .
“ Observational records have been showing an earlier timing of snow melts , and those have been increasing .
That ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , because it leads to drying.
” Climate change is also tipping the scales toward larger fires .
Monica Turner , a fire researcher and a professor of integrative biology at the University of Wisconsin Madison , said in an email that climate is a big driver of megafires , those burning through an area larger than 100,000 acres .
This year , both long-term trends and seasonal variability converged , causing extreme heat and dryness , as well as some unusual ignition events , like a dry lightning storm in Northern California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Turner also noted that when weather conditions reach extremes like those across the West this year , they tend to overwhelm other wildfire factors like the amount of fuel present .
“ With weather like 2020 , fires will burn through forests of all ages , structures and densities , ” she wrote in a Q & A for the University of Wisconsin .
So while the Western wildfires in 2020 have been unusual in their severity , many of their most important ingredients will continue being amplified by climate change .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worse as temperatures rise The Atlantic hurricane season this year has been extremely active , so active that forecasters have completely run through their list of names for storms and are now using the Greek alphabet .
There have already been 23 named storms as of September 25 , some of which formed before the official start of the Atlantic storm season .
Earlier in September , Hurricane Beta became the ninth named storm this year to make landfall in the United States , tying a record set in 1916 .
There were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were able to see some of this coming in the spring when they detected warmer than average sea surface temperatures in the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean .
The waters continued to heat up over the summer .
That ’ s important because hurricanes need surface water to be at least 26°C ( 79°F ) .
More warm water means more energy for hurricanes , lending them strength as they spool up .
“ Our seasonal predictions back in May were that this was going to be a massive [ tropical storm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Another factor was that El Niño , a periodic warming and cooling pattern in the Pacific Ocean , was in its neutral phase this year , leading to more stable air over the Atlantic .
Phenomena that result from unstable air like wind shear can rip apart hurricanes before they can gather strength , so calmer skies above the ocean served as ideal breeding grounds for tropical storms this year .
So those were the unique seasonal effects .
Then how does climate change fit in ?
One problem with finding climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are relatively infrequent events , and having the right mix of ingredients doesn ’ t always mean that a storm will form .
There is a lot of variability in hurricane patterns , both year to year and over the course of decades .
That makes it hard to suss out trends and even harder to identify signals in individual storms .
Hiroyuki Murakami , a scientist at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at NOAA , likened the link between climate change and hurricanes to the link between smoking and cancer .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s really difficult to say that this person got lung cancer because they smoke a lot , because there are many people who smoke a lot but still they don ’ t get cancer , ” Murakami said .
“ This is really similar .
I think that probably there are some storms affected by climate change , but it ’ s really difficult to say that this storm is only attributable to climate change.
” That said , scientists are starting to see some trends underway .
With rising @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That means when hurricanes do form , they can be stronger .
“ We ’ ve identified that global warming , climate change , can intensify storm mean intensity , ” Murakami said .
“ In terms of storm intensity , it ’ s really simple : The source of energy for a tropical cyclone is warm ocean evaporation .
When we get a much warmer ocean surface , it will lead to more evaporation to energize a tropical cyclone.
” According to a study last year in the Proceedings of the National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ grown more intense between 1979 and 2017 .
“ The results should serve to increase confidence in projections of increased [ tropical cyclone ] intensity under continued warming , ” the authors wrote .
As for the frequency of hurricanes , that ’ s more complicated , and it ’ s not clear how climate change will alter the number of major storms that do occur .
“ A lot of models project a decreasing tropical cyclone number , but still we don ’ t know yet why climate models show decreasing tropical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said .
He pointed out that even in 2020 ’ s extremely active season , only a couple of the tropical storms turned into major hurricanes .
So climate change doesn ’ t necessarily mean more hurricanes , but a growing proportion of those that occur will likely be more powerful .
Perhaps the most concerning impact of climate change on tropical storms is that it is worsening the most destructive elements of these events .
It ’ s not the wind that usually does the most damage during a hurricane , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in precipitation patterns can be a major concern .
“ A difference between 1 to 2 inches of rainfall is the difference between whether your house gets flooded or not , ” said Stony Brook ’ s Reed .
That flooding in the wake of hurricanes is caused primarily by rainfall and storm surges .
Winds from tropical storms can push coastal water inland , creating storm surges .
Melting ice and warming oceans due to climate change are causing sea levels to rise , so when storm surges do occur , they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ causing more destruction .
As mentioned earlier , warmer air can hold onto more moisture .
So when air heats up over the ocean , it mobilizes more water for rainfall .
This warming has led to a rise in extreme rainfall events and increased the deluge from tropical storms .
There ’ s also some evidence that the movement of tropical cyclones like hurricanes is slowing down due to climate change .
That means they are spending more time in a given area , dispatching more rainfall over a smaller space and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emerging in recent hurricanes is rapid intensification , which NOAA defines as a gain of 35 mph or more in wind speed over 24 hours .
Such storms spool up quickly and can catch forecasters off-guard , making it hard to plan evacuations .
A 2019 study in the journal Nature Communications found that the number of Atlantic tropical storms that have rapidly intensified increased significantly between 1982 and 2009 , in part due to warming caused by humans .
Climate models show that this pattern of rapid intensification will increase as average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were visible in recent storms like 2017 ’ s Hurricane Harvey , which drenched Houston in more than 50 inches of rain as it slowed down over the city .
Hurricane Laura this year also rapidly surged from Category 2 strength to Category 4 strength as it blasted the Gulf Coast with winds topping 140 mph .
“ The rapid intensification was very clear in Hurricane Laura , but still weather forecast models could not predict the timing of the intensification , ” Murakami said .
Scientists have also begun to tease out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent storms , constructing counterfactuals to compare effects with and without climate change .
Reed ’ s research group at Stony Brook University estimated that Laura dispatched about 10 percent more rainfall due to climate change .
His team conducted a similar assessment for Hurricane Florence , which struck North Carolina in 2018 .
Scientists estimated that climate change increased the storm ’ s rainfall by 50 percent .
Another team of researchers found that sea-level rise since 1970 caused Florence to flood an additional 11,000 homes than would have been inundated with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ other factors that can change tropical storm patterns over time .
Air pollution , dust clouds , the stability of the upper atmosphere , and the relative warmth of the Atlantic Ocean compared to the Indian and Pacific Oceans can all influence the intensity and frequency of hurricanes .
Climate change is certainly a growing factor in hurricane trends , but it ’ s important to account for other variables , too .
We ’ re still not doing enough to reduce the looming disaster risks The fact that so many human elements @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disasters means that humans can alter these variables to reduce ongoing and potential destruction .
That will require a concerted suite of strategies , from cutting greenhouse gases , to more resilient infrastructure , to controlled burns of forests , to retreating from high-risk fire and flood zones .
It will take time .
And it will also take a more sophisticated understanding of rising average temperatures and their myriad ripple effects .
Otherwise the disasters of 2020 will become more common and more dangerous .
“ All of these things are coming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and we need to better understand the factors and how each of them affected it , ” Kapnick said .
“ The question we need to be asking is , what is the climate risk ?
What is it today ?
What was it in the past ?
And what is it in the future ?
” Yet at the same time , greenhouse gas emissions show little sign of reversing course .
Roughly 40 percent of the US population lives in a coastal county and people are continuing to build in coastal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Homes are still being planned and built in fire-prone regions as residents get priced out of safer areas .
Based on recent trends , California will have 645,000 homes in “ very high ” fire risk areas by the middle of the century .
Even as the dangers of climate change become more vivid , humanity continues to lurch toward them .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as @ @ @ @ @

Share All sharing options for: Why we’re more confident than ever that climate change is driving disasters
Back in 2017, record-breaking hurricanes like Maria and wildfires like Tubbs hammered the United States. But the specific role of long-term global warming was a tentative part of the discussion, with scientists speaking of it cautiously, in broad strokes.
Compare that with 2020, where researchers now have far more data showing just how much climate change affects the frequency and likelihood of heat waves (and fires that follow them), ocean heat waves, droughts, and intense storms. That has risen alongside a growing public awareness of how climate change is playing out. A 2019 Pew Research poll found that 62 percent of Americans said climate change was impacting their local community. CBS News reported that a majority of Americans now believe climate change is contributing to extreme weather.
In turn, more public officials and media personalities are directly connecting climate change to some of the disasters underway.
It is not a coincidence that 5 of the 6 largest wildfires in California history happened within the last two months. This is climate change. https://t.co/SGIHty613Z — Kamala Harris (@SenKamalaHarris) September 23, 2020
During Tuesday’s first 2020 presidential debate, moderator Chris Wallace posed a question to President Donald Trump, after referencing the wildfires raging in the West: “Do you believe that human pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, contributes to the global warming?” Wallace asked.
“I think a lot of things do,” Trump responded, before launching into a meandering answer blaming California’s wildfires solely on forest management.
That such a question was asked during a presidential debate is a stark shift from the 2016 campaign, where climate change barely came up at all, let alone its role in disasters.
“I think the question has started to change from, ‘Was this event due to climate change?’ to, ‘How was this event changed because of climate change?’” said Kevin Reed, an associate professor at Stony Brook University who leads the climate extremes modeling group. “The science has definitely improved. But I think a big part of what’s improved is also the dialogue about trying to understand the nuances of what is the impact of climate change on extreme events.”
While the long-term heating of the planet resulting from humans’ greenhouse gas emissions is not the “cause” of massive wildfires and powerful hurricanes, it can be a component in their severity, frequency, or likelihood. We have more certainty about that, thanks to an emerging scientific field known as extreme-event attribution. Here, scientists construct models to evaluate the counterfactual of what would have happened in a certain event without climate change and compare it to observed results.
Scientists working in this field acknowledge that for phenomena as complicated as wildfires and hurricanes, there are many other factors at play. That includes natural variability from climate cycles like El Niño, as well as policy decisions like the suppression of naturally occurring wildfires and allowing forest fuel to accumulate.
Yet as even attribution science has become more and more important to the public understanding of climate change and extreme events, some in conservative circles dismiss it, particularly around the disasters this year.
President Trump has long been dismissive of climate change. When told about the role of climate change in wildfires during a White House briefing, he said, “It’ll start getting cooler. You just watch.” Environmental Protection Agency administrator Andrew Wheeler also diminished the role of climate change in wildfires. “I do believe most of it is forest management issues,” he told Cheddar on September 22.
Some right-wing personalities have been much more blunt, claiming such events have “nothing to do with climate change.” Others promoted conspiracy theories like the one claiming wildfires are purely due to a wave of arson.
Understanding the interplay of all the variables in extreme weather isn’t just an academic discussion; the role of climate change in disasters affects how we plan for the future, how we reduce risk, and how we adapt. That’s why it’s worth highlighting how our understanding of these phenomena has improved in recent years, why it’s important to unpack how rising average temperatures are fueling destruction, and why it’s critical to address these concerns now.
Climate change is priming fuels to create massive wildfires
Just this past weekend, another round of wildfires ignited in Northern California, prompting middle-of-the-night emergency evacuation orders in places like Butte County and Sonoma County. The new blazes have killed at least three people. By Wednesday evening, the Glass Fire in Napa and Sonoma Counties and the Zogg Fire in Shasta County, California, had together consumed close to 100,000 acres.
Meanwhile, the National Weather Service has issued a red-flag warning for wide swaths of Southern California as another heat wave and high winds are raising fire risks.
These blazes are only adding to what has already been an unprecedented wildfire season across much of the Western United States. In California, it’s now the worst fire season on record in terms of area burned. And more blazes are likely in store.
Wildfires are a natural and essential part of many ecosystems, particularly in the Western United States. Periodic fires help clear decay in forest and grasslands, help plants germinate, and return vital nutrients to soils.
However, humans have been making wildfires worse in recent years, expanding their scale and their devastation. People are building closer to fire-prone regions, increasing the opportunities to ignite fires and raising the damage tolls of fires that do occur.
Paradoxically, decades of suppressing naturally occurring fires have led to vegetation in these ecosystems accumulating to high levels so that when they do dry out, there’s far more fuel to burn. In some forests, that fuel also changes the nature of fires, from low-intensity burns close to the forest floor to towering flames that torch tree canopies.
And humans are changing the climate.
There’s now a growing pool of research identifying the specific role of human-caused climate change in wildfires. A study from the World Weather Attribution research consortium examined Australia’s massive bushfires this year. It found that climate change increased the likelihood of the conditions that fueled the blazes by at least 30 percent.
Another study looking at 2017’s record-breaking fire season in British Columbia reported that climate change made the conditions behind those fires two to four times more likely and increased the burned area between seven- and elevenfold.
In Arizona and New Mexico between 1984 and 2015, a study in the journal Forest Ecology and Management found that climate change is increasing wildfires, particularly high-severity fires.
One key risk factor for wildfires is the vapor pressure deficit. This is the difference between how much moisture the air could hold and how much moisture is actually there. Air can absorb about 7 percent more water for every degree Celsius the air warms. But just because the air can hold on to more moisture doesn’t mean that it does.
A high vapor deficit means that the air is very dry, which means it can draw more moisture out of vegetation. That leaves grasses, trees, and shrubs primed to burn.
This year, California experienced some of the highest vapor pressure deficits in decades, leaving the state’s forests and its semi-arid shrub land known as chaparral parched as record-breaking heat baked the state. Scientists have found that this metric has been increasing since the 1970s due to climate change.
“Among the many processes important to California’s diverse fire regimes, warming‐driven fuel drying is the clearest link between anthropogenic climate change and increased California wildfire activity to date,” researchers wrote in a 2019 study in the journal Earth’s Future.
John Abatzoglou, one of the co-authors of the study and an associate professor of climatology at the University of California Merced, however, noted that there are also unique elements at play in every wildfire.
“The climate change argument is going to be the strongest for measures of fuel dryness, measures of vapor pressure deficits, and less so for individual weather events,” he said. “Each fire has its own story.”
Related The survivors
One variation between wildfires is in the ecosystems where they can burn. Ponderosa pine forests burn typically burn at different times of year, frequency, and intensity compared to coastal redwood forests or chaparral across Southern California. These ecosystems all receive a distinct combination of rainfall, heat, humidity, and vegetation, so the effects of climate change don’t emerge in all these areas in the same way at the same time.
Another variable is how the fires burn. Some smolder across forest floors while others produce towering flames that tear through tree canopies. Some wildfires inch across the landscape while others driven by high winds can consume a football field’s worth of vegetation in minutes.
But there are long-term changes underway that could have an impact on all of these blazes. In a 2016 study, Abatzoglou reported that half of the increasing fuel dryness in western forests since the 1970s was attributable to climate change caused by humans.
California is also still reeling from the effects of a massive drought from 2011 until 2017 that helped kill off more than 140 million trees across the state. That drought was exacerbated by climate change, and warming has increased the likelihood of extreme drought in the region.
And it’s not just the summer heat that’s rising due to climate change. Winters are warming up too. In fact, in some parts of the country, winters are warming faster than summers. That has critical effects on fire activity and lays the foundation for major fires months in advance.
Snow accumulated in the winter in places like the Sierra Nevada acts as a battery for water. As it melts throughout the spring, it discharges much-needed moisture for plants. But with shorter winters, less snow has time to build up, leading to drier vegetation.
As winters warm up, snowpack can melt earlier in the spring, which leads to a process that causes soils to become drier, an effect that can compound over years. That reduces the amount of water available to plants. Snow also reflects sunlight back into space, and with less snow on the ground, the soil can absorb more heat and dry out further.
A warmer winter also means more precipitation falls as rain rather than snow. Rain doesn’t store as easily, so it can contribute to flooding early in the season but quickly run off into the ocean, leaving less moisture for the rest of the year.
“From a climate change perspective, we’ve been predicting lower snowpack values,” said Sarah Kapnick, deputy division leader at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at NOAA. “Observational records have been showing an earlier timing of snow melts, and those have been increasing. That’s one factor that affects fire risk, because it leads to drying.”
Climate change is also tipping the scales toward larger fires. Monica Turner, a fire researcher and a professor of integrative biology at the University of Wisconsin Madison, said in an email that climate is a big driver of megafires, those burning through an area larger than 100,000 acres.
This year, both long-term trends and seasonal variability converged, causing extreme heat and dryness, as well as some unusual ignition events, like a dry lightning storm in Northern California that sparked more than 300 fires.
Turner also noted that when weather conditions reach extremes like those across the West this year, they tend to overwhelm other wildfire factors like the amount of fuel present. “With weather like 2020, fires will burn through forests of all ages, structures and densities,” she wrote in a Q&A for the University of Wisconsin.
So while the Western wildfires in 2020 have been unusual in their severity, many of their most important ingredients will continue being amplified by climate change.
The most destructive elements of hurricanes are getting worse as temperatures rise
The Atlantic hurricane season this year has been extremely active, so active that forecasters have completely run through their list of names for storms and are now using the Greek alphabet. There have already been 23 named storms as of September 25, some of which formed before the official start of the Atlantic storm season. Earlier in September, Hurricane Beta became the ninth named storm this year to make landfall in the United States, tying a record set in 1916.
There were several unique factors this year. Researchers were able to see some of this coming in the spring when they detected warmer than average sea surface temperatures in the Caribbean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean. The waters continued to heat up over the summer. That’s important because hurricanes need surface water to be at least 26°C (79°F). More warm water means more energy for hurricanes, lending them strength as they spool up.
“Our seasonal predictions back in May were that this was going to be a massive [tropical storm] season,” Kapnick said.
Another factor was that El Niño, a periodic warming and cooling pattern in the Pacific Ocean, was in its neutral phase this year, leading to more stable air over the Atlantic. Phenomena that result from unstable air like wind shear can rip apart hurricanes before they can gather strength, so calmer skies above the ocean served as ideal breeding grounds for tropical storms this year.
So those were the unique seasonal effects. Then how does climate change fit in?
One problem with finding climate change signals in tropical storms is that they are relatively infrequent events, and having the right mix of ingredients doesn’t always mean that a storm will form. There is a lot of variability in hurricane patterns, both year to year and over the course of decades. That makes it hard to suss out trends and even harder to identify signals in individual storms.
Hiroyuki Murakami, a scientist at the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at NOAA, likened the link between climate change and hurricanes to the link between smoking and cancer.
“When you look at the individual person, it’s really difficult to say that this person got lung cancer because they smoke a lot, because there are many people who smoke a lot but still they don’t get cancer,” Murakami said. “This is really similar. I think that probably there are some storms affected by climate change, but it’s really difficult to say that this storm is only attributable to climate change.”
That said, scientists are starting to see some trends underway. With rising average temperatures, oceans are warming. That means when hurricanes do form, they can be stronger.
“We’ve identified that global warming, climate change, can intensify storm mean intensity,” Murakami said. “In terms of storm intensity, it’s really simple: The source of energy for a tropical cyclone is warm ocean evaporation. When we get a much warmer ocean surface, it will lead to more evaporation to energize a tropical cyclone.”
According to a study last year in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tropical cyclones have grown more intense between 1979 and 2017. “The results should serve to increase confidence in projections of increased [tropical cyclone] intensity under continued warming,” the authors wrote.
As for the frequency of hurricanes, that’s more complicated, and it’s not clear how climate change will alter the number of major storms that do occur. “A lot of models project a decreasing tropical cyclone number, but still we don’t know yet why climate models show decreasing tropical cyclones in the future,” Murakami said.
He pointed out that even in 2020’s extremely active season, only a couple of the tropical storms turned into major hurricanes. So climate change doesn’t necessarily mean more hurricanes, but a growing proportion of those that occur will likely be more powerful.
Perhaps the most concerning impact of climate change on tropical storms is that it is worsening the most destructive elements of these events. It’s not the wind that usually does the most damage during a hurricane, but flooding. That’s why changes in precipitation patterns can be a major concern.
“A difference between 1 to 2 inches of rainfall is the difference between whether your house gets flooded or not,” said Stony Brook’s Reed.
That flooding in the wake of hurricanes is caused primarily by rainfall and storm surges. Winds from tropical storms can push coastal water inland, creating storm surges. Melting ice and warming oceans due to climate change are causing sea levels to rise, so when storm surges do occur, they reach greater depths and further inland, causing more destruction.
As mentioned earlier, warmer air can hold onto more moisture. So when air heats up over the ocean, it mobilizes more water for rainfall. This warming has led to a rise in extreme rainfall events and increased the deluge from tropical storms.
There’s also some evidence that the movement of tropical cyclones like hurricanes is slowing down due to climate change. That means they are spending more time in a given area, dispatching more rainfall over a smaller space and increasing flood risks.
Another climate signal emerging in recent hurricanes is rapid intensification, which NOAA defines as a gain of 35 mph or more in wind speed over 24 hours. Such storms spool up quickly and can catch forecasters off-guard, making it hard to plan evacuations. A 2019 study in the journal Nature Communications found that the number of Atlantic tropical storms that have rapidly intensified increased significantly between 1982 and 2009, in part due to warming caused by humans. Climate models show that this pattern of rapid intensification will increase as average temperatures rise.
Some of these effects were visible in recent storms like 2017’s Hurricane Harvey, which drenched Houston in more than 50 inches of rain as it slowed down over the city. Hurricane Laura this year also rapidly surged from Category 2 strength to Category 4 strength as it blasted the Gulf Coast with winds topping 140 mph.
“The rapid intensification was very clear in Hurricane Laura, but still weather forecast models could not predict the timing of the intensification,” Murakami said.
Scientists have also begun to tease out the specific ways that climate change worsened recent storms, constructing counterfactuals to compare effects with and without climate change. Reed’s research group at Stony Brook University estimated that Laura dispatched about 10 percent more rainfall due to climate change.
His team conducted a similar assessment for Hurricane Florence, which struck North Carolina in 2018. Scientists estimated that climate change increased the storm’s rainfall by 50 percent. Another team of researchers found that sea-level rise since 1970 caused Florence to flood an additional 11,000 homes than would have been inundated with constant ocean levels.
But there are other factors that can change tropical storm patterns over time. Air pollution, dust clouds, the stability of the upper atmosphere, and the relative warmth of the Atlantic Ocean compared to the Indian and Pacific Oceans can all influence the intensity and frequency of hurricanes. Climate change is certainly a growing factor in hurricane trends, but it’s important to account for other variables, too.
We’re still not doing enough to reduce the looming disaster risks
The fact that so many human elements are driving the growing risk of these disasters means that humans can alter these variables to reduce ongoing and potential destruction.
That will require a concerted suite of strategies, from cutting greenhouse gases, to more resilient infrastructure, to controlled burns of forests, to retreating from high-risk fire and flood zones. It will take time. And it will also take a more sophisticated understanding of rising average temperatures and their myriad ripple effects. Otherwise the disasters of 2020 will become more common and more dangerous.
“All of these things are coming together to make an extreme year, and we need to better understand the factors and how each of them affected it,” Kapnick said. “The question we need to be asking is, what is the climate risk? What is it today? What was it in the past? And what is it in the future?”
Yet at the same time, greenhouse gas emissions show little sign of reversing course. Roughly 40 percent of the US population lives in a coastal county and people are continuing to build in coastal areas facing inundation from rising seas. Homes are still being planned and built in fire-prone regions as residents get priced out of safer areas. Based on recent trends, California will have 645,000 homes in “very high” fire risk areas by the middle of the century.
Even as the dangers of climate change become more vivid, humanity continues to lurch toward them.


vox--2020-09-30--Growing chicken is big business. So why are many farmers forced into debt they can’t pay off?

In 1992 , he saw a newspaper ad looking for farmers to raise chicks into slaughter-ready chickens , and he considered the option .
He already had a long-standing family farm in North Carolina , but he ’ d still have to invest a lot of money upfront— $ 200,000 to build two massive barns that would house thousands of chicks .
As he remembers it , a representative from a big poultry company came out to convince him , and promised him positive cash flow , profits to pay off the buildings , and plenty of support .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ever heard , ” he says .
Watts quickly found himself deep in debt .
His contracts were short , and in order to keep getting them , he ’ d often need to make expensive upgrades that only added to his debt burden .
He was paid according to a tournament system .
There was a base rate of pay , but the company would take the weights of his birds , look at how much grain the chickens ate and a couple of other factors , and rank his performance against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ using an algorithm he had no access to .
The highest-ranked farmers made more , and the lowest-ranked farmers made less .
The National Chicken Council , a trade association representing the interests of the chicken industry to Congress and federal agencies , defends this system , saying it rewards farmers for high performance and incentivizes them .
But Craig was a high-performing farmer , and he was still frustrated with the system .
He says it was hard to control his performance because he had no control over the feed or the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instances where he received very sick chicks .
And he had few options .
For many years , Craig remembers , there was only one poultry company in his area , so he couldn ’ t try to get a better deal elsewhere .
So in 2010 , Craig Watts decided to fight back — even though speaking up potentially put him at financial risk .
He would participate in a series of workshops that the Justice Department held , under the Obama administration , to gather evidence about problems in contract livestock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Future Perfect podcast , Watts and Leah Douglas , a reporter for the Food and Environment Reporting Network , explain the arguments that were made in those workshops , the hopes they raised in farmers like Watts — and why they failed to make much of a difference in the end .
Subscribe to the Future Perfect podcast on Apple Podcasts , Google Podcasts , Spotify , Stitcher , or wherever you get your podcasts .
• In his book The Meat Racket , Christopher Leonard outlines the problems with contract poultry growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ into the history of the practice .
• Leah Douglas and Christopher Leonard also did a recent , in-depth investigation into problems with the US chicken industry ’ s treatment of farmers .
• You can watch the DOJ public workshops for yourself , or read transcripts , all available here .
• The National Chicken Council has compiled an FAQ that pushes back on claims that poultry growers have problems This podcast is made possible thanks to support from Animal Charity Evaluators .
They research and promote the most effective ways to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening in the news , from the coronavirus crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping everyone make sense of an increasingly chaotic world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

Craig Watts describes himself as a “recovering poultry grower.”
In 1992, he saw a newspaper ad looking for farmers to raise chicks into slaughter-ready chickens, and he considered the option. He already had a long-standing family farm in North Carolina, but he’d still have to invest a lot of money upfront— $200,000 to build two massive barns that would house thousands of chicks. As he remembers it, a representative from a big poultry company came out to convince him, and promised him positive cash flow, profits to pay off the buildings, and plenty of support.
“Those are the three biggest lies I ever heard,” he says.
Watts quickly found himself deep in debt. His contracts were short, and in order to keep getting them, he’d often need to make expensive upgrades that only added to his debt burden.
He was paid according to a tournament system. There was a base rate of pay, but the company would take the weights of his birds, look at how much grain the chickens ate and a couple of other factors, and rank his performance against all the other farmers in the area using an algorithm he had no access to. The highest-ranked farmers made more, and the lowest-ranked farmers made less.
The National Chicken Council, a trade association representing the interests of the chicken industry to Congress and federal agencies, defends this system, saying it rewards farmers for high performance and incentivizes them. But Craig was a high-performing farmer, and he was still frustrated with the system. He says it was hard to control his performance because he had no control over the feed or the chicks he got. He even documented instances where he received very sick chicks.
Sign up for the Meat/Less newsletter course Want to eat less meat but don’t know where to start? Sign up for Vox’s five-day newsletter full of practical tips — and food for thought — to incorporate more plant-based food into your diet.
And he had few options. For many years, Craig remembers, there was only one poultry company in his area, so he couldn’t try to get a better deal elsewhere.
So in 2010, Craig Watts decided to fight back — even though speaking up potentially put him at financial risk. He would participate in a series of workshops that the Justice Department held, under the Obama administration, to gather evidence about problems in contract livestock raising.
On this episode of the Future Perfect podcast, Watts and Leah Douglas, a reporter for the Food and Environment Reporting Network, explain the arguments that were made in those workshops, the hopes they raised in farmers like Watts — and why they failed to make much of a difference in the end. Subscribe to the Future Perfect podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or wherever you get your podcasts.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Further reading
In his book The Meat Racket, Christopher Leonard outlines the problems with contract poultry growing in much more depth, and goes into the history of the practice.
Leah Douglas and Christopher Leonard also did a recent, in-depth investigation into problems with the US chicken industry’s treatment of farmers.
You can watch the DOJ public workshops for yourself, or read transcripts, all available here.
The National Chicken Council has compiled an FAQ that pushes back on claims that poultry growers have problems
This podcast is made possible thanks to support from Animal Charity Evaluators. They research and promote the most effective ways to help animals.


vox--2020-09-30--Extreme poverty is getting worse across the globe for the first time in decades

For decades , one of the most important indicators of global well-being has kept moving in the right direction : Extreme poverty has been falling .
Although experts can and do debate the details , hundreds of millions of families moved from subsisting on less than $ 1.90/day ( the World Bank ’ s standard for “ extreme poverty ” ) to living on a little more .
To be sure , it ’ s still not enough , but it has meant less hunger , less premature death , and more opportunity .
Despite wars , famines , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the last 50 years .
In just one year , Covid-19 has changed that picture profoundly .
The World Bank predicts the number of people living in extreme poverty will rise by anywhere from 70 million to 100 million this year , and may stay that way for several years as the coronavirus-related slowdown in economic growth is expected to linger — especially in countries such as Nigeria and India , where many of the world ’ s poorest people live .
The number of people surviving on less than $ 3.20/day @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for “ poverty ” ) is also expected to rise , by between 170 million and 220 million people .
By other means of measuring poverty , the toll might be even worse : The United Nations has a metric that tracks access to clean water , adequate food , electricity , and schools , and it estimates that 490 million people will lose access to one of those things within the next year .
While extreme poverty was rare outside of sub-Saharan Africa in 2019 , many of the people projected to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a September 28 report , the World Bank finds that in South Asia , “ The COVID-19 shock is not only keeping people in poverty , but also creating a class of ‘ new poor.
’ ” That ’ s not only in countries hit hard by the virus but on the broader region .
“ The employment and earning impacts of the pandemic have been large and widespread , ” the report states , a consequence of a triple shock from “ the pandemic itself , the economic impact of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global recession.
” Countries such as India have seen massive migration in recent months as the urban poor , unable to survive in the city , disperse to rural communities where the cost of living is lower and they may at least have family .
India officially has recorded 10 million people departing the city — an enormous migration in its own right — but the Economist argues that it may be an undercount by a factor of five .
Overall , depending how you measure it , Covid-19 represents a setback in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scale of years , maybe decades .
The World Bank ’ s estimate of the impact of Covid-19 looks at economic effects from lockdowns and stay-home orders as well as economic effects of , for example , a collapsing tourism industry , a sudden dramatic decline in demand for oil , disruptions to manufacturing and supply chains , and other indirect effects of the virus ’ s ripples around the world .
Most of the devastation was not caused directly by the virus but by the worldwide economic recession brought about by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
There ’ s a lot that could be done to mitigate the devastating effects of the pandemic on the world ’ s poorest .
But the countries where extreme poverty is most prevalent are also the countries where the infrastructure to quickly deliver aid is often lacking .
“ In some countries , assistance has so far reached less than one-quarter of households whose incomes fell and only 10-20 percent of firms reported receiving assistance since the pandemic began , ” the October World Bank report found .
A change for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the models looking at global poverty vary from organization to organization , depending on how they define and measure poverty .
But the overall grim picture is consistent : Things were getting better .
Now , they ’ re getting worse .
The Gates Foundation wrote in their most recent monthly newsletter , “ Almost every time we have opened our mouths or put pen to paper ... we have celebrated decades of historic progress in fighting poverty and disease .
But we have to confront the current reality with candor : This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ known to have killed almost a million people worldwide , and the final toll is almost certain to be much higher .
It also has left many survivors with long-lasting health problems .
But in understanding its toll , we can ’ t underestimate the economic effects — and especially the economic effects on hundreds of millions of people in developing countries .
A working paper from the World Bank this summer summarized these estimates and looked at their implications for the 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goal to have no one in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The short conclusion : We aren ’ t going to achieve that goal .
A long shot even before the coronavirus hit , it looks like a much longer one now , with 600 million people still living in extreme poverty under one set of reasonable projections .
That is , of course , no cause for despair — every family lifted out of extreme poverty through any of the many tools in our toolbox for addressing global poverty , from cash transfers to health interventions to for-profit inventions , matters , regardless @ @ @ @ @ @ @ family in the world to need it or if many others remain .
But there ’ s no way around it : This is a very bad thing , on top of all the other awful burdens of 2020 .
In a fight we had been winning — slowly and painstakingly , but fairly steadily — we have now lost ground .
And it should arguably make us think about whether we were taking that progress too much for granted in the first place .
“ The pandemic has shown how flimsy recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , an economist at King ’ s College London , told the Economist .
Economic growth has consistently produced falls in global poverty , even in the presence of government mismanagement , widespread inequality , and poor access to social services .
But that ’ s when times are good .
One lesson of the pandemic is that when times are bad , those other elements of a good society matter a lot more .
Help keep Vox free for all Millions turn to Vox each month to understand what ’ s happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crisis to a racial reckoning to what is , quite possibly , the most consequential presidential election of our lifetimes .
Our mission has never been more vital than it is in this moment : to empower you through understanding .
But our distinctive brand of explanatory journalism takes resources .
Even when the economy and the news advertising market recovers , your support will be a critical part of sustaining our resource-intensive work .
If you have already contributed , thank you .
If you haven ’ t , please consider helping @ @ @ @ @ @ @ world : Contribute today from as little as $ 3 .

For decades, one of the most important indicators of global well-being has kept moving in the right direction: Extreme poverty has been falling.
Although experts can and do debate the details, hundreds of millions of families moved from subsisting on less than $1.90/day (the World Bank’s standard for “extreme poverty”) to living on a little more. To be sure, it’s still not enough, but it has meant less hunger, less premature death, and more opportunity. Despite wars, famines, and natural disasters, extreme poverty has fallen for the last 50 years.
In just one year, Covid-19 has changed that picture profoundly.
The World Bank predicts the number of people living in extreme poverty will rise by anywhere from 70 million to 100 million this year, and may stay that way for several years as the coronavirus-related slowdown in economic growth is expected to linger — especially in countries such as Nigeria and India, where many of the world’s poorest people live.
The number of people surviving on less than $3.20/day (the World Bank’s standard for “poverty”) is also expected to rise, by between 170 million and 220 million people. By other means of measuring poverty, the toll might be even worse: The United Nations has a metric that tracks access to clean water, adequate food, electricity, and schools, and it estimates that 490 million people will lose access to one of those things within the next year.
While extreme poverty was rare outside of sub-Saharan Africa in 2019, many of the people projected to slip into it live in South Asia. In a September 28 report, the World Bank finds that in South Asia, “The COVID-19 shock is not only keeping people in poverty, but also creating a class of ‘new poor.’” That’s not only in countries hit hard by the virus but on the broader region. “The employment and earning impacts of the pandemic have been large and widespread,” the report states, a consequence of a triple shock from “the pandemic itself, the economic impact of containment measures, and reverberations from the global recession.”
Countries such as India have seen massive migration in recent months as the urban poor, unable to survive in the city, disperse to rural communities where the cost of living is lower and they may at least have family. India officially has recorded 10 million people departing the city — an enormous migration in its own right — but the Economist argues that it may be an undercount by a factor of five.
Overall, depending how you measure it, Covid-19 represents a setback in the fight against global poverty on the scale of years, maybe decades.
The World Bank’s estimate of the impact of Covid-19 looks at economic effects from lockdowns and stay-home orders as well as economic effects of, for example, a collapsing tourism industry, a sudden dramatic decline in demand for oil, disruptions to manufacturing and supply chains, and other indirect effects of the virus’s ripples around the world. Most of the devastation was not caused directly by the virus but by the worldwide economic recession brought about by the virus and our efforts to fight it.
There’s a lot that could be done to mitigate the devastating effects of the pandemic on the world’s poorest. But the countries where extreme poverty is most prevalent are also the countries where the infrastructure to quickly deliver aid is often lacking. “In some countries, assistance has so far reached less than one-quarter of households whose incomes fell and only 10-20 percent of firms reported receiving assistance since the pandemic began,” the October World Bank report found.
A change for the fight against global poverty
The details of the models looking at global poverty vary from organization to organization, depending on how they define and measure poverty. But the overall grim picture is consistent: Things were getting better. Now, they’re getting worse.
The Gates Foundation wrote in their most recent monthly newsletter, “Almost every time we have opened our mouths or put pen to paper ... we have celebrated decades of historic progress in fighting poverty and disease. But we have to confront the current reality with candor: This progress has now stopped.”
Covid-19 is known to have killed almost a million people worldwide, and the final toll is almost certain to be much higher. It also has left many survivors with long-lasting health problems. But in understanding its toll, we can’t underestimate the economic effects — and especially the economic effects on hundreds of millions of people in developing countries.
A working paper from the World Bank this summer summarized these estimates and looked at their implications for the 2030 United Nations Sustainable Development Goal to have no one in the world living in extreme poverty.
The short conclusion: We aren’t going to achieve that goal. A long shot even before the coronavirus hit, it looks like a much longer one now, with 600 million people still living in extreme poverty under one set of reasonable projections.
That is, of course, no cause for despair — every family lifted out of extreme poverty through any of the many tools in our toolbox for addressing global poverty, from cash transfers to health interventions to for-profit inventions, matters, regardless of whether they’re the last family in the world to need it or if many others remain.
But there’s no way around it: This is a very bad thing, on top of all the other awful burdens of 2020. In a fight we had been winning — slowly and painstakingly, but fairly steadily — we have now lost ground. And it should arguably make us think about whether we were taking that progress too much for granted in the first place.
“The pandemic has shown how flimsy recent progress has been,” Andrew Sumner, an economist at King’s College London, told the Economist.
Economic growth has consistently produced falls in global poverty, even in the presence of government mismanagement, widespread inequality, and poor access to social services. But that’s when times are good. One lesson of the pandemic is that when times are bad, those other elements of a good society matter a lot more.
ntribute today from as little as $3.