scientificamerican--2020-09-30--Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history .
This year we are compelled to do so .
We do not do this lightly .
The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science .
The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic , which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September .
He has also attacked environmental protections , medical care , and the researchers and public science agencies that help @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden , who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health , our economy and the environment .
These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer , more prosperous and more equitable future .
The pandemic would strain any nation and system , but Trump 's rejection of evidence and public health measures have been catastrophic in the U.S .
He was warned many times in January and February about the onrushing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a national strategy to provide protective equipment , coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines .
Testing people for the virus , and tracing those they may have infected , is how countries in Europe and Asia have gained control over their outbreaks , saved lives , and successfully reopened businesses and schools .
But in the U.S. , Trump claimed , falsely , that “ anybody that wants a test can get a test.
” That was untrue in March and remained untrue through the summer .
Trump opposed $ 25 billion for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a pandemic relief bill as late as July .
These lapses accelerated the spread of disease through the country—particularly in highly vulnerable communities that include people of color , where deaths climbed disproportionately to those in the rest of the population .
It was n't just a testing problem : if almost everyone in the U.S. wore masks in public , it could save about 66,000 lives by the beginning of December , according to projections from the University of Washington School of Medicine .
Such a strategy would hurt no one .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ would cost next to nothing .
But Trump and his vice president flouted local mask rules , making it a point not to wear masks themselves in public appearances .
Trump has openly supported people who ignored governors in Michigan and California and elsewhere as they tried to impose social distancing and restrict public activities to control the virus .
He encouraged governors in Florida , Arizona and Texas who resisted these public health measures , saying in April—again , falsely—that “ the worst days of the pandemic are behind us ” and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time of a dangerous rebound if safety measures were loosened .
And of course , the rebound came , with cases across the nation rising by 46 percent and deaths increasing by 21 percent in June .
The states that followed Trump 's misguidance posted new daily highs and higher percentages of positive tests than those that did not .
By early July several hospitals in Texas were full of COVID-19 patients .
States had to close up again , at tremendous economic cost .
About 31 percent of workers were laid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ giant wave of unemployment—more than 30 million people and countless shuttered businesses—that had already decimated the country .
At every stage , Trump has rejected the unmistakable lesson that controlling the disease , not downplaying it , is the path to economic reopening and recovery .
Trump repeatedly lied to the public about the deadly threat of the disease , saying it was not a serious concern and “ this is like a flu ” when he knew it was more lethal and highly transmissible , according to his taped statements to journalist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to engage in risky behavior , spreading the virus further , and have driven wedges between Americans who take the threat seriously and those who believe Trump 's falsehoods .
The White House even produced a memo attacking the expertise of the nation 's leading infectious disease physician , Anthony Fauci , in a despicable attempt to sow further distrust .
Trump 's reaction to America 's worst public health crisis in a century has been to say “ I do n't take responsibility at all.
” Instead he blamed other countries and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ office three years before the pandemic began .
But Trump 's refusal to look at the evidence and act accordingly extends beyond the virus .
He has repeatedly tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act while offering no alternative ; comprehensive medical insurance is essential to reduce illness .
Trump has proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health , the National Science Foundation , and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , agencies that increase our scientific knowledge and strengthen us for future challenges .
Congress has countermanded @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , slashing programs that would ready us for future pandemics and withdrawing from the World Health Organization .
These and other actions increase the risk that new diseases will surprise and devastate us again .
Trump also keeps pushing to eliminate health rules from the Environmental Protection Agency , putting people at more risk for heart and lung disease caused by pollution .
He has replaced scientists on agency advisory boards with industry representatives .
In his ongoing denial of reality , Trump has hobbled U.S. preparations for climate change , falsely claiming @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of international agreements to mitigate it .
The changing climate is already causing a rise in heat-related deaths and an increase in severe storms , wildfires and extreme flooding .
Joe Biden , in contrast , comes prepared with plans to control COVID-19 , improve health care , reduce carbon emissions and restore the role of legitimate science in policy making .
He solicits expertise and has turned that knowledge into solid policy proposals .
On COVID-19 , he states correctly that “ it is wrong to talk about ‘ choosing ' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... .
If we do n't beat the virus , we will never get back to full economic strength.
” Biden plans to ramp up a national testing board , a body that would have the authority to command both public and private resources to supply more tests and get them to all communities .
He also wants to establish a Public Health Job Corps of 100,000 people , many of whom have been laid off during the pandemic crisis , to serve as contact tracers and in other health jobs .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Administration to enforce workplace safety standards to avoid the kind of deadly outbreaks that have occurred at meat-processing plants and nursing homes .
While Trump threatened to withhold money from school districts that did not reopen , regardless of the danger from the virus , Biden wants to spend $ 34 billion to help schools conduct safe in-person instruction as well as remote learning .
Biden is getting advice on these public health issues from a group that includes David Kessler , epidemiologist , pediatrician and former U.S. Food and Drug Administration chief @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health security specialist at Georgetown University ; and Ezekiel Emanuel , bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania .
It does not include physicians who believe in aliens and debunked virus therapies , one of whom Trump has called “ very respected ” and “ spectacular.
” Biden has a family and caregiving initiative , recognizing this as key to a sustained public health and economic recovery .
His plans include increased salaries for child care workers and construction of new facilities for children because the inability to afford quality care keeps workers out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on families .
On the environment and climate change , Biden wants to spend $ 2 trillion on an emissions-free power sector by 2035 , build energy-efficient structures and vehicles , push solar and wind power , establish research agencies to develop safe nuclear power and carbon capture technologies , and more .
The investment will produce two million jobs for U.S. workers , his campaign claims , and the climate plan will be partly paid by eliminating Trump 's corporate tax cuts .
Historically disadvantaged communities in the U.S. will receive 40 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It is not certain how many of these and his other ambitions Biden will be able to accomplish ; much depends on laws to be written and passed by Congress .
But he is acutely aware that we must heed the abundant research showing ways to recover from our present crises and successfully cope with future challenges .
Although Trump and his allies have tried to create obstacles that prevent people from casting ballots safely in November , either by mail or in person , it is crucial that we surmount them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move Trump out and elect Biden , who has a record of following the data and being guided by science .
Editor ’ s Note ( 9/15/20 ) : This article has been edited after its publication in the October 2020 issue of Scientific American to reflect recent reporting .

Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.
The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.
The pandemic would strain any nation and system, but Trump's rejection of evidence and public health measures have been catastrophic in the U.S. He was warned many times in January and February about the onrushing disease, yet he did not develop a national strategy to provide protective equipment, coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines. Testing people for the virus, and tracing those they may have infected, is how countries in Europe and Asia have gained control over their outbreaks, saved lives, and successfully reopened businesses and schools. But in the U.S., Trump claimed, falsely, that “anybody that wants a test can get a test.” That was untrue in March and remained untrue through the summer. Trump opposed $25 billion for increased testing and tracing that was in a pandemic relief bill as late as July. These lapses accelerated the spread of disease through the country—particularly in highly vulnerable communities that include people of color, where deaths climbed disproportionately to those in the rest of the population.
It wasn't just a testing problem: if almost everyone in the U.S. wore masks in public, it could save about 66,000 lives by the beginning of December, according to projections from the University of Washington School of Medicine. Such a strategy would hurt no one. It would close no business. It would cost next to nothing. But Trump and his vice president flouted local mask rules, making it a point not to wear masks themselves in public appearances. Trump has openly supported people who ignored governors in Michigan and California and elsewhere as they tried to impose social distancing and restrict public activities to control the virus. He encouraged governors in Florida, Arizona and Texas who resisted these public health measures, saying in April—again, falsely—that “the worst days of the pandemic are behind us” and ignoring infectious disease experts who warned at the time of a dangerous rebound if safety measures were loosened.
And of course, the rebound came, with cases across the nation rising by 46 percent and deaths increasing by 21 percent in June. The states that followed Trump's misguidance posted new daily highs and higher percentages of positive tests than those that did not. By early July several hospitals in Texas were full of COVID-19 patients. States had to close up again, at tremendous economic cost. About 31 percent of workers were laid off a second time, following the giant wave of unemployment—more than 30 million people and countless shuttered businesses—that had already decimated the country. At every stage, Trump has rejected the unmistakable lesson that controlling the disease, not downplaying it, is the path to economic reopening and recovery.
Trump repeatedly lied to the public about the deadly threat of the disease, saying it was not a serious concern and “this is like a flu” when he knew it was more lethal and highly transmissible, according to his taped statements to journalist Bob Woodward. His lies encouraged people to engage in risky behavior, spreading the virus further, and have driven wedges between Americans who take the threat seriously and those who believe Trump's falsehoods. The White House even produced a memo attacking the expertise of the nation's leading infectious disease physician, Anthony Fauci, in a despicable attempt to sow further distrust.
Trump's reaction to America's worst public health crisis in a century has been to say “I don't take responsibility at all.” Instead he blamed other countries and his White House predecessor, who left office three years before the pandemic began.
But Trump's refusal to look at the evidence and act accordingly extends beyond the virus. He has repeatedly tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act while offering no alternative; comprehensive medical insurance is essential to reduce illness. Trump has proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that increase our scientific knowledge and strengthen us for future challenges. Congress has countermanded his reductions. Yet he keeps trying, slashing programs that would ready us for future pandemics and withdrawing from the World Health Organization. These and other actions increase the risk that new diseases will surprise and devastate us again.
Trump also keeps pushing to eliminate health rules from the Environmental Protection Agency, putting people at more risk for heart and lung disease caused by pollution. He has replaced scientists on agency advisory boards with industry representatives. In his ongoing denial of reality, Trump has hobbled U.S. preparations for climate change, falsely claiming that it does not exist and pulling out of international agreements to mitigate it. The changing climate is already causing a rise in heat-related deaths and an increase in severe storms, wildfires and extreme flooding.
Joe Biden, in contrast, comes prepared with plans to control COVID-19, improve health care, reduce carbon emissions and restore the role of legitimate science in policy making. He solicits expertise and has turned that knowledge into solid policy proposals.
On COVID-19, he states correctly that “it is wrong to talk about ‘choosing' between our public health and our economy.... If we don't beat the virus, we will never get back to full economic strength.” Biden plans to ramp up a national testing board, a body that would have the authority to command both public and private resources to supply more tests and get them to all communities. He also wants to establish a Public Health Job Corps of 100,000 people, many of whom have been laid off during the pandemic crisis, to serve as contact tracers and in other health jobs. He will direct the Occupational Health and Safety Administration to enforce workplace safety standards to avoid the kind of deadly outbreaks that have occurred at meat-processing plants and nursing homes. While Trump threatened to withhold money from school districts that did not reopen, regardless of the danger from the virus, Biden wants to spend $34 billion to help schools conduct safe in-person instruction as well as remote learning.
Biden is getting advice on these public health issues from a group that includes David Kessler, epidemiologist, pediatrician and former U.S. Food and Drug Administration chief; Rebecca Katz, immunologist and global health security specialist at Georgetown University; and Ezekiel Emanuel, bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. It does not include physicians who believe in aliens and debunked virus therapies, one of whom Trump has called “very respected” and “spectacular.”
Biden has a family and caregiving initiative, recognizing this as key to a sustained public health and economic recovery. His plans include increased salaries for child care workers and construction of new facilities for children because the inability to afford quality care keeps workers out of the economy and places enormous strains on families.
On the environment and climate change, Biden wants to spend $2 trillion on an emissions-free power sector by 2035, build energy-efficient structures and vehicles, push solar and wind power, establish research agencies to develop safe nuclear power and carbon capture technologies, and more. The investment will produce two million jobs for U.S. workers, his campaign claims, and the climate plan will be partly paid by eliminating Trump's corporate tax cuts. Historically disadvantaged communities in the U.S. will receive 40 percent of these energy and infrastructure benefits.
It is not certain how many of these and his other ambitions Biden will be able to accomplish; much depends on laws to be written and passed by Congress. But he is acutely aware that we must heed the abundant research showing ways to recover from our present crises and successfully cope with future challenges.
Although Trump and his allies have tried to create obstacles that prevent people from casting ballots safely in November, either by mail or in person, it is crucial that we surmount them and vote. It's time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.
Editor’s Note (9/15/20): This article has been edited after its publication in the October 2020 issue of Scientific American to reflect recent reporting.


scientificamerican--2020-09-29--Dinosaurs Got Cancer, Too

Dinosaurs Got Cancer, Too

“ Given that hundreds of thousands of dinosaur bones have been dug up , is there any evidence that dinosaurs got cancer there ?
” David Evans , senior curator of paleontology at the Royal Museum of Ontario in Toronto , at a recent museum fundraising event .
“ There had been a few studies that had kind of suggested , based on gross anatomy , that dinosaurs might have gotten cancer .
But there was nothing compelling from a medical standpoint .
And from that point on , we decided to go on a hunt for rare dinosaur diseases @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2017 , Evans and colleagues went digging through a collection of dinosaur bones at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Alberta—a hotbed of dinosaur fossils .
“ And out of the hundreds of dinosaur bones that we looked at , we found one that was a candidate for bone cancer.
” The bone specimen Evans and his colleagues found comes from a dinosaur that roamed western Canada between 70 and 75 million years ago .
The creature is called a Centrosaurus .
“ Centrosaurus is a horned dinosaur .
It ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and it ’ s a close cousin of the famous triceratops , so it looked very similar .
It would have a parrot beak at the end of its large skull .
It had a neck shield similar to triceratops and walked around on four feet and ate plants.
” Its apparent cancer is a particularly aggressive type .
“ And this would have made it more vulnerable to the top predators at the time , which were the cousins of T. rex .
But we actually don ’ t think it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , if it would have been allowed to run its course , it certainly could have been fatal The tumorous bone was discovered among thousands of other bones from the same species .
All these animals appeared to have died in a coastal flood .
“ And this flood looked like it killed a herd of these horned dinosaurs , Centrosaurus , which are known for living in these social groups .
And we suspect , although we can ’ t prove , that the cancer could get to such an advanced state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from the safety of numbers of being in a herd .
Whereas if it was out on its own , with this devastating disease , it would certainly have had a good chance of being picked off before the cancer progressed this far.
” The study is in the journal Lancet Oncology .
[ Seper Ekhtiari et al.
, First case of osteosarcoma in a dinosaur : A multimodal diagnosis ] Evans says the research introduces a new way to study paleopathology in the fossil record .
“ This discovery definitely takes dinosaurs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost mythical , powerful creatures , and , I think , it shows that they were real animals .
And it ’ s really unique and sobering that they got diseases similar to the ones that humans get today .
And they would have suffered greatly from these diseases , and so it brings them to life in a really unusual way.
” [ The above text is a transcript of this podcast . ]

Full Transcript
“Given that hundreds of thousands of dinosaur bones have been dug up, is there any evidence that dinosaurs got cancer there?”
David Evans, senior curator of paleontology at the Royal Museum of Ontario in Toronto, at a recent museum fundraising event.
“There had been a few studies that had kind of suggested, based on gross anatomy, that dinosaurs might have gotten cancer. But there was nothing compelling from a medical standpoint. And from that point on, we decided to go on a hunt for rare dinosaur diseases, in particular cancer.”
So in 2017, Evans and colleagues went digging through a collection of dinosaur bones at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Paleontology in Alberta—a hotbed of dinosaur fossils.
“And out of the hundreds of dinosaur bones that we looked at, we found one that was a candidate for bone cancer.”
The bone specimen Evans and his colleagues found comes from a dinosaur that roamed western Canada between 70 and 75 million years ago. The creature is called a Centrosaurus.
“Centrosaurus is a horned dinosaur. It’s about the size of a rhinoceros, and it’s a close cousin of the famous triceratops, so it looked very similar. It would have a parrot beak at the end of its large skull. It had a neck shield similar to triceratops and walked around on four feet and ate plants.”
Its apparent cancer is a particularly aggressive type.
“And this would have made it more vulnerable to the top predators at the time, which were the cousins of T. rex. But we actually don’t think it’s the cancer that killed this animal—which, if it would have been allowed to run its course, it certainly could have been fatal
The tumorous bone was discovered among thousands of other bones from the same species. All these animals appeared to have died in a coastal flood.
“And this flood looked like it killed a herd of these horned dinosaurs, Centrosaurus, which are known for living in these social groups. And we suspect, although we can’t prove, that the cancer could get to such an advanced state because this animal was able to benefit from the safety of numbers of being in a herd. Whereas if it was out on its own, with this devastating disease, it would certainly have had a good chance of being picked off before the cancer progressed this far.”
The study is in the journal Lancet Oncology. [Seper Ekhtiari et al., First case of osteosarcoma in a dinosaur: A multimodal diagnosis]
Evans says the research introduces a new way to study paleopathology in the fossil record.
“This discovery definitely takes dinosaurs, which we often think of as almost mythical, powerful creatures, and, I think, it shows that they were real animals. And it’s really unique and sobering that they got diseases similar to the ones that humans get today. And they would have suffered greatly from these diseases, and so it brings them to life in a really unusual way.”
—Emily Schwing
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]


scientificamerican--2020-10-01--Greenland Is Melting at Some of the Fastest Rates in 12,000 Years

The vast Greenland ice sheet is melting at some of its fastest rates in the past 12,000 years .
And it could quadruple over the next 80 years if greenhouse gas emissions don ’ t decline dramatically in the coming decades .
Research published yesterday in the journal Nature warns that the ice sheet ’ s future losses depend heavily on how quickly humans cut carbon emissions today .
Led by Jason Briner of the University at Buffalo , State University of New York , the study is among the first to compare the possible future of the ice sheet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ re really able to put into perspective just how anomalous our current change is and future changes might be , ” said Josh Cuzzone , a co-author of the study and a scientist at the University of California , Irvine .
The researchers used models , informed by data from ancient ice samples drilled out from the ice sheet , to reconstruct a history of Greenland spanning the past 12,000 years .
They also used models to predict how the ice sheet might change under different climate scenarios—assuming both higher and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this century .
The findings were concerning .
Before the industrial era , the highest rates of Greenland ice loss in 12,000 years were around 6 trillion tons of ice in a single century .
That ’ s similar to the rate at which ice is melting in Greenland today .
As the climate continues to warm , those rates are expected to increase .
How much depends on how fast the climate warms .
The researchers examined two possible future climate scenarios .
The first assumes that humans manage to keep @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their preindustrial levels—the major goal of the international Paris climate agreement .
In this scenario , Greenland will likely still lose more than 8 trillion tons of ice over the course of this century—a faster rate than at any other point in the last 12,000 years .
The second scenario assumes high rates of greenhouse gas emissions , similar to today ’ s emissions , for the rest of the century .
If that happens , the models suggest the ice sheet could lose 14 trillion to 36 trillion tons of ice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Researchers are now “ increasingly certain that we are about to experience unprecedented rates of ice loss from Greenland , unless greenhouse-gas emissions are substantially reduced , ” Andy Aschwanden , a researcher at the University of Alaska , Fairbanks , said in a commentary on the research also published yesterday in Nature .
The amount of future ice loss could make a big difference to communities around the world through its effect on sea levels .
Greenland is already the biggest contributor to global sea-level rise .
And the difference in 20 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ice between now and the end of the century could amount to several centimeters of sea-level rise around the world .
That may not sound like much , but it could make a dramatic difference in the amount of flooding experienced by coastal cities .
There are other consequences as well .
The influx of cold , fresh meltwater pouring into the sea could have far-reaching effects on the structure and flow of ocean currents and the way they exchange heat with the atmosphere .
That could affect weather patterns around the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the worst of these consequences requires swift , stringent efforts to reduce global carbon emissions today .
“ It does show that , at least with these scenarios and this ice sheet model , that if we cut back on our carbon emissions we can avoid the worst case that we ’ re kind of heading toward currently , ” Cuzzone said .
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E & E News .
E & E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net .

The vast Greenland ice sheet is melting at some of its fastest rates in the past 12,000 years. And it could quadruple over the next 80 years if greenhouse gas emissions don’t decline dramatically in the coming decades.
Research published yesterday in the journal Nature warns that the ice sheet’s future losses depend heavily on how quickly humans cut carbon emissions today.
Led by Jason Briner of the University at Buffalo, State University of New York, the study is among the first to compare the possible future of the ice sheet with its ancient past.
“Now we’re really able to put into perspective just how anomalous our current change is and future changes might be,” said Josh Cuzzone, a co-author of the study and a scientist at the University of California, Irvine.
The researchers used models, informed by data from ancient ice samples drilled out from the ice sheet, to reconstruct a history of Greenland spanning the past 12,000 years. They also used models to predict how the ice sheet might change under different climate scenarios—assuming both higher and lower levels of greenhouse gases—through the rest of this century.
The findings were concerning.
Before the industrial era, the highest rates of Greenland ice loss in 12,000 years were around 6 trillion tons of ice in a single century. That’s similar to the rate at which ice is melting in Greenland today.
As the climate continues to warm, those rates are expected to increase. How much depends on how fast the climate warms.
The researchers examined two possible future climate scenarios. The first assumes that humans manage to keep global temperatures within about 2 degrees Celsius of their preindustrial levels—the major goal of the international Paris climate agreement.
In this scenario, Greenland will likely still lose more than 8 trillion tons of ice over the course of this century—a faster rate than at any other point in the last 12,000 years.
The second scenario assumes high rates of greenhouse gas emissions, similar to today’s emissions, for the rest of the century. If that happens, the models suggest the ice sheet could lose 14 trillion to 36 trillion tons of ice over the course of this century.
Researchers are now “increasingly certain that we are about to experience unprecedented rates of ice loss from Greenland, unless greenhouse-gas emissions are substantially reduced,” Andy Aschwanden, a researcher at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, said in a commentary on the research also published yesterday in Nature.
The amount of future ice loss could make a big difference to communities around the world through its effect on sea levels.
Greenland is already the biggest contributor to global sea-level rise. And the difference in 20 trillion or 30 trillion extra tons of ice between now and the end of the century could amount to several centimeters of sea-level rise around the world.
That may not sound like much, but it could make a dramatic difference in the amount of flooding experienced by coastal cities.
There are other consequences as well. The influx of cold, fresh meltwater pouring into the sea could have far-reaching effects on the structure and flow of ocean currents and the way they exchange heat with the atmosphere. That could affect weather patterns around the world.
The new study reiterates that preventing the worst of these consequences requires swift, stringent efforts to reduce global carbon emissions today.
“It does show that, at least with these scenarios and this ice sheet model, that if we cut back on our carbon emissions we can avoid the worst case that we’re kind of heading toward currently,” Cuzzone said.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.


scientificamerican--2020-10-01--A NASA Probe May Have Found Signs of Life on Venus 40 Years Ago

Earlier this month scientists announced the surprising discovery of phosphine on Venus .
This compound of phosphorus and hydrogen could be associated with life .
While efforts to confirm the finding via observations from Earth or even fortuitously planned spacecraft flybys are underway , archived data from a decades-old NASA mission to Venus may have been hiding much sought-after verification in plain sight—with potentially more revelations to come .
The apparent discovery of phosphine in the Venusian atmosphere has been both widely heralded and greeted with caution .
To double-check the detection , scientists are eager for more data , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interplanetary missions .
If the presence of the gas can be confirmed , researchers would be forced to grapple with its origins—including the possibility that it is being produced by some form of single-celled life floating in the planet ’ s clouds .
“ If , indeed , phosphine is there , and it is a sign of life , then this would be a way of starting to piece together a biosphere , ” says Clara Sousa-Silva of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology , who is a co-author of the paper that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the best chance of verifying Venusian phosphine lies in atmospheric probes that can directly sniff out the gas .
But such missions are not futuristic flights of fancy—they have , in fact , been launched before , with notable examples including the former Soviet Union ’ s long series of Venera spacecraft and NASA ’ s Pioneer Venus Multiprobe , a mission that dropped four probes into the planet ’ s atmosphere in December 1978 .
On the biggest of Pioneer ’ s probes , an instrument called the Large Probe Neutral Mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the atmosphere , with mission scientists focusing on molecules such as carbon dioxide , sulfur dioxide and argon that were known to be abundant there .
After taking another look at the data , however , Rakesh Mogul , a professor of biological chemistry at California State Polytechnic University , Pomona , posits that scientists on the mission underestimated their instrument , which may have spotted trace amounts of other molecules—including , excitingly , phosphine .
“ We were able to extract some data from the literature from about 40 years ago @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recently posted its findings on the preprint server arXiv.org .
“ And we think we ’ re able to identify some interesting things .
We believe that the evidence suggests the presence of phosphine.
” Instruments such as the LNMS identify molecules by measuring their speed as they impact a detector , enabling their mass to be calculated .
Mogul suspects that in the initial analysis of the LNMS data performed in the 1980s , scientists prioritized those molecules already thought to exist in the Venusian atmosphere .
“ They were interested in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ how those properties change as you go up and down at altitude , ” he says .
The sensitivity of the LNMS instrument may have detected more molecules than thought , however , including phosphine .
“ People discounted [ these molecules ] because they thought there was no way ” they were present in the atmosphere , Mogul says .
In the LNMS data , one could easily overlook the subtle evidence of the molecules ’ presence—especially if that person did not conduct a targeted search .
It took a bombshell announcement—and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been awaiting discovery in that information all along .
If this interpretation of the Pioneer results is correct , Sousa-Silva notes , it would be an exciting rapid verification of her team ’ s detection of phosphine .
Such confirmation would also suggest that the compound has been present in the Venusian atmosphere for at least four decades , meaning there must be some process that is replenishing it—whether biological or not .
In other words , it would mean the newly detected phosphine “ wasn ’ t just one weird event @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she says .
Not everyone is convinced .
Planetary scientist Mikhail Zolotov of Arizona State University argues that the Pioneer data are unlikely to be accurate enough to reliably detect phosphine—instead of , for instance , a more mundane mixture of phosphorus-rich gases and hydrogen sulfide .
Furthermore , he says , if the LNMS detection is genuine , it suggests a much higher abundance of the gas than Sousa-Silva ’ s team found—so much higher , in fact , that it would be incompatible with the mere traces suggested by the recent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have correctly interpreted the Pioneer data , Zolotov says , “ we ’ d expect a much higher concentration of phosphine than measured by astronomers , which is also a red flag.
” So far , Mogul and his collaborators have only been able to access a snippet of information from the mission , corresponding to altitudes between 50 and 60 kilometers above Venus .
The probe , however , actually took data from an altitude of 90 kilometers all the way down to the surface of the planet .
If these data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ presence of phosphine could be confirmed , they could reveal more information about the gas ’ s atmospheric distribution—potentially a vital clue in working out its origin .
Unfortunately , although a physical copy of this information is stored in the NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive ( NSSDCA ) at NASA ’ s Goddard Space Flight Center , access to the archive is currently restricted because of COVID-19 .
“ We do have some of the data from that experiment , [ but ] unfortunately it is archived on microfilm and is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Williams , acting head of the NSSDCA .
“ We are currently trying to get permission for one of our folks to go in to digitize that microfilm , as we have already received inquiries about it .
With luck , we may be able to start on it this week.
” Other archived data could prove useful , too .
Sousa-Silva is currently looking through old infrared telescope observations of Venus , hunting for additional overlooked evidence of phosphine .
And Sanjay Limaye of the University of Wisconsin–Madison , who is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , says old data from the Soviet Venera probes—while unlikely to have been sensitive enough to detect phosphine—may contain evidence for atomic phosphorus , which could hint at the presence of molecular phosphine , too .
He notes , however , that the whereabouts of much of those data is unknown .
Still , Limaye says , “ somebody probably has some records.
” Several spacecraft are set to fly past Venus soon : Europe and Japan ’ s BepiColombo spacecraft , NASA ’ s Parker Solar Probe and Europe ’ s Solar @ @ @ @ @ @ @ potentially look for phosphine .
But , just maybe , the clinching evidence will actually come from Earthly archives of missions past , where it has been awaiting recognition for nearly a half-century .
“ If these measurements are real , [ phosphine has ] been around [ on Venus ] for 40 years , ” Mogul says .
“ So something ’ s making it.
” The question would be : What ?

Earlier this month scientists announced the surprising discovery of phosphine on Venus. This compound of phosphorus and hydrogen could be associated with life. While efforts to confirm the finding via observations from Earth or even fortuitously planned spacecraft flybys are underway, archived data from a decades-old NASA mission to Venus may have been hiding much sought-after verification in plain sight—with potentially more revelations to come.
The apparent discovery of phosphine in the Venusian atmosphere has been both widely heralded and greeted with caution. To double-check the detection, scientists are eager for more data, either from large telescopes or entirely new interplanetary missions. If the presence of the gas can be confirmed, researchers would be forced to grapple with its origins—including the possibility that it is being produced by some form of single-celled life floating in the planet’s clouds. “If, indeed, phosphine is there, and it is a sign of life, then this would be a way of starting to piece together a biosphere,” says Clara Sousa-Silva of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who is a co-author of the paper that reported the discovery.
Many experts believe the best chance of verifying Venusian phosphine lies in atmospheric probes that can directly sniff out the gas. But such missions are not futuristic flights of fancy—they have, in fact, been launched before, with notable examples including the former Soviet Union’s long series of Venera spacecraft and NASA’s Pioneer Venus Multiprobe, a mission that dropped four probes into the planet’s atmosphere in December 1978.
On the biggest of Pioneer’s probes, an instrument called the Large Probe Neutral Mass Spectrometer (LNMS) looked for gases in the atmosphere, with mission scientists focusing on molecules such as carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide and argon that were known to be abundant there. After taking another look at the data, however, Rakesh Mogul, a professor of biological chemistry at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona, posits that scientists on the mission underestimated their instrument, which may have spotted trace amounts of other molecules—including, excitingly, phosphine.
“We were able to extract some data from the literature from about 40 years ago,” says Mogul, whose team recently posted its findings on the preprint server arXiv.org. “And we think we’re able to identify some interesting things. We believe that the evidence suggests the presence of phosphine.”
Instruments such as the LNMS identify molecules by measuring their speed as they impact a detector, enabling their mass to be calculated. Mogul suspects that in the initial analysis of the LNMS data performed in the 1980s, scientists prioritized those molecules already thought to exist in the Venusian atmosphere. “They were interested in the bulk properties of the atmosphere and how those properties change as you go up and down at altitude,” he says.
The sensitivity of the LNMS instrument may have detected more molecules than thought, however, including phosphine. “People discounted [these molecules] because they thought there was no way” they were present in the atmosphere, Mogul says. In the LNMS data, one could easily overlook the subtle evidence of the molecules’ presence—especially if that person did not conduct a targeted search. It took a bombshell announcement—and more than 40 years—to discern what may have been awaiting discovery in that information all along.
If this interpretation of the Pioneer results is correct, Sousa-Silva notes, it would be an exciting rapid verification of her team’s detection of phosphine. Such confirmation would also suggest that the compound has been present in the Venusian atmosphere for at least four decades, meaning there must be some process that is replenishing it—whether biological or not. In other words, it would mean the newly detected phosphine “wasn’t just one weird event that we managed to catch,” she says.
Not everyone is convinced. Planetary scientist Mikhail Zolotov of Arizona State University argues that the Pioneer data are unlikely to be accurate enough to reliably detect phosphine—instead of, for instance, a more mundane mixture of phosphorus-rich gases and hydrogen sulfide. Furthermore, he says, if the LNMS detection is genuine, it suggests a much higher abundance of the gas than Sousa-Silva’s team found—so much higher, in fact, that it would be incompatible with the mere traces suggested by the recent discovery. If Mogul and his colleagues have correctly interpreted the Pioneer data, Zolotov says, “we’d expect a much higher concentration of phosphine than measured by astronomers, which is also a red flag.”
So far, Mogul and his collaborators have only been able to access a snippet of information from the mission, corresponding to altitudes between 50 and 60 kilometers above Venus. The probe, however, actually took data from an altitude of 90 kilometers all the way down to the surface of the planet. If these data could be analyzed, and if the presence of phosphine could be confirmed, they could reveal more information about the gas’s atmospheric distribution—potentially a vital clue in working out its origin. Unfortunately, although a physical copy of this information is stored in the NASA Space Science Data Coordinated Archive (NSSDCA) at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, access to the archive is currently restricted because of COVID-19.
“We do have some of the data from that experiment, [but] unfortunately it is archived on microfilm and is not easily accessible,” says David Williams, acting head of the NSSDCA. “We are currently trying to get permission for one of our folks to go in to digitize that microfilm, as we have already received inquiries about it. With luck, we may be able to start on it this week.”
Other archived data could prove useful, too. Sousa-Silva is currently looking through old infrared telescope observations of Venus, hunting for additional overlooked evidence of phosphine. And Sanjay Limaye of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, who is a co-author of Mogul’s preprint paper, says old data from the Soviet Venera probes—while unlikely to have been sensitive enough to detect phosphine—may contain evidence for atomic phosphorus, which could hint at the presence of molecular phosphine, too. He notes, however, that the whereabouts of much of those data is unknown. Still, Limaye says, “somebody probably has some records.”
Several spacecraft are set to fly past Venus soon: Europe and Japan’s BepiColombo spacecraft, NASA’s Parker Solar Probe and Europe’s Solar Orbiter. And some of them could potentially look for phosphine. But, just maybe, the clinching evidence will actually come from Earthly archives of missions past, where it has been awaiting recognition for nearly a half-century. “If these measurements are real, [phosphine has] been around [on Venus] for 40 years,” Mogul says. “So something’s making it.” The question would be: What?


scientificamerican--2020-10-01--Young Republican Climate Activists Split over How to Get Their Voices Heard in November's Election

Four years ago , Jacob Abel cast his first presidential vote for Donald Trump .
As a young conservative from Concord , North Carolina , the choice felt natural .
But this November , he plans to cast a `` protest vote '' for a write-in candidate or abstain from casting a ballot for president .
A determining factor in his 180-degree turn ?
Climate change .
Climate did n't become a voting issue for Abel until months after the 2016 election .
As a college freshman at Seton Hall University , he found himself increasingly frustrated by lackluster Republican @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to march in the streets .
Abel felt that his party 's future , like that of his generation , depended upon it addressing climate change with the appropriate urgency .
While his progressive counterparts helped propel a `` Squad '' of climate leaders into Congress , Abel advocated for market-driven climate solutions like carbon pricing as a spokesperson for republicEn , a right-leaning climate advocacy organization .
`` The Green New Deal was actually a big catalyst for a lot of young Republicans coming forward and pushing for serious Republican solutions '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Momentum on the left stirred new conversations on the right , as young conservatives banded together in hopes of sustaining both their party and the planet .
Their cries for climate action helped open older Republicans ' eyes to the risk of losing young voters , and a seat at the table in future climate policymaking , if the GOP did n't change its tune .
`` Over the next 10 years , '' Abel said , he `` wants to see Republicans come together with Democrats to come to a realistic solution @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more and more solutions '' of their own , including around what Abel considers a critical `` middle ground '' measure to advance decarbonization—carbon pricing .
`` Because we 're still kind of relatively new to actually taking this topic seriously and proposing policy , '' said Abel of the GOP , `` I think our policy response could be more robust and more detailed . ''
Only a decade ago , Abel 's story might have been a novelty .
Now , it 's commonplace .
From raging wildfires on the West @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the South , climate disasters are politicizing young people across the ideological spectrum who have experienced them first hand .
Younger Republicans are much more engaged with climate change than their parents and grandparents , said Anthony Leiserowitz , director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication .
The program 's research shows young Republicans are more likely than older ones to believe in human-caused global warming and to support climate action .
Frustrated by party leadership that does n't represent their call for urgent climate action and public discourse that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seem more willing to pose their own climate solutions .
They do n't want to see a World War II-style mobilization ; they want pragmatic proposals advancing private sector innovation .
The 2020 presidential election poses a critical test of climate conservatives ' willingness to put their environmental concerns before party politics .
While some young Republicans who prioritize the issue of climate change remain loyal to Trump and others turn to Biden , a growing number like Abel are not supporting either candidate .
Given Trump 's thin margin of victory in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to vote for either major presidential candidate may help Biden just as much as those who vote for him over Trump , Leiserowtiz said , depending on the state they vote in .
Millennials and Gen Zers will comprise 37 percent of eligible voters in November , which gives them vast electoral influence , if they vote .
If youth show up in force to oust Trump from office , their votes could provide a `` powerful warning sign '' for the GOP , Leiserowtiz said .
It would affirm that for Republicans @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a path to the White House moving forward , they must embrace climate action now .
While young conservatives have united around the urgency of climate change , they remain divided over how to bring their concerns to the ballot box .
Some embrace right-wing attacks painting Biden as a `` tool of the left '' and find his climate agenda `` radical . ''
Others ca n't find a way to justify voting for Trump , even if it means breaking with their party .
Patrick Mann from Orange County , California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But today , he 's leading Aggies for Joe at Texas A & M University and is co-founder of Texas Students for Biden .
Mann grew up watching wildfires ravage his home state , nearly forcing his family to evacuate in 2017 .
The GOP is failing to `` meet the moment '' for climate action , Mann said .
He 's hoping Biden will deliver on a promise to `` restore the soul of our nation . ''
Taylor Walker from Pensacola , Florida , is also determined to make her voice @ @ @ @ @ @ @ her first-ever vote for president—but not for Biden .
Walker , a statewide campus coordinator for the conservative environmental advocacy group American Conservation Coalition , felt compelled to act on climate change after seeing the lasting environmental and economic damage the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico wreaked on her home state .
As a practicing Christian , Walker feels a `` responsibility from God to steward the environment , '' which means fighting climate change while protecting industry .
She lauded Trump 's support of Ron DeSantis ' run @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appreciated DeSantis ' ambitious environmental vision and said he `` passed quite a few green initiatives in the first few months of his term . ''
The governor 's environmental record since has been controversial , with DeSantis earning dismal ratings from the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters .
Walker also praised Trump 's recent commitment to banning offshore drilling on the state 's coasts , which came two years after he proposed vastly expanding oil and gas drilling in U.S. continental waters .
The move `` shows a good faith @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Walker said .
Walker said she 'd examine both major presidential candidates ' platforms and records on climate policy up until Election Day , but she does n't think there 's much , if anything , the Biden campaign could do that would convince her to swing left .
If Trump can help pivot the GOP in greener directions , she said , `` then more power to him . ''
Young climate conservatives may fear climate denial and delayed climate action , but more than that , they fear the growing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the massive spending it entails and Biden 's citing of it as a `` crucial framing for meeting the climate challenges we face . ''
Many do n't want to split with their party to support a Democrat whose allegedly bipartisan intentions they doubt .
If stymieing what they consider a radical green agenda means re-electing a climate change denying president , so be it .
`` I 'm scared of climate change , but I 'm also scared of the Green New Deal and what it means for America , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and junior at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry .
Mutolo felt encouraged by former Ohio Governor John Kasich 's appearance at the Democratic National Convention , but he still struggles to see himself voting for Biden .
Though the candidate paints himself as a centrist , Mutolo believes he 's `` cozying up to the ultra-progressive left . ''
Mutolo , who wants to see market-based climate solutions like a carbon tax , feels torn between a candidate whose climate plan relies on taking an `` All-of-Government approach , '' and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ global warming at all .
Leiserowitz said he appreciated how a conservative might feel Biden 's climate plan `` does n't jive with their limited government , free-market approach . ''
But he sees a strong distinction between voting for a presidential candidate with a $ 2 trillion climate plan that includes large renewable energy investments , which have bipartisan support , and a candidate trying `` to take the country in the opposite direction , towards more fossil fuels . ''
Equating the two seems `` hard to square rationally , '' @ @ @ @ @ @ @ n't vote rationally .
Research shows they vote based on their social and political identities , not policy positions , and are influenced by messaging from their social circles .
As someone ready to talk climate solutions , rather than debate science , Mann , the Texas A & M student , has struggled to connect with Republican peers supporting Trump .
He believes that people concerned about climate change have a moral imperative to support Biden .
`` Voting for someone who took us out of the Paris Agreement , you 're @ @ @ @ @ @ @ change , '' said Mann .
`` Trump is not making America a leader on this . ''
Given the vast threat posed by climate change , Mann said , a vote withheld from Biden is just as problematic as a vote for Trump .
Mann knows he ca n't change people 's minds , but that wo n't stop him from trying .
`` All I can do is plant ideas in their mind of why it 's important '' to elect Biden now and put climate leaders into office beyond this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , those grow . ''
While some young climate conservatives like Mann are engaging their peers in discussions about the presidential election , others like Walker are more concerned with raising awareness of market-driven climate solutions or getting out the vote for local and Congressional races .
Whatever their course of action , the chance to help shape climate policy for a critical next four to eight years is n't lost on any of these young climate conservatives .
How they cast their ballots , and in what numbers , may solidify for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the left—political survival now goes hand in hand with efforts to stabilize the climate and invest in the futures of today 's youth and those of generations to come .
This story originally appeared in Inside Climate News and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now , a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story .

Four years ago, Jacob Abel cast his first presidential vote for Donald Trump. As a young conservative from Concord, North Carolina, the choice felt natural.
But this November, he plans to cast a "protest vote" for a write-in candidate or abstain from casting a ballot for president. A determining factor in his 180-degree turn? Climate change.
Climate didn't become a voting issue for Abel until months after the 2016 election. As a college freshman at Seton Hall University, he found himself increasingly frustrated by lackluster Republican responses to an issue now leading millions to march in the streets.
Abel felt that his party's future, like that of his generation, depended upon it addressing climate change with the appropriate urgency.
While his progressive counterparts helped propel a "Squad" of climate leaders into Congress, Abel advocated for market-driven climate solutions like carbon pricing as a spokesperson for republicEn, a right-leaning climate advocacy organization.
"The Green New Deal was actually a big catalyst for a lot of young Republicans coming forward and pushing for serious Republican solutions" on climate change, said Abel.
Momentum on the left stirred new conversations on the right, as young conservatives banded together in hopes of sustaining both their party and the planet. Their cries for climate action helped open older Republicans' eyes to the risk of losing young voters, and a seat at the table in future climate policymaking, if the GOP didn't change its tune.
"Over the next 10 years," Abel said, he "wants to see Republicans come together with Democrats to come to a realistic solution," along with Republicans proposing "more and more solutions" of their own, including around what Abel considers a critical "middle ground" measure to advance decarbonization—carbon pricing.
"Because we're still kind of relatively new to actually taking this topic seriously and proposing policy," said Abel of the GOP, "I think our policy response could be more robust and more detailed."
Only a decade ago, Abel's story might have been a novelty. Now, it's commonplace. From raging wildfires on the West Coast to Hurricane Sally's massive flooding in the South, climate disasters are politicizing young people across the ideological spectrum who have experienced them first hand.
Younger Republicans are much more engaged with climate change than their parents and grandparents, said Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. The program's research shows young Republicans are more likely than older ones to believe in human-caused global warming and to support climate action.
Frustrated by party leadership that doesn't represent their call for urgent climate action and public discourse that discounts their views, young Republicans also seem more willing to pose their own climate solutions. They don't want to see a World War II-style mobilization; they want pragmatic proposals advancing private sector innovation.
The 2020 presidential election poses a critical test of climate conservatives' willingness to put their environmental concerns before party politics. While some young Republicans who prioritize the issue of climate change remain loyal to Trump and others turn to Biden, a growing number like Abel are not supporting either candidate.
Given Trump's thin margin of victory in 2016, young conservatives who choose not to vote for either major presidential candidate may help Biden just as much as those who vote for him over Trump, Leiserowtiz said, depending on the state they vote in. Millennials and Gen Zers will comprise 37 percent of eligible voters in November, which gives them vast electoral influence, if they vote.
If youth show up in force to oust Trump from office, their votes could provide a "powerful warning sign" for the GOP, Leiserowtiz said. It would affirm that for Republicans to win the youth vote and have a path to the White House moving forward, they must embrace climate action now.
Fractures Among Young Climate Conservatives
While young conservatives have united around the urgency of climate change, they remain divided over how to bring their concerns to the ballot box. Some embrace right-wing attacks painting Biden as a "tool of the left" and find his climate agenda "radical." Others can't find a way to justify voting for Trump, even if it means breaking with their party.
Patrick Mann from Orange County, California, voted for Trump in 2016. But today, he's leading Aggies for Joe at Texas A&M University and is co-founder of Texas Students for Biden.
Mann grew up watching wildfires ravage his home state, nearly forcing his family to evacuate in 2017. The GOP is failing to "meet the moment" for climate action, Mann said. He's hoping Biden will deliver on a promise to "restore the soul of our nation."
Taylor Walker from Pensacola, Florida, is also determined to make her voice heard on climate, including by casting her first-ever vote for president—but not for Biden.
Walker, a statewide campus coordinator for the conservative environmental advocacy group American Conservation Coalition, felt compelled to act on climate change after seeing the lasting environmental and economic damage the 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico wreaked on her home state. As a practicing Christian, Walker feels a "responsibility from God to steward the environment," which means fighting climate change while protecting industry.
She lauded Trump's support of Ron DeSantis' run for Florida Governor in 2018. Walker appreciated DeSantis' ambitious environmental vision and said he "passed quite a few green initiatives in the first few months of his term." The governor's environmental record since has been controversial, with DeSantis earning dismal ratings from the Sierra Club and League of Conservation Voters.
Walker also praised Trump's recent commitment to banning offshore drilling on the state's coasts, which came two years after he proposed vastly expanding oil and gas drilling in U.S. continental waters. The move "shows a good faith investment" in finding clean energy alternatives, Walker said.
Walker said she'd examine both major presidential candidates' platforms and records on climate policy up until Election Day, but she doesn't think there's much, if anything, the Biden campaign could do that would convince her to swing left. If Trump can help pivot the GOP in greener directions, she said, "then more power to him."
A False Equivalency
Young climate conservatives may fear climate denial and delayed climate action, but more than that, they fear the growing political momentum around the Green New Deal, the massive spending it entails and Biden's citing of it as a "crucial framing for meeting the climate challenges we face."
Many don't want to split with their party to support a Democrat whose allegedly bipartisan intentions they doubt. If stymieing what they consider a radical green agenda means re-electing a climate change denying president, so be it.
"I'm scared of climate change, but I'm also scared of the Green New Deal and what it means for America," said Ben Mutolo, a republicEN spokesperson and junior at SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry.
Mutolo felt encouraged by former Ohio Governor John Kasich's appearance at the Democratic National Convention, but he still struggles to see himself voting for Biden. Though the candidate paints himself as a centrist, Mutolo believes he's "cozying up to the ultra-progressive left."
Mutolo, who wants to see market-based climate solutions like a carbon tax, feels torn between a candidate whose climate plan relies on taking an "All-of-Government approach," and one with no efforts to reign in global warming at all.
Leiserowitz said he appreciated how a conservative might feel Biden's climate plan "doesn't jive with their limited government, free-market approach."
But he sees a strong distinction between voting for a presidential candidate with a $2 trillion climate plan that includes large renewable energy investments, which have bipartisan support, and a candidate trying "to take the country in the opposite direction, towards more fossil fuels."
Equating the two seems "hard to square rationally," said Leiserowtiz. But most people don't vote rationally. Research shows they vote based on their social and political identities, not policy positions, and are influenced by messaging from their social circles.
As someone ready to talk climate solutions, rather than debate science, Mann, the Texas A&M student, has struggled to connect with Republican peers supporting Trump. He believes that people concerned about climate change have a moral imperative to support Biden. "Voting for someone who took us out of the Paris Agreement, you're not going to get progress on climate change," said Mann. "Trump is not making America a leader on this."
Given the vast threat posed by climate change, Mann said, a vote withheld from Biden is just as problematic as a vote for Trump.
Mann knows he can't change people's minds, but that won't stop him from trying. "All I can do is plant ideas in their mind of why it's important" to elect Biden now and put climate leaders into office beyond this November, he said. "Hopefully, those grow."
While some young climate conservatives like Mann are engaging their peers in discussions about the presidential election, others like Walker are more concerned with raising awareness of market-driven climate solutions or getting out the vote for local and Congressional races.
Whatever their course of action, the chance to help shape climate policy for a critical next four to eight years isn't lost on any of these young climate conservatives. How they cast their ballots, and in what numbers, may solidify for the right a reality already made clear on the left—political survival now goes hand in hand with efforts to stabilize the climate and invest in the futures of today's youth and those of generations to come.
This story originally appeared in Inside Climate News and is republished here as part of Covering Climate Now, a global journalism collaboration strengthening coverage of the climate story.


scientificamerican--2020-10-01--Protecting against COVID's Aerosol Threat

This feels like a lopsided fight .
In one corner , we have scientists , epidemiologists , infectious-disease physicians , clinicians , engineers—many different experts in the medical community , that is—arguing that the spread of COVID-19 by aerosols ( that is , tiny droplets that can remain airborne long enough to travel significantly farther than the six-foot separation we ’ ve been told to observe ) is both real and dangerous .
In the other , it ’ s the Centers for Disease Control ( CDC ) and the World Health Organization ( WHO ) , which until very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is possible , not necessarily likely .
And while watching experts going against governmental agencies isn ’ t always riveting stuff , this particular battle is terribly important .
It has significant implications for how we as a country handle this epidemic , and what decisions we make going forward—and those decisions need to be made sooner , not later .
On some level , this is a discussion of droplets versus aerosols .
You ’ ve probably heard plenty this year about droplets : they ’ re larger in size and may @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , singing , coughing or sneezing .
These droplets don ’ t travel far and fall quickly to the ground , one reason why a “ social distance ” of roughly six feet is seen as a safe one .
Aerosols , on the other hand , are tiny by comparison , nearly 10,000 times smaller than a human hair .
They ’ re spread at far greater distances—20 to 30 feet—and can linger in the air for minutes to hours , infecting others .
What constitutes a safe distance from aerosols is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crowded indoor spaces with poor ventilation .
Choosing a safe mask becomes difficult as well : an N95 respirator , for example , would be preferable to an ill-fitting cloth mask when it comes to filtering out these minuscule viral aerosols .
For these and other reasons , some in the medical community suspect , our health agencies have been reluctant to accept the data on the airborne transmission of COVID-19—because if they do , they ’ re acknowledging a problem far more challenging even than what we ’ ve been dealt with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an epic response .
In a nearly unprecedented move , 239 scientists from 32 countries wrote an open letter to the WHO in July , urging the agency to recognize that airborne transmission of coronavirus by smaller aerosol particles is possible .
The organization ’ s response was to subsequently update its position , stating that aerosol transmission “ can not be ruled out.
” A glowing endorsement this was not .
The CDC , meanwhile , posted on its Web site over the weekend that aerosolization may be “ the main way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and removed the content from its site , claiming the language had been a draft of some proposed changes which were “ posted in error.
” This is a major point , not a minor one .
Aerosol carry of the virus means that any indoor area where people gather in numbers—think restaurants , bars , churches , schools , rallies—is potentially a spreader of the disease , and depending upon the numbers , a superspreader .
These are likely places with poor ventilation , where people not only are close together but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ singing , cheering or booing , etc .
The idea of aerosol spread is neither new nor controversial .
Several diseases , including measles , chickenpox and tuberculosis , have been shown to be transmitted by aerosols .
Patients sick with the flu have the virus in their exhaled breath , and that virus has been shown to be present in the air .
This is true for some other viruses , including those found in infants .
Scientists in Wuhan , China , have identified coronavirus RNA particles in the air in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ t yet proven that the particles are infectious .
Lab workers at the University of Nebraska have published their finding that they , too , have identified coronavirus RNA in the air .
“ We have pretty strong circumstantial evidence , in a number of these superspreading indoor incidents , that there must have been a significant component of aerosol or airborne transmission , ” says William Bahnfleth , chair of the American Society of Heating , Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers ( ASHRAE ) Epidemic Task Force .
Bahnfleth noted several examples @ @ @ @ @ @ @ China , where multiple people without direct contact with one another became infected from a single individual , and a choir practice in Washington state where presumed droplet and aerosol spread from singing sickened 53 people , two of whom died .
In an e-mail interview , researcher Bjorn Birnir shared his work , published in a preprint ( a non–peer reviewed paper ) , that demonstrated how an infected person continues to exhale a cloud of droplets and aerosols .
These “ build up over time to dangerous concentrations for everyone in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While we don ’ t know exactly how much virus is needed to infect people or at what concentrations , these examples show that at some point the threshold is met and inhaled aerosols are the likely culprits .
“ Aerosol transmission plays a significant role in indoor environments and can not be neglected , ” says environmental science expert Maosheng Yao , a professor of engineering at Peking University .
“ Sooner or later , [ the WHO ] is going to recognize this officially.
” Much of the solution to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ transmission in indoor areas is ventilation .
“ If people use recirculated air during a pandemic , it is going to be dangerous , because you will just circulate the virus around , ” Yao says .
The goal of ventilation , instead , is to exhaust air from inside a building—along with whatever contaminants it contains—and replace it with clean air from the outside .
One great way to do this , according to Yao and the CDC , is to increase outdoor ventilation by opening windows and doors .
Experts say @ @ @ @ @ @ @ air flow rates in buildings .
“ Open all the windows possible .
The outside air has a much bigger diluting capacity because there is a big space , ” says Yao .
In some instances , Bahnfleth says , a fan can be placed near one window while other windows are left open in order to create forced ventilation .
Nothing is perfect , of course .
Ventilation can be expensive , depending upon what is needed , and some of the recommendations may use significant amounts of energy .
Fans in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conditioning ) systems are limited in the amount of outside air exchange they can do—but more is better , and the ASHRAE guidelines recommend that the units be kept running for longer hours , 24/7 if possible .
High efficiency air filtration and disinfection are important .
Filters should be upgraded to the extent possible in HVAC systems without diminishing airflow .
The ASHRAE paper recommends MERV-13 filters or the highest level allowable , which filter very small infectious particles .
And if HVAC units can not use higher-grade filters , consider using @ @ @ @ @ @ @ particulate air ) filters to disinfect the air further .
A word about ultraviolet light .
“ A coronavirus is a coronavirus , ” says Bahnfleth , and prior studies found that ultraviolet light inactivated other coronaviruses , like SARS-CoV-1 and MERS ( Middle East Respiratory Syndrome ) .
UV fixtures can be mounted on the ceiling or walls , or placed inside ventilation ducts to neutralize viruses and bacteria .
The biggest limitation is that the irradiation can be a health hazard , to both skin and eye , which is why @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from people .
On this front , there is promise .
A newer ultraviolet technology that employs a lower wavelength of light , called far-UVC light , appears to work without the potential health issues .
In prior studies , far-UVC killed airborne flu virus , and in a study in Nature it was shown to inactivate other airborne coronaviruses .
Based on the results , far-UVC exposure in occupied public areas would inactivate approximately 90 percent of the virus in eight minutes , and 99.9 percent by 25 minutes .
Researchers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Let ’ s keep a close eye on this .
Other mitigation measures experts and the CDC recommend are masking indoors , being distanced , having fewer people indoors and potentially installing droplet barriers .
The barriers , however , might interact with air flow patterns in a negative way .
Bahnfleth recommends getting help from an expert to make sure that what is being installed is actually helpful .
And that ’ s it .
Open the windows and the doors , beef up the HVAC circulation/outdoor air exchange , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Install high-level filters if you can .
Consider purchasing additional portable air cleaners , bring fewer people inside the building , and employing ultraviolet technology .
Governing agencies ’ reluctance aside , preventing indoor person-to-person aerosol spread of COVID-19 could be a game changer .
Good ventilation alone should help avoid some of the superspreading events we ’ ve seen , and help all of us get back to the normalcy we crave .
With airborne COVID-19 transmission , there is a lot more we can do besides mask , social distance and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time to step up our game and think more like the engineers who are trying to help us solve this problem .

This feels like a lopsided fight. In one corner, we have scientists, epidemiologists, infectious-disease physicians, clinicians, engineers—many different experts in the medical community, that is—arguing that the spread of COVID-19 by aerosols (that is, tiny droplets that can remain airborne long enough to travel significantly farther than the six-foot separation we’ve been told to observe) is both real and dangerous. In the other, it’s the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO), which until very recently have allowed only that aerosol spread is possible, not necessarily likely.
And while watching experts going against governmental agencies isn’t always riveting stuff, this particular battle is terribly important. It has significant implications for how we as a country handle this epidemic, and what decisions we make going forward—and those decisions need to be made sooner, not later.
On some level, this is a discussion of droplets versus aerosols. You’ve probably heard plenty this year about droplets: they’re larger in size and may be exhaled by someone talking, shouting, singing, coughing or sneezing. These droplets don’t travel far and fall quickly to the ground, one reason why a “social distance” of roughly six feet is seen as a safe one.
Aerosols, on the other hand, are tiny by comparison, nearly 10,000 times smaller than a human hair. They’re spread at far greater distances—20 to 30 feet—and can linger in the air for minutes to hours, infecting others. What constitutes a safe distance from aerosols is much harder to define, especially in crowded indoor spaces with poor ventilation. Choosing a safe mask becomes difficult as well: an N95 respirator, for example, would be preferable to an ill-fitting cloth mask when it comes to filtering out these minuscule viral aerosols. For these and other reasons, some in the medical community suspect, our health agencies have been reluctant to accept the data on the airborne transmission of COVID-19—because if they do, they’re acknowledging a problem far more challenging even than what we’ve been dealt with so far.
This reluctance has prompted an epic response. In a nearly unprecedented move, 239 scientists from 32 countries wrote an open letter to the WHO in July, urging the agency to recognize that airborne transmission of coronavirus by smaller aerosol particles is possible. The organization’s response was to subsequently update its position, stating that aerosol transmission “cannot be ruled out.” A glowing endorsement this was not—although, points out a spokesperson for the organization, “We have substantial guidance on the topic and speak repeatedly in press conferences and other venues about the importance of keeping indoor spaces well ventilated, precisely because of the potential of aerosol transmission in these settings. WHO has advice in the form of Q&As for the general public, and for people who manage public spaces and buildings and health facilities.”
The CDC, meanwhile, posted on its Web site over the weekend that aerosolization may be “the main way the virus spreads,” then backtracked and removed the content from its site, claiming the language had been a draft of some proposed changes which were “posted in error.”
This is a major point, not a minor one. Aerosol carry of the virus means that any indoor area where people gather in numbers—think restaurants, bars, churches, schools, rallies—is potentially a spreader of the disease, and depending upon the numbers, a superspreader. These are likely places with poor ventilation, where people not only are close together but may be speaking loudly, shouting, singing, cheering or booing, etc.
The idea of aerosol spread is neither new nor controversial. Several diseases, including measles, chickenpox and tuberculosis, have been shown to be transmitted by aerosols. Patients sick with the flu have the virus in their exhaled breath, and that virus has been shown to be present in the air. This is true for some other viruses, including those found in infants. Scientists in Wuhan, China, have identified coronavirus RNA particles in the air in hospital areas, although they haven’t yet proven that the particles are infectious. Lab workers at the University of Nebraska have published their finding that they, too, have identified coronavirus RNA in the air.
“We have pretty strong circumstantial evidence, in a number of these superspreading indoor incidents, that there must have been a significant component of aerosol or airborne transmission,” says William Bahnfleth, chair of the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Epidemic Task Force. Bahnfleth noted several examples, including a restaurant in Guangzhou, China, where multiple people without direct contact with one another became infected from a single individual, and a choir practice in Washington state where presumed droplet and aerosol spread from singing sickened 53 people, two of whom died.
In an e-mail interview, researcher Bjorn Birnir shared his work, published in a preprint (a non–peer reviewed paper), that demonstrated how an infected person continues to exhale a cloud of droplets and aerosols. These “build up over time to dangerous concentrations for everyone in the room,” Birnir says. While we don’t know exactly how much virus is needed to infect people or at what concentrations, these examples show that at some point the threshold is met and inhaled aerosols are the likely culprits.
“Aerosol transmission plays a significant role in indoor environments and cannot be neglected,” says environmental science expert Maosheng Yao, a professor of engineering at Peking University.
Much of the solution to the challenge of aerosol (and droplet) transmission in indoor areas is ventilation. “If people use recirculated air during a pandemic, it is going to be dangerous, because you will just circulate the virus around,” Yao says. The goal of ventilation, instead, is to exhaust air from inside a building—along with whatever contaminants it contains—and replace it with clean air from the outside.
One great way to do this, according to Yao and the CDC, is to increase outdoor ventilation by opening windows and doors. Experts say this can make a huge difference in air flow rates in buildings. “Open all the windows possible. The outside air has a much bigger diluting capacity because there is a big space,” says Yao. In some instances, Bahnfleth says, a fan can be placed near one window while other windows are left open in order to create forced ventilation.
Nothing is perfect, of course. Ventilation can be expensive, depending upon what is needed, and some of the recommendations may use significant amounts of energy. Fans in HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) systems are limited in the amount of outside air exchange they can do—but more is better, and the ASHRAE guidelines recommend that the units be kept running for longer hours, 24/7 if possible.
High efficiency air filtration and disinfection are important. Filters should be upgraded to the extent possible in HVAC systems without diminishing airflow. The ASHRAE paper recommends MERV-13 filters or the highest level allowable, which filter very small infectious particles. And if HVAC units cannot use higher-grade filters, consider using portable air cleaners with HEPA (high-efficiency particulate air) filters to disinfect the air further.
A word about ultraviolet light. “A coronavirus is a coronavirus,” says Bahnfleth, and prior studies found that ultraviolet light inactivated other coronaviruses, like SARS-CoV-1 and MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome). UV fixtures can be mounted on the ceiling or walls, or placed inside ventilation ducts to neutralize viruses and bacteria. The biggest limitation is that the irradiation can be a health hazard, to both skin and eye, which is why the fixtures are placed up high, away from people.
On this front, there is promise. A newer ultraviolet technology that employs a lower wavelength of light, called far-UVC light, appears to work without the potential health issues. In prior studies, far-UVC killed airborne flu virus, and in a study in Nature it was shown to inactivate other airborne coronaviruses. Based on the results, far-UVC exposure in occupied public areas would inactivate approximately 90 percent of the virus in eight minutes, and 99.9 percent by 25 minutes. Researchers expect it would work similarly against COVID-19. Let’s keep a close eye on this.
Other mitigation measures recommended by experts including the WHO and the CDC are wearing masks indoors, maintaining social distance, having fewer people indoors, and, potentially, installing droplet barriers. The barriers, however, can potentially interact with air flow patterns in a way that actually spreads the virus. Bahnfleth recommends getting help from an expert to make sure that what is being installed is actually helpful.
And that’s it. Open the windows and the doors, beef up the HVAC circulation/outdoor air exchange, and consider letting the unit run 24/7. Install high-level filters if you can. Consider purchasing additional portable air cleaners, bring fewer people inside the building, and employing ultraviolet technology.
Governing agencies’ reluctance aside, preventing indoor person-to-person aerosol spread of COVID-19 could be a game changer. Good ventilation alone should help avoid some of the superspreading events we’ve seen, and help all of us get back to the normalcy we crave. With airborne COVID-19 transmission, there is a lot more we can do besides mask, social distance and wash our hands. It’s time to step up our game and think more like the engineers who are trying to help us solve this problem.