scientificamerican--2020-10-29--A Running List of Record-Breaking Natural Disasters in 2020

Editor ’ s Note ( 10/29/20 ) : This story has been updated to reflect new records .
So far 2020 has been a standout year for all the wrong reasons , including its devastating natural disasters .
Wildfires have ravaged the western U.S. , and tropical cyclones have popped up left and right , with several causing significant damage to coastal areas .
The latest storm , Hurricane Delta , is headed for the Gulf Coast .
Though they are called natural disasters , the toll they take comes in part from human actions .
The buildup of communities @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the coasts and fire-prone areas of the West , means more people are in harm ’ s way .
Climate change , fueled by greenhouse gas emissions from energy use and industrial processes , has also upped the ante .
Hotter weather dries out the grasses and forest debris that can ignite , fueling bigger and longer-lasting wildfires .
And rising seas and heavier downpours mean higher flood risks during storms .
These factors have helped push some of this year ’ s disasters to surpass—and in some cases , shatter—previous records .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ones that have been set this year .
The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season has already been a doozy , and it does not even officially end until November 30 .
Here are some of the records it has already achieved : • This is only the second time that the official alphabetical list of hurricane names has been used up , meaning forecasters have had to move to the supplementary list of Greek letter names .
• If one more storm forms , 2020 will tie 2005 as the season with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
( Named storms are those that reach at least tropical storm strength , with winds of 39 to 73 miles per hour . )
If two more form , this year will set a new record .
• Twenty-four of the 27 storms that formed so far this season were the earliest of their storm number to do so .
For example , Delta was the earliest 25th named storm of any season , beating out Tropical Storm Gamma , which formed on November 15 , 2005 .
• When Hurricane Zeta @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on October 28 , it became the record 11th named storm to hit the U.S. in a single season .
It broke the record set just weeks earlier by Hurricane Delta .
• Zeta was also the sixth hurricane to hit the U.S. this year , tying 1886 and 1985 for the most continental U.S. hurricane landfalls in a single season .
• Zeta was the record fifth named storm to hit Louisiana in a single season .
• Delta ’ s landfall was the first time a Greek-alphabet-named hurricane has made landfall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ falls within the peak of the hurricane season , saw a record 10 named storms form within the month .
( The previous record was eight . )
• In mid-September , there were five storms churning around the Atlantic Ocean simultaneously for only the second time on record .
• September 18 marked the second time on record that three named storms—Wilfred , Alpha and Beta—all formed on the same day .
The only other time this was known to happen was on August 15 , 1893 , before hurricanes received official @ @ @ @ @ @ @ enormous toll on western U.S. communities , both from flames and harmful smoke .
California has borne the worst of it .
Here are some of the records that have been set : • Fires have so far burned more than four million acres across California , about doubling the previous record of nearly two million acres set in 2018 .
Quality records of fires size in California go back to 1932 .
• The August Complex Fire alone has burned more than one million acres , by far the largest in California @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of more than 459,000 acres was set in 2018 by the Mendocino Complex Fire .
• Five of California ’ s six largest fires are burning this year .
• On October 14 Colorado ’ s Cameron Peak Fire surged to become the largest in state history , surpassing the record set less than two months prior by the Pine Gulch Fire .
As of October 28 , the new record holder had burned more than 208,000 acres .
Heavy rain sent water levels in the Tittabawassee River to record highs in May @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Sanford dams near Midland , Mich .
Some 10,000 residents had to evacuate because of the subsequent floods .
Phoenix set a record for the most days with temperatures of 100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher with 144 days .
Heat , especially over prolonged periods , can exacerbate existing health conditions and is one of the leading causes of weather-related deaths in the U.S .
So far this year , the U.S. has had 16 natural disasters ( including wildfires , hurricanes , tornadoes and drought ) that each caused at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the record set in both 2011 and 2017—with several months left to go .
Such statistics have been compiled since 1980 .

Editor’s Note (12/22/20): This story has been updated to reflect new records set through the November 30 end of the hurricane season.
This year has been a standout year for all the wrong reasons, including its devastating natural disasters. Wildfires have ravaged the western U.S., and tropical cyclones have popped up left and right, with several causing significant damage to coastal areas.
Though they are called natural disasters, the toll they take comes in part from human actions. The buildup of communities in vulnerable areas, such as along the coasts and fire-prone areas of the West, means more people are in harm’s way. Climate change, fueled by greenhouse gas emissions from energy use and industrial processes, has also upped the ante. Hotter weather dries out the grasses and forest debris that can ignite, fueling bigger and longer-lasting wildfires. And rising seas and heavier downpours mean higher flood risks during storms.
These factors have helped push some of this year’s disasters to surpass—and in some cases, shatter—previous records. This is a running list of all the ones that have been set this year.
Hurricanes
The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season was a doozy. Here are some of the records it achieved:
This is only the second time that the official alphabetical list of hurricane names has been used up, meaning forecasters have had to move to the supplementary list of Greek letter names.
The 2020 season surpassed 2005 as the one with the most named storms on record: 30. (Named storms are those that reach at least tropical storm strength, with winds of 39 to 73 miles per hour.)
Twenty-seven of the 30 storms that formed this season were the earliest of their storm number to do so. For example, Delta was the earliest 25th named storm of any season, beating out Tropical Storm Gamma, which formed on November 15, 2005.
When Tropical Storm Eta made landfall on Florida’s island of Lower Matecumbe Key on November 8, it became the only 12th named storm to hit the U.S. in a single season. It broke the record set just weeks earlier by Hurricane Zeta and Hurricane Delta before it. Prior to 2020, the season with the most landfalls was 1916, which had nine.
Hurricane Zeta was the sixth hurricane to hit the U.S. this year, tying 1886 and 1985 for the most continental U.S. hurricane landfalls in a single season.
Zeta was the record fifth named storm to hit Louisiana in a single season.
Delta’s landfall was the first time a Greek-alphabet-named hurricane has made landfall in the U.S.
Hurricane Iota was the latest known category 5 hurricane in the Atlantic, reaching that status on November 16. The old record, for November 8, was held by the Cuba Hurricane of 1932.
This November was the first on record to have two major hurricanes, Eta and Iota.
This was the record fifth consecutive year to see a category 5 storm form.
September, which falls within the peak of the hurricane season, saw a record 10 named storms form within the month. (The previous record was eight.)
In mid-September, there were five storms churning around the Atlantic Ocean simultaneously for only the second time on record.
September 18 marked the second time on record that three named storms—Wilfred, Alpha and Beta—all formed on the same day. The only other time this was known to happen was on August 15, 1893, before hurricanes received official alphabetical names.
(The Atlantic hurricane database, managed by the National Hurricane Center, extends back to 1851. The lists of alternating male and female hurricane names have been in use since 1979.)
Wildfires
Wildfires have taken an enormous toll on western U.S. communities, both from flames and harmful smoke. California bore the worst of it. Here are some of the records that were set:
Fires burned more than four million acres across California, about doubling the previous record of nearly two million acres set in 2018. Quality records of fires size in California go back to 1932.
The August Complex Fire alone burned more than one million acres, by far the largest in California’s history. The previous record of more than 459,000 acres was set in 2018 by the Mendocino Complex Fire.
Five of California’s six largest fires burned this year.
On October 14 Colorado’s Cameron Peak Fire surged to become the largest in state history, burning more than 208,000 acres and surpassing the record set less than two months prior by the Pine Gulch Fire.
Rain and Flooding
Heavy rain sent water levels in the Tittabawassee River to record highs in May, causing the failures of the Edenville and Sanford dams near Midland, Mich. Some 10,000 residents had to evacuate because of the subsequent floods.
Heat
Heat, especially over prolonged periods, can exacerbate existing health conditions and is one of the leading causes of weather-related deaths in the U.S. The Phoenix area saw notable heat this year.
Phoenix set a record for the most days with temperatures of 100 degrees Fahrenheit or higher with 144 days.
On Nov. 16, the city saw its latest 90-degree day on record, beating the previous record of Nov. 15.
Overall
Through September, the U.S. had 16 natural disasters (including wildfires, hurricanes, tornadoes and drought) that each caused at least $1 billion in damage, tying the record set in both 2011 and 2017—with several months left to go. Such statistics have been compiled since 1980.


scientificamerican--2020-10-29--Why Hatred and 'Othering' of Political Foes Has Spiked to Extreme Levels

In 1950 the American Political Science Association issued a report expressing concern that Americans exhibited an insufficient degree of political polarization .
What a difference a new millennium makes .
As we approach 2020 ’ s Election Day , the U.S. political landscape has become a Grand Canyon separating blue and red Americans .
So why is this happening ?
In a review of studies published today in the journal Science , 15 prominent researchers from across the country characterize a new type of polarization that has gripped the U.S .
This phenomenon differs from the familiar divergence each party @ @ @ @ @ @ @ economy , foreign policy and the role of social safety nets .
Instead it centers on members of one party holding a basic abhorrence for their opponents—an “ othering ” in which a group conceives of its rivals as wholly alien in every way .
This toxic form of polarization has fundamentally altered political discourse , public civility and even the way politicians govern .
It can be captured in Republicans ’ admiration for Donald Trump ’ s ability to taunt and “ dominate ” liberals—distilled to the expression “ own the libs.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of political sectarianism—the growing tendency of one political group to view its opponents as morally repugnant .
This level of political divisiveness on both sides creates a feedback loop of hatred and leaves the U.S. open to manipulation by foreign powers that wish to further these internal rifts .
On the horizon , however , are a few ideas about how to address these social and political divisions .
Scientific American delved into these issues with Eli J. Finkel , a psychology professor at Northwestern University and lead author of the new Science @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the interview follows . ]
There ’ s a sense in the U.S. today that the country is more divided than ever before .
Does the research bear out this impression ?
No , 1861 was worse—with many , many hundreds of thousands of people dying in an extraordinarily bloody war .
In some ways , 1968 was scarier , with all those assassinations and the protests at the Democratic [ National ] Convention in Chicago .
But there is something new about the current type of polarization .
What used to happen @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Democratic party and lots of liberals in the Republican party .
What we have [ now ] is an alignment of social identities that correspond to our political identities in a way that we ’ ve never seen before .
In the paper , we talk about political polarization as a kind of mega identity that encompasses a whole bunch of other identities , so that African-American people and nonheterosexual people are overwhelmingly in the Democratic Party .
You have this alignment in a way that the two sides feel increasingly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ proposes a new way of framing polarization , which you call political sectarianism .
Can you explain what this is and the three core ingredients you have identified ?
Sectarianism is a highly moralized political identity that views the other side as contemptible .
The moral component is foundational .
You can imagine that you are a member of a religious sect , and you very , very strongly believe that you possess the full moral truth and that the other people aren ’ t going to heaven or are evil .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we see across the political divide these days .
The three key components : The first one is what we call “ othering ” — [ labeling ] these people as so different from us that they ’ re almost incomprehensible .
The second part we call “ aversion ” —this idea that they ’ re not just different , but they ’ re dislikable .
The third part is this “ moralization , ” where they ’ re morally bankrupt .
And when you face a situation like that , is it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ bit or to engage in some sort of political chicanery that isn ’ t really best for democracy ?
Well , when those are the stakes , of course .
I live in a red county in a blue state , and this election cycle , I ’ m seeing something new .
People aren ’ t just displaying political signs .
They are flying Trump flags on flagpoles and from the back of their pickup trucks .
Do you have any thoughts about the symbolism of the flag and this display of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increasingly divorced from ideas .
One of the things that people on the right love about Donald Trump is that he “ owns the libs.
” I mean , he drives liberals absolutely bonkers .
That is very , very satisfying .
That ’ s not about ideas .
That ’ s about conquest .
That ’ s about defeating the bad people on the other side .
These identities are becoming increasingly central to who we are as people .
In the 1960s , nobody cared if you married somebody from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel if your kid married somebody from the other party now ?
These days , it ’ s sort of a horrifying idea .
Polarization also seems to be warping people ’ s beliefs about members of the other party .
What is happening ?
Knowing about people ’ s political identity now tells you a lot about what their other social identities are likely to be , and there ’ s a vast exaggeration in our minds about what the other party looks like .
Republicans vastly overestimated the proportion of Democrats @ @ @ @ @ @ @ LGBT [ individuals ] , and Democrats overestimate the percentage of Republicans that make at least $ 250,000 a year .
And so you end up with a situation where you think , “ I can ’ t relate to them , and they hate people like me.
” So of course , you feel like if it ’ s reasonable to lash out at them or perhaps deny them some amount of democratic liberties if the stakes are high in terms of your political goals .
But even just alerting people that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ less different or hates you far less than you think [ it does ] can soften the tendency to sacrifice democratic norms for partisan goals .
What role has the changing media landscape and the rise of social media played in this polarization ?
Well , the effect appears to be large , and the research is still figuring out exactly what it is .
One of the most interesting findings directly challenges the conventional wisdom that part of the reason why we have so much othering is that people are literally no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , in contrast to an era where there were three broadcast news stations .
A 2018 study had people who were partisan get exposed to some information on the other side .
So if you ’ re Republican , you get to see what Hillary Clinton is saying , or if you ’ re a Democrat , you ’ re exposed to what Donald Trump is saying .
And that actually made it worse .
So the idea that if we expose people to what the other side is seeing , things will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ true .
And I think that the science just hasn ’ t figured out how we can tweak algorithms in ways that get to something closer to a common worldview across the population without further sectarianizing the populace .
We know that Russia had an elaborate campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 election and that it is continuing these efforts in 2020 .
Has political sectarianism made the U.S. more vulnerable to meddling from foreign actors ?
Completely .
[ Russian agents ] didn ’ t try to bomb us , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to infect our computers .
They knew that we hate each other—at least , highly sectarianized partisans hate each other—and so they didn ’ t have to do any of that fancy stuff .
They just created avatars that were called things such as “ Blacktivist ” or “ Army of Jesus , ” and then they painted the other side as diabolical , and then they just let it go .
And then we did it !
We opened up this vulnerability , and all this geopolitical adversary has to do is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ where people are likely to see it .
We tweet it ; we retweet it .
An important caveat here : research is ambiguous about how effective the campaign was , but there is no question at all that [ Russia ] tried to do it—and that extremists on both sides , especially on the conservative side , were especially likely to play exactly into Russia ’ s hands .
One solution you propose is to get individuals to talk to people from the opposite party .
But how do we talk across @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to someone whose party has called you the “ enemy of the people ” ?
The pictures that we carry around in our head about the other side are nothing other than characters .
One of the things that I think holds promise is that if we can just get through all the people who are profiting from all the divisions and get the truth out there , then , I think , some of the worst elements of the sectarianism will go away , because people [ will ] realize that they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ different from them after all .
But how do you get people those facts ?
How do you get them to even come to the table and listen ?
There are no silver bullets .
One of the lines of work that holds some promise is some research showing that if you just remind everybody that Democrats and Republicans are all Americans , that can make them a little bit more open-minded .
How has sectarianism changed the way that politicians are governing ?
They ’ re not really doing so for all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
No .
I mean , why would they ?
We ’ re so deeply immersed in our ... side , and that ’ s how you get people like Donald Trump and other people saying , “ We ’ re not going to pass a law that ’ s going to help blue states.
” That ’ s not the way the government was supposed to function , but it is the logical end point of the highly sectarian world .
In the highly sectarian political ecosystem , politicians lose the incentive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And they also lose the incentive to compromise , because you ’ re much more likely to get accused of apostasy and lack of sufficient purity by your side .
So you get this increasing emphasis on the most extreme candidates .
This has been more true on the right than on the left , but to some degree , it has been true on both sides .
We have a pandemic response that has become extremely polarized , and the science has become a partisan thing .
Do you see any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hugely optimistic about this , but what I would love to pose to your readers is that they should take personal responsibility for this .
There are no longer people who speak to the middle .
There ’ s no longer a Walter Cronkite .
So to some degree , each individual person is going to have to take some amount of responsibility to say , “ I ’ m going to debate ideas , and I ’ m going to debate them in ways that don ’ t talk about evil or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nuance and complexities .
”

In 1950 the American Political Science Association issued a report expressing concern that Americans exhibited an insufficient degree of political polarization. What a difference a new millennium makes. As we approach 2020’s Election Day, the U.S. political landscape has become a Grand Canyon separating blue and red Americans.
So why is this happening? In a review of studies published today in the journal Science, 15 prominent researchers from across the country characterize a new type of polarization that has gripped the U.S. This phenomenon differs from the familiar divergence each party holds on policy issues related to the economy, foreign policy and the role of social safety nets. Instead it centers on members of one party holding a basic abhorrence for their opponents—an “othering” in which a group conceives of its rivals as wholly alien in every way. This toxic form of polarization has fundamentally altered political discourse, public civility and even the way politicians govern. It can be captured in Republicans’ admiration for Donald Trump’s ability to taunt and “dominate” liberals—distilled to the expression “own the libs.”
The Science paper addresses the rise of political sectarianism—the growing tendency of one political group to view its opponents as morally repugnant. This level of political divisiveness on both sides creates a feedback loop of hatred and leaves the U.S. open to manipulation by foreign powers that wish to further these internal rifts. On the horizon, however, are a few ideas about how to address these social and political divisions.
Scientific American delved into these issues with Eli J. Finkel, a psychology professor at Northwestern University and lead author of the new Science paper.
[An edited transcript of the interview follows.]
There’s a sense in the U.S. today that the country is more divided than ever before. Does the research bear out this impression?
No, 1861 was worse—with many, many hundreds of thousands of people dying in an extraordinarily bloody war. In some ways, 1968 was scarier, with all those assassinations and the protests at the Democratic [National] Convention in Chicago. But there is something new about the current type of polarization. What used to happen was: there were lots of conservatives in the Democratic party and lots of liberals in the Republican party. What we have [now] is an alignment of social identities that correspond to our political identities in a way that we’ve never seen before. In the paper, we talk about political polarization as a kind of mega identity that encompasses a whole bunch of other identities, so that African-American people and nonheterosexual people are overwhelmingly in the Democratic Party. You have this alignment in a way that the two sides feel increasingly different from one another.
Your paper proposes a new way of framing polarization, which you call political sectarianism. Can you explain what this is and the three core ingredients you have identified?
Sectarianism is a highly moralized political identity that views the other side as contemptible. The moral component is foundational. You can imagine that you are a member of a religious sect, and you very, very strongly believe that you possess the full moral truth and that the other people aren’t going to heaven or are evil. That is the tenor of the thinking that we see across the political divide these days.
The three key components: The first one is what we call “othering”—[labeling] these people as so different from us that they’re almost incomprehensible. The second part we call “aversion”—this idea that they’re not just different, but they’re dislikable. The third part is this “moralization,” where they’re morally bankrupt.
And when you face a situation like that, is it acceptable to suppress the vote a little bit or to engage in some sort of political chicanery that isn’t really best for democracy? Well, when those are the stakes, of course.
I live in a red county in a blue state, and this election cycle, I’m seeing something new. People aren’t just displaying political signs. They are flying Trump flags on flagpoles and from the back of their pickup trucks. Do you have any thoughts about the symbolism of the flag and this display of allegiance?
The debate going on is increasingly divorced from ideas. One of the things that people on the right love about Donald Trump is that he “owns the libs.” I mean, he drives liberals absolutely bonkers. That is very, very satisfying. That’s not about ideas. That’s about conquest. That’s about defeating the bad people on the other side. These identities are becoming increasingly central to who we are as people. In the 1960s, nobody cared if you married somebody from the other party. But how would you feel if your kid married somebody from the other party now? These days, it’s sort of a horrifying idea.
Polarization also seems to be warping people’s beliefs about members of the other party. What is happening?
Knowing about people’s political identity now tells you a lot about what their other social identities are likely to be, and there’s a vast exaggeration in our minds about what the other party looks like. Republicans vastly overestimated the proportion of Democrats that are sexual minorities, such as LGBT [individuals], and Democrats overestimate the percentage of Republicans that make at least $250,000 a year. And so you end up with a situation where you think, “I can’t relate to them, and they hate people like me.” So of course, you feel like if it’s reasonable to lash out at them or perhaps deny them some amount of democratic liberties if the stakes are high in terms of your political goals. But even just alerting people that actually, that other group is far less different or hates you far less than you think [it does] can soften the tendency to sacrifice democratic norms for partisan goals.
What role has the changing media landscape and the rise of social media played in this polarization?
Well, the effect appears to be large, and the research is still figuring out exactly what it is. One of the most interesting findings directly challenges the conventional wisdom that part of the reason why we have so much othering is that people are literally no longer living in the same information ecosystems, in contrast to an era where there were three broadcast news stations. A 2018 study had people who were partisan get exposed to some information on the other side. So if you’re Republican, you get to see what Hillary Clinton is saying, or if you’re a Democrat, you’re exposed to what Donald Trump is saying. And that actually made it worse. So the idea that if we expose people to what the other side is seeing, things will get better does not appear to be true. And I think that the science just hasn’t figured out how we can tweak algorithms in ways that get to something closer to a common worldview across the population without further sectarianizing the populace.
We know that Russia had an elaborate campaign to influence the outcome of the 2016 election and that it is continuing these efforts in 2020. Has political sectarianism made the U.S. more vulnerable to meddling from foreign actors?
Completely. [Russian agents] didn’t try to bomb us, and they didn’t even try to infect our computers. They knew that we hate each other—at least, highly sectarianized partisans hate each other—and so they didn’t have to do any of that fancy stuff. They just created avatars that were called things such as “Blacktivist” or “Army of Jesus,” and then they painted the other side as diabolical, and then they just let it go. And then we did it! We opened up this vulnerability, and all this geopolitical adversary has to do is to put the content and social media where people are likely to see it. We tweet it; we retweet it.
An important caveat here: research is ambiguous about how effective the campaign was, but there is no question at all that [Russia] tried to do it—and that extremists on both sides, especially on the conservative side, were especially likely to play exactly into Russia’s hands.
One solution you propose is to get individuals to talk to people from the opposite party. But how do we talk across the divide? How do you talk to someone whose party has called you the “enemy of the people”?
The pictures that we carry around in our head about the other side are nothing other than characters. One of the things that I think holds promise is that if we can just get through all the people who are profiting from all the divisions and get the truth out there, then, I think, some of the worst elements of the sectarianism will go away, because people [will] realize that they hate people that aren’t that different from them after all.
But how do you get people those facts? How do you get them to even come to the table and listen?
There are no silver bullets. One of the lines of work that holds some promise is some research showing that if you just remind everybody that Democrats and Republicans are all Americans, that can make them a little bit more open-minded.
How has sectarianism changed the way that politicians are governing? They’re not really doing so for all of their constituents anymore, are they?
No. I mean, why would they? We’re so deeply immersed in our ... side, and that’s how you get people like Donald Trump and other people saying, “We’re not going to pass a law that’s going to help blue states.” That’s not the way the government was supposed to function, but it is the logical end point of the highly sectarian world. In the highly sectarian political ecosystem, politicians lose the incentive to be responsive to the entire populace. And they also lose the incentive to compromise, because you’re much more likely to get accused of apostasy and lack of sufficient purity by your side. So you get this increasing emphasis on the most extreme candidates. This has been more true on the right than on the left, but to some degree, it has been true on both sides.
We have a pandemic response that has become extremely polarized, and the science has become a partisan thing. Do you see any solutions?
Look, I am not hugely optimistic about this, but what I would love to pose to your readers is that they should take personal responsibility for this. There are no longer people who speak to the middle. There’s no longer a Walter Cronkite. So to some degree, each individual person is going to have to take some amount of responsibility to say, “I’m going to debate ideas, and I’m going to debate them in ways that don’t talk about evil or hatred or shame but really understand the nuance and complexities.”


scientificamerican--2020-10-30--Gruesome 'Blood Worms' Invaded a Dinosaur's Leg Bone, Fossil Suggests

Around 80 million years ago in what is now Brazil , a sick dinosaur limped along—but its days were numbered .
Its leg bone was so diseased that it had turned spongy , and a particularly gruesome culprit may have been to blame : wormlike parasites wriggling through its bloodstream .
Researchers analyzing the fossilized bone recently found strange , oblong forms in channels that once were blood vessels .
The dinosaur in question was a titanosaur , a gigantic long-necked animal with legs the size of tree trunks .
After initially noticing abnormalities in the leg bone , Aline @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Rio Grande do Norte , along with her colleagues , set out to discover what ailed the titanosaur .
They ruled out cancer and tuberculosis ; these often reduce blood flow in affected bone areas , but this fossil ’ s irregular surface suggested it had once been riddled with vascular canals coursing with blood and pus .
A CT scan also revealed internal cavities probably associated with blood flow .
The researchers concluded that this titanosaur had a rare bone condition called osteomyelitis , which causes severe inflammation .
When they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coated them in resin and examined them under a powerful microscope , they got a look at a startling potential cause : scattered through the bone ’ s blood vessel cavities , they found fossilized remains of what appear to be around 70 tiny worms , each roughly the length of a dust mite .
“ We were totally shocked , ” Ghilardi says .
To her knowledge , such organisms have never before been found inside dinosaur bone fossils .
“ We can ’ t compare it to anything.
” In a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , she and her colleagues suggest these “ worms ” could be ancient parasites that invaded the dinosaur ’ s bone .
The researchers note , however , that osteomyelitis can also be caused by bacteria , fungi and single-celled organisms called protozoa .
Once inside an animal ’ s vascular system , these can trigger severe bone inflammation as the body reacts to their presence .
The wormlike structures are similar in shape to a known prehistoric parasite called Paleoleishmania—but they are between 10 and 100 times bigger , so their identity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to a broad range of parasites , “ and the story keeps getting more and more interesting , ” Ghilardi wrote on Twitter .
There could be other explanations , however .
“ I ’ m not entirely convinced that those things are parasites , or , if they are parasites , that they have anything to do with the bone diseases , ” says Tommy Leung , an ecologist who studies parasite evolution at the University of New England in Australia .
Leung was not involved with the research , though he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the paper .
If the wormlike forms were indeed living organisms , they could have entered the bone to feed on the dinosaur after it died .
But the researchers argue that this is unlikely because there were no obvious fractures that such creatures might have invaded after the animal ’ s death .
Parasites are known to affect birds and reptiles today , so it makes sense that they troubled dinosaurs , too , says Paul Barrett , a paleobiologist at the Natural History Museum in London , who also was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him , the fossilized objects found in Brazil look like nematodes .
“ It ’ s a really neat study , ” Barrett says , “ and it shows that by applying a range of techniques in this case to a single bone , you can get a lot of information about the biology of an individual dinosaur .
”

Around 80 million years ago in what is now Brazil, a sick dinosaur limped along—but its days were numbered. Its leg bone was so diseased that it had turned spongy, and a particularly gruesome culprit may have been to blame: wormlike parasites wriggling through its bloodstream. Researchers analyzing the fossilized bone recently found strange, oblong forms in channels that once were blood vessels. The dinosaur in question was a titanosaur, a large long-necked animal.*
After initially noticing abnormalities in the leg bone, Aline Ghilardi at Brazil’s Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, along with her colleagues, set out to discover what ailed the titanosaur. They ruled out cancer and tuberculosis; these often reduce blood flow in affected bone areas, but this fossil’s irregular surface suggested it had once been riddled with vascular canals coursing with blood and pus. A CT scan also revealed internal cavities probably associated with blood flow.
The researchers concluded that this titanosaur had a rare bone condition called osteomyelitis, which causes severe inflammation. When they cut thin slices of the fossil, coated them in resin and examined them under a powerful microscope, they got a look at a startling potential cause: scattered through the bone’s blood vessel cavities, they found fossilized remains of what appear to be around 70 tiny worms, each roughly the length of a dust mite.
Titanosaur. Credit: Hugo Cafasso
“We were totally shocked,” Ghilardi says. To her knowledge, such organisms have never before been found inside dinosaur bone fossils. “We can’t compare it to anything.”
In a Cretaceous Research article released online in October, she and her colleagues suggest these “worms” could be ancient parasites that invaded the dinosaur’s bone. The researchers note, however, that osteomyelitis can also be caused by bacteria, fungi and single-celled organisms called protozoa. Once inside an animal’s vascular system, these can trigger severe bone inflammation as the body reacts to their presence.
A titanosaur’s nasty bone condition may have come from wormlike invaders. Credit: From “Blood Parasites and Acute Osteomyelitis in a Non-avian Dinosaur (Sauropoda, Titanosauria); From the Upper Cretaceous Adamantina Formation, Bauru Basin, Southeast Brazil,” by Tito Aureliano et al., in Cretaceous Research, Vol. 118; February 2021
The wormlike structures are similar in shape to a known prehistoric parasite called Paleoleishmania—but they are between 10 and 100 times bigger, so their identity remains unconfirmed. Forthcoming work compares them to a broad range of parasites, “and the story keeps getting more and more interesting,” Ghilardi wrote on Twitter.
There could be other explanations, however. “I’m not entirely convinced that those things are parasites, or, if they are parasites, that they have anything to do with the bone diseases,” says Tommy Leung, an ecologist who studies parasite evolution at the University of New England in Australia. Leung was not involved with the research, though he was a reviewer on a previous version of the paper.
If the wormlike forms were indeed living organisms, they could have entered the bone to feed on the dinosaur after it died. But the researchers argue that this is unlikely because there were no obvious fractures that such creatures might have invaded after the animal’s death.
Replica of the titanosaur at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. Credit: Spencer Platt Getty Images
Parasites are known to affect birds and reptiles today, so it makes sense that they troubled dinosaurs, too, says Paul Barrett, a paleobiologist at the Natural History Museum in London, who also was not involved with the research. To him, the fossilized objects found in Brazil look like nematodes.
“It’s a really neat study,” Barrett says, “and it shows that by applying a range of techniques in this case to a single bone, you can get a lot of information about the biology of an individual dinosaur.”
A version of this article with the title “Blood Worms” was adapted for inclusion in the January 2021 issue of Scientific American.
*Editor’s Note (11/9/20): This paragraph was revised after posting to avoid implying that a reference to the size of titanosaurs in general describes the particular fossil discussed.


scientificamerican--2020-10-30--The Surprising Origins of Chemotherapy and Other New Science Books

This digital issue plus 12 new issues ( in print , digital and tablet formats ) plus archive access to @ @

The Great Secret: The Classified World War II Disaster That Launched the War on Cancer
Jennet Conant
W. W. Norton, 2020 ($27.95)
On December 2, 1943, a German air raid bombed a port in the Italian city of Bari. Among the 40 ships that were damaged, destroyed or sunk was the U.S. Liberty ship John Harvey, which carried a secret cargo of 2,000 mustard gas bombs. With the ship's destruction, mustard gas leaked into the harbor and dispersed into the clouds of smoke and flame from the bombing. In 24 hours more than 600 people in the area reported symptoms of mustard gas poisoning. Writer Conant gives a riveting account of the surprising twist that evolved out of this devastating military disaster. Observing the cell-killing effects of mustard gas on victims' tissue samples, diligent doctors Lieutenant Colonel Stewart F. Alexander and Colonel Cornelius P. Rhoads, among others, carried out research that led to several cancer therapies, including methotrexate, which is still in use today. The nascent field of chemotherapy that resulted suffered innumerable obstacles and setbacks—some treatments proved too toxic, and others offered only temporary inhibition of tumor growth. Although more than 75 years have passed since this work began, Conant shows how the challenges facing modern oncologists—and their determination to keep trying new treatments—bear a remarkable resemblance to those early efforts.
A Series of Fortunate Events: Chance and the Making of the Planet, Life, and You
by Sean B. Carroll
Princeton University Press, 2020 ($22.95)
The idea that chance rules our lives “vaporizes the comforts of anthropocentrism,” biologist Carroll writes. But for the author, this notion is also a freeing revelation. With conversational wit, Carroll encourages us to embrace the randomness of the world. If the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs had arrived 30 minutes earlier or later, for instance, the impact would not have produced enough soot and aerosols to precipitate a mass extinction. And in the microscopic realm, spontaneous quantum fibrillations lasting one one-thousandth of a second cause mutations in our DNA, enabling both evolution and cancer. Drawing philosophical inspiration from Nobel Prize–winning biologist Jacques Monod's 1970 Chance and Necessity, Carroll explores these and other cosmological, geological and biological accidents that have shaped the course of the world—and that continue to shape our individual lives. —Scott Hershberger
Beyond Earth’s Edge: The Poetry of Spaceflight
edited by Julie Swarstad Johnson and Christopher Cokinos
University of Arizona Press, 2020 ($19.95)
The heavens are fertile ground for poetry. They are, after all, the original tapestries on which our ancestors wove their myths and legends, making sense of life on Earth by projecting the deeds of deities and heroes onto stellar constellations and planetary conjunctions. With the dawn of the Space Age, a new era of mythmaking was also ushered in, one in which the outsize actions of astronauts, robots and satellites could profoundly influence the hearts and minds of everyone dwelling down below—including some of our world's greatest poets. Offering selections from Ray Bradbury, Nikki Giovanni, Robert Hayden, Pablo Neruda, May Swenson, and many other luminaries alongside their own works, editors Johnson and Cokinos have created a profoundly stirring evocation of the glory and tragedy of spaceflight that lets us better see not only worlds beyond but also ourselves. —Lee Billings


scientificamerican--2020-10-30--The Warped Side of Our Universe

The Warped Side of Our Universe

A billion years ago —while here on Earth multicelled life was arising and spreading— in a galaxy far far away two spinning black holes danced 'round one another , rippling the fabric of space and time .
The ripples , called gravity waves sucked energy from the holes ' orbit , so The holes spiraled inward , eclipsing each other , toward a climactic collision : The holes , at half of light speed , collided catastrophically and merged in a brief , cataclysmic storm of writhing and twisting spacetime that brought the waves to crescendo .
The climaxing gravity @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across our universe , they stretched and they squeezed all that they met ( stars and planets and nebulae ... ) in patterns that encoded a portrait of their birth : colliding holes and spacetime storm .
The gravity waves were hugely strong , with fifty times more total power —more luminosity— than all of the light from all of the stars in all of our universe , combined .
Fifty universe luminosities from two black holes colliding .
But not any light .
Not any x-rays .
Not any gamma rays or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , None of any type .
Fifty universe luminosities carried wholly and solely by gravity waves , by tendices and vortices , entwined , by structures made from warped spacetime .
Fifty thousand years ago , when humans shared Earth with Neandertals , the waves plunged into our galaxy : The Milky Way .
Our home .
On September fourteen of twenty fifteen they dove into Earth in Antarctica .
Whispering up through Earth 's bowels unscathed , and emerging near New Orleans , the waves encountered LIGO —a complex and huge , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
In LIGO the gravity waves stretched and squeezed two long beams of light , which extracted the portraits the waves encoded : colliding holes and spacetime storm .
A momentous Eureka Event , it was humans ' first moment of contact with the Warped Side of Our Universe .

Edited by Dava Sobel
A billion years ago
—while here on Earth
multicelled life was arising and spreading—
in a galaxy far far away
two spinning black holes danced 'round one another,
rippling the fabric of space and time.
The ripples, called gravity waves
sucked energy from the holes' orbit, so
The holes spiraled inward,
eclipsing each other,
toward a climactic collision:
The holes,
at half of light speed,
collided catastrophically
and merged
in a brief, cataclysmic storm
of writhing and twisting spacetime
that brought the waves to crescendo.
The climaxing gravity waves
surged into interstellar space.
Spreading across our universe,
they stretched and they squeezed
all that they met
(stars and planets and nebulae...)
in patterns that encoded
a portrait of their birth:
colliding holes and spacetime storm.
The gravity waves were hugely strong,
with fifty times more total power
—more luminosity—
than all of the light from all of the stars in all of our universe, combined.
Fifty universe luminosities
from two black holes colliding.
But not any light. Not any x-rays. Not any gamma rays or radio.
No electromagnetic waves at all,
None of any type.
Fifty universe luminosities
carried wholly and solely by gravity waves,
by tendices and vortices, entwined,
by structures made from warped spacetime.
Fifty thousand years ago,
when humans shared Earth with Neandertals,
the waves plunged into our galaxy:
The Milky Way. Our home.
On September fourteen of twenty fifteen
they dove into Earth in Antarctica.
Whispering up through Earth's bowels unscathed,
and emerging near New Orleans,
the waves encountered LIGO
—a complex and huge, L-shaped device
designed and built to perceive them.
In LIGO the gravity waves stretched and squeezed
two long beams of light,
which extracted the portraits the waves encoded:
colliding holes and spacetime storm.
A momentous Eureka Event, it was
humans' first moment of contact
with the Warped Side of Our Universe.


scientificamerican--2020-10-30--Deep-Sea Sponge Skeletons Could Inspire Better Bridges

Glassy marine sponges have quite a “ backbone.
” According to a new study , one species ’ intricate skeletal structure is impressively strong , outperforming comparable configurations humans use for lattice-style bridges .
Harvard University researchers hoping to build stronger and lighter structures looked for inspiration in the deep-water sponge Euplectella aspergillum , whose tubelike skeleton forms a square grid with diagonal reinforcements .
They compared it with existing human-made lattice structures , such as those used in covered-bridge designs since the 1800s , stress-testing simulated objects and even crushing 3-D-printed miniature replicas of each of them—and the sponge @ @ @ @ @ @ @ results are perhaps not surprising , considering E. aspergillum ’ s millions of years of evolution , the researchers say .
The new work was detailed in September in Nature Materials .
“ In many fields , such as aerospace engineering , the strength-to-weight ratio of a structure is critically important , ” said James Weaver , a co-author of the study and an engineer at Harvard , in a recent statement about the research .
“ This biologically-inspired geometry could provide a roadmap for designing lighter , stronger structures for a wide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sponges and other natural architects could bridge the gap to making ever more impressive structures .
Science in Images is a new category of articles featuring photographs and videos from all the disciplines of science .
Click on the button below to see the full collection .

Glassy marine sponges have quite a “backbone.” According to a new study, one species’ intricate skeletal structure is impressively strong, outperforming comparable configurations humans use for lattice-style bridges.
Harvard University researchers hoping to build stronger and lighter structures looked for inspiration in the deep-water sponge Euplectella aspergillum, whose tubelike skeleton forms a square grid with diagonal reinforcements. They compared it with existing human-made lattice structures, such as those used in covered-bridge designs since the 1800s, stress-testing simulated objects and even crushing 3-D-printed miniature replicas of each of them—and the sponge structure came out on top. These results are perhaps not surprising, considering E. aspergillum’s millions of years of evolution, the researchers say. The new work was detailed in September in Nature Materials.
“In many fields, such as aerospace engineering, the strength-to-weight ratio of a structure is critically important,” said James Weaver, a co-author of the study and an engineer at Harvard, in a recent statement about the research. “This biologically-inspired geometry could provide a roadmap for designing lighter, stronger structures for a wide range of applications.”
Searching out resilient sponges and other natural architects could bridge the gap to making ever more impressive structures.
Science in Images is a new category of articles featuring photographs and videos from all the disciplines of science. Click on the button below to see the full collection.
Science in Images


scientificamerican--2020-10-30--A Quick Look at Underpaid Female Docs, Unethical Ethicists and Frogs with Intestinal Fortitude

Now is the summer of our really , really big discontent .
As I write in early August , our @ @ @ @ @ the pandemic rages on .
And some people who stop their vehicles at red lights @ @ @ @ @ wearing masks in public , because freedom .
It is under these conditions I want @ @ @ @ @ I chanced on .

Now is the summer of our really, really big discontent. As I write in early August, our offices are still closed as the pandemic rages on. And some people who stop their vehicles at red lights chaff, figuratively, at wearing masks in public, because freedom. It is under these conditions I want to share some recent items I chanced on.
As the saying goes, “A man may work from sun to sun, but a woman's work will probably not be compensated to the same extent as a man's, and her salary as a percentage of the average in her field will likely go down should her field undergo a transition to majority female.” Hey, if it wasn't catchy, it wouldn't have become an axiom.
For examples of this phenowomenon, see an article entitled “When a Specialty Becomes ‘Women's Work': Trends in and Implications of Specialty Gender Segregation in Medicine,” published in Academic Medicine. The authors are Elaine Pelley and Molly Carnes of the School of Medicine and Public Health of the University of Wisconsin–Madison. Such an elite affiliation is instant grounds for nonpayment of attention among many of my fellow Americans these days, as it speaks to a certain level of knowledge and experience that they increasingly find, ya know, annoying.
Despite their credentials, let's hear these authors out. They note that “pediatrics earned 93% of the average physician salary in 1975 when it was 22% female, but earned only 71% of the median physician salary in 2017 when it was 63% female.”
Another case: “The salaries in obstetrics and gynecology were 20%–25% higher than the mean physician salary in the mid-1970s and 1980s when the female share was 8% and 18%, respectively. However, by 2017 with a female share of 57%, an obstetrician/gynecologist became an average physician earner.” (An extreme version of this trend can be easily found with a Google search using the terms “women doctors Russia status.” The results could make you seek out a gastroenterologist of any sex.)
While wondering about the ethical implications of these financial disparities, I stumbled onto a 2016 paper by philosophers Eric Schwitzgebel and Joshua Rust entitled “The Behavior of Ethicists.” They basically attempt to determine if professional ethicists behave more ethically in their personal lives than other people (for ease of access to study subjects, the other people were nonethicist philosophers and professors in other disciplines). And they found that the ethicists don't bring work home: “On average, professional ethicists' behavior is indistinguishable from the behavior of comparison groups of professors in other fields.”
That finding makes sense to me. Because a while back, I attended a medical ethics symposium and had an insight—a jumping jack flash, if you will: Satan would make a terrific ethicist. To establish the most evil course of action in a given situation, he'd have to perform a comprehensive evaluation that would also reveal the best policy choice. Knowing right from wrong is thus a necessary but insufficient condition for goodness, and Old Nick could write excellent ethical white papers before setting them on fire.
Speaking of hell, a study in the August 3 issue of the journal Current Biology revealed that the vast majority of members of a species of beetle, Regimbartia attenuata, perform a literally death-defying feat after being swallowed by various species of frogs. The beetle apparently swims its little heart out till it pops out of the frog's derriere. Because, as another axiom has it, “If you're going through hell, keep going.”
To find out whether the insect's passage was active or passive, researchers immobilized some beetles by coating them with wax before going into the mouth of hell, or rather, frog. None of these beetles survived. To paraphrase science-fiction legend Harlan Ellison (who definitely would have come up with this experimental protocol if he'd lived long enough): they really don't want to open their mouths, and they must scream.


scientificamerican--2020-10-30--Lead Pollution Reflects Dramatic World Events

Ice cores from Greenland and the Russian Arctic show an ever changing amount of airborne lead pollution that has wafted @ @ @ @ @ and North America each year .
Lead levels tracked monumental events in human history , @ @ @ @ @ 1,000 B.C.
, the Roman Empire 's rise , terrible plagues and the industrial revolution @ @ @ @ @ 1800s , emissions came primarily from smelting silver-bearing lead .
For example , the Romans @ @ @ @ @ “ was released to the atmosphere as waste , ” says Joe McConnell of the @ @ @ @ @ , who led two studies of the data .
Burning coal and smelting for leaded @ @ @ @ @ 1940s through the 1970s boosted levels far beyond any in history , until regulations such @ @ @ @ @ Act cut emissions .
The COVID-19 pandemic may not leave much of a mark , @ @ @ @ @ deleaded .

Ice cores from Greenland and the Russian Arctic show an ever changing amount of airborne lead pollution that has wafted northward from Europe, Asia and North America each year. Lead levels tracked monumental events in human history, including Phoenicia's expansion in 1,000 B.C., the Roman Empire's rise, terrible plagues and the industrial revolution. From antiquity to the 1800s, emissions came primarily from smelting silver-bearing lead. For example, the Romans wanted silver, so lead “was released to the atmosphere as waste,” says Joe McConnell of the Desert Research Institute in Nevada, who led two studies of the data. Burning coal and smelting for leaded gasoline and paint from the 1940s through the 1970s boosted levels far beyond any in history, until regulations such as the U.S. Clean Air Act cut emissions. The COVID-19 pandemic may not leave much of a mark, because many economies are largely deleaded.


scientificamerican--2020-10-30--Seven Ways the Election Will Shape the Future of Science, Health and the Environment

When all the votes are cast and counted in this year ’ s momentous November 3 election , the results will have deep and potentially long-lasting impacts on numerous areas of society , including science .
President Donald Trump and his challenger , former vice president Joe Biden , have presented vastly different visions for handling crucial issues—ranging from the deadly coronavirus pandemic to the damaging impacts of climate change and immigration policies .
The election ’ s outcome—not just who wins the White House but who controls Congress—will determine what laws get passed , how budgets are allocated and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration ) will take .
The past four years have been marked by extensive deregulatory efforts that affect climate and public health .
The Trump administration has also taken various steps that could undercut access to health care .
And it has appointed industry officials to scientific advisory boards and made other moves that are likely to diminish the role and influence of scientific expertise .
This approach has shown up acutely in what many public health experts see as the disastrous handling of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in turn , undermined the reputation of storied agencies , including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention .
Here , Scientific American takes a look at how the election could shape a few key scientific issues , depending on who wins .
Will We Bend the Pandemic Curve ?
Undoubtedly the most immediate issue Biden or Trump will face as president is the COVID-19 pandemic , which has killed more than 227,000 people in the U.S. to date .
Trump and his administration have consistently downplayed the threat to the public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing shortages , flouted basic public health guidelines by holding large rallies and refusing to wear masks ( while mocking those who do ) , and even proved unable to contain outbreaks in the White House itself .
The administration has been accused of interfering with federal health agencies for political gain .
It has refused funding to the hardest-hit states and communities and , in concert with Republicans in the Senate , opposed pandemic relief bills that included extending the extra unemployment benefits of $ 1200 , thus letting them lapse .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ final testing stages , none are on track for approval before the election .
The president himself has repeatedly spread misinformation about COVID-19 , promoting ineffective and dangerous therapies and falsely calling the disease no worse than the flu .
He has , again and again , claimed the U.S. is “ turning the corner ” on the public health crisis , despite record-high numbers of cases and hospitalizations .
His own chief of staff recently admitted that “ we are not going to control the pandemic.
” Biden , by contrast , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to make testing more widely available and to guarantee that testing and treatment are free .
The plan would also continue supporting vaccine development and ensure states have adequate protective equipment and staffing .
Further , it would provide economic relief for workers and small businesses and paid emergency leave .
Biden has pledged to put scientists and public health experts front and center in daily pandemic briefings .
His plan additionally includes preparing the country for future pandemics by supporting research and developing robust disease-surveillance programs .
He has promised that on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. would rejoin the World Health Organization ( which the Trump administration pulled out of earlier this year ) .
He also aims to restore the White House ’ s National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense , which was established by then president Barack Obama in 2014—and disbanded by the Trump administration in 2018 .
Biden has stopped short of calling for a national mask mandate but has said he would require masks in all federal buildings and interstate transportation .
“ The biggest priority will be ending the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” says Angela Rasmussen , a virologist at Columbia University .
“ That ’ s going to be very challenging because of the loss of trust in health agencies like the CDC.
” Biden would need to reengage the public and rebuild that trust , and he should also invest heavily in research and pandemic preparedness and response , Rasmussen adds .
How Clean Will the Air Be ?
Despite Trump ’ s pledges to ensure the U.S. has clean air and water , his administration has undertaken significant environmental deregulations .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rules addressing greenhouse gases and other air pollutants .
The administration has repealed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan ( which set limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants ) and now allows states to set their own rules .
It has also weakened the fuel-efficiency standards for cars , permitting more tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases , and has loosened restrictions on toxic mercury emissions from oil- and coal-fired power plants .
A second Trump term would likely continue down the same path .
It could , however , face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ always followed clearly set procedures for rulemaking , which leaves some Trump-era changes open to being overturned by the courts .
“ This administration ’ s track record in court is pretty bad , ” notes Hillary Aidun , a fellow at Columbia ’ s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law .
The Trump administration ’ s existing rollbacks would add the equivalent of an estimated 1.8 billion metric tons of excess carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2035 , according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group , an independent research outlet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Environmental Protection Agency have shown that less stringent air pollution regulations can lead to thousands of premature deaths and cause or exacerbate lung illnesses .
Biden has been vocal about reversing Trump ’ s actions and strengthening regulations—as well as addressing the disproportionate harm pollution causes in Black , brown and low-income communities .
Some actions would be easier to undo than others .
It would be relatively simple to revoke or alter executive orders and guidance , such as the Trump administration ’ s directive not to use Obama-era estimates for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ can also issue his own executive orders , as he has pledged to do to set a target for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050 .
Rule changes completed within the past 60 legislative days could be overturned by the new Congress , though this is only likely to happen if Democrats win control of both chambers .
Some older regulations , such as the revisions to fuel-efficiency standards , would have to be altered through the laborious federal rulemaking process , which can take years .
( There is one exception to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rescind the withdrawal of California ’ s waiver to set its own more stringent regulations—which other states would then be free to adopt . )
Who Will Have Reliable and Affordable Health Care ?
Trump and congressional Republicans have repeatedly tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act , or ACA .
The law provides health insurance to more than 20 million Americans and protects up to 129 million people with preexisting conditions ( which could include COVID-19 ) .
Repeal efforts have thus far failed , and the Trump administration has not revealed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Instead Trump has issued a toothless executive order claiming he will protect insurance for those with preexisting conditions .
He has signed several other executive orders that he contends will reduce drug prices , but the details are murky , and the orders are far from being implemented .
Meanwhile , in a highly unusual and widely condemned move , his Republican party rammed through Amy Coney Barrett ’ s nomination to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg ’ s Supreme Court seat—just a week before the election .
In early November the court is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whether the entire ACA is unconstitutional because of its individual mandate to purchase health insurance .
The court ’ s six-to-three conservative majority could also threaten to overturn Roe v. Wade , the landmark 1973 ruling that guarantees the right to an abortion .
The Trump administration has already chipped away at women ’ s reproductive rights through a series of rules that threaten insurance coverage for abortions and contraception .
If reelected , he could roll these rights back even further .
Biden was part of the Obama administration , which created @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if he is elected , he will build on it rather than replace it .
His health plan would add a public option to the ACA , increase tax credits in order to lower premiums and provide coverage for Americans who would have become eligible for Medicaid if their state had not refused to expand it .
Biden ’ s plan aims to make health care more affordable by allowing the public option section to negotiate costs with providers and by repealing the exception that allows pharmaceutical companies to avoid negotiating with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ also work to shore up access to contraception and abortion by protecting Roe v. Wade , restoring funding to Planned Parenthood and rescinding the so-called Mexico City Policy that bars federal funding to global health organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning .
Biden also says he wants to reduce the unacceptably high maternal mortality rate among women of color and to guard the ACA ’ s health care protections , regardless of gender , gender identify or sexual orientation .
He supports paid leave for workers and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ violence .
But Biden ’ s ideas face some potential roadblocks .
“ One thing that ’ s really important to realize , [ with a six-to-three conservative majority in the Supreme Court and 200 confirmed judges nominated by Trump ] , is : anything Biden does is going to be immediately challenged , ” says Tim Jost , an emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law .
And of course , in order to pass any health care legislation , he would likely need a Democratic majority in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S.—and the World—Safe ?
In the high-stakes arena of nuclear weapons , the differences between the two candidates could not be clearer .
Biden has expressed support for existing arms-control agreements as a way to prevent nuclear proliferation—and annihilation .
In contrast , Trump has consistently sought to weaken U.S. participation in such agreements , arguing that unilateral freedom of action is better than accepting safety-boosting norms set by international partnerships .
This “ America First ” approach has led to numerous setbacks in nuclear nonproliferation during Trump ’ s first term , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018 .
More commonly known as the “ Iran deal , ” this 2015 agreement between Tehran and the member nations of the United Nations Security Council was meant to halt Iran ’ s nuclear-weapons program in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions—many of which the Trump administration has now reinstated .
Iran has responded in kind by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons .
Biden has stated he would seek for the U.S. to rejoin the deal .
Similarly , Trump has denounced the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. and Russia—the New START treaty enacted in 2010 , which aims to prevent a ruinous cold war–style arms race by limiting the sizes of both nations ’ nuclear arsenals .
The treaty expires in February , 15 days after the next presidential inauguration , but it includes a provision that it can be renewed for up to five years .
Trump had previously called for China to join the treaty ( which would be unlikely ) before the U.S. would renew , placing New START in limbo .
Russia and the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a short-term extension , but the treaty ’ s fate remains uncertain .
Biden has said his administration would renew it .
Despite his high-profile courting of North Korea ’ s authoritarian leader Kim Jong-un , Trump has failed to contain the rogue nuclear state ’ s ongoing development of warhead-carrying missiles that threaten the U.S. and its allies .
Biden , in contrast , has compared Kim to Hitler and vowed to take a tougher stance against his regime ’ s aggressive nuclear aspirations .
But even so , according to Jeffrey @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Middlebury Institute of International Studies , in the aftermath of Trump ’ s actions , “ it ’ s not clear that [ a Biden administration ] can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
” As for another four years of Trump ?
“ It ’ s probably back to the arms race and proliferation , ” Lewis says .
Who Will Be Allowed to Enter the Country ?
Trump has followed through on his campaign promise to restrict immigration , establishing a number of barriers to reduce the number of both authorized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has pledged not only to tear down Trump ’ s restrictions but also to reform the U.S. immigration system to encourage entry .
“ Currently , we are not taking advantage of America ’ s ability to attract the best and brightest workers in the world , ” reads a statement on his campaign Web site .
Evidence suggests that immigrants boost the economy in general—and they play a particularly significant role in academia and technology .
The president ’ s anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric are already impacting U.S. ’ s ability to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ new international students has fallen each year since 2016 , depriving colleges and universities of their tuition—and the tech sector of their abilities .
After graduation , many such people continue working here : for example , more than 80 percent of international students who earn doctorates in artificial intelligence at U.S. institutions remain in the country after graduation .
In fact , more than half of the nation ’ s AI workers were born abroad , and as China strives to overtake it in this field , the U.S. ’ s ability @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Artificial intelligence is only one example .
Any highly technical research field , such as quantum computing , relies on skilled workers with specialized knowledge , many of whom come from beyond U.S. borders .
This reliance is so important to both academia and technology companies that the Trump administration ’ s onerous new visa rules for skilled workers have drawn lawsuits from entities in both fields .
If Biden wins the election , his proposed immigrant-friendly policies could restore the U.S. ’ s reputation as an attractive destination for scientists from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remains in power , his administration will likely continue to restrict people born elsewhere from entering the country , driving many stars of artificial intelligence , quantum computing and other fields to take their valuable talents elsewhere .
Where Will We Go in Space ?
The next administration must decide whether to push on toward Trump ’ s goal of sending astronauts back to the moon by 2024 and then on to Mars in the 2030s under the Artemis program .
Budget uncertainties and technical challenges make the deadline for a moon landing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Earth ’ s satellite is transportation , and NASA is developing its Space Launch System ( SLS ) heavy-lift rocket for the mission .
It is also contracting with three commercial companies to develop vehicles to touch down on the moon ’ s surface and then launch astronauts back to lunar orbit for the return trip .
New presidential administrations have a history of changing space-exploration plans , with the inevitable result of delaying any eventual goal by forcing NASA to change gears .
Former president George W. Bush had instructed the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Constellation program , but his successor Obama cancelled Constellation and directed NASA to make a charge for an asteroid instead .
When Trump took office , the U.S. set its sights back on the moon—resulting in neither goal being achieved so far .
If Trump wins again , he will presumably continue on the current course .
Biden has not explicitly stated his space goals , but he might at least push back the Artemis time line , as suggested by a U.S. House bill introduced in January 2020 .
What Will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fate of more than a quarter of the nation ’ s land—and with it , a sizable chunk of its greenhouse gas emissions—is in the hands of the next president .
The federal government owns some 640 million acres of land in the U.S. , managing its use for purposes ranging from conservation to energy development .
Nearly 20 percent of the country ’ s emissions come from producing and using oil , gas and coal extracted from these public lands , which encompass ecologically important wilderness areas , as well as culturally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over how to balance preservation of the land with natural-resource development have always existed .
But against the backdrop of the unfolding climate crisis , the stakes are now higher than ever before .
Trump ’ s administration has made vast tracts of public land available for resource extraction .
It has opened up parts of Alaska ’ s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development—and now proposes to do the same with most of the nearby National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska .
The latter is the country ’ s largest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contains critical habitats for polar bears , caribou and other animals .
In September the administration released its plan to open more than half of Alaska ’ s Tongass National Forest—an intact temperate rain forest that stores about 8 percent of the carbon held in all the forests in the lower 48 states combined—to logging , which would release greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere .
In Utah , Trump has drastically downsized the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments , which contain hundreds of key fossil and archaeological sites .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ previously protected land open to uranium mining , oil and gas drilling , and road construction .
In New Mexico , his administration is looking to sell oil and gas leases in the area around Chaco Canyon , the sacred ancestral grounds of Navajo and Pueblo peoples .
Since taking office the Trump administration has offered millions of acres of public lands across the country for fossil-fuel-lease sales .
And in July it rewrote the National Environmental Policy Act ( NEPA ) —a foundational conservation law—to limit environmental review of , and public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ among other changes .
In his pursuit of his “ energy dominance ” agenda , Trump will continue to push for deregulation , exploration and fossil-fuel extraction on public land if he is reelected .
If Biden is elected , he has pledged to take executive action on day one that would include “ permanently protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other areas impacted by President Trump ’ s attack on federal lands and waters ” and “ banning new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters.
” Importantly , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people to lead the Department of the Interior and its subagencies , including the Bureau of Land management , which control most public land .
And he could , with the support of a Democratic Congress , undo Trump ’ s changes to NEPA .

When all the votes are cast and counted in this year’s momentous November 3 election, the results will have deep and potentially long-lasting impacts on numerous areas of society, including science. President Donald Trump and his challenger, former vice president Joe Biden, have presented vastly different visions for handling crucial issues—ranging from the deadly coronavirus pandemic to the damaging impacts of climate change and immigration policies.
The election’s outcome—not just who wins the White House but who controls Congress—will determine what laws get passed, how budgets are allocated and what direction key science-related agencies (such as NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) will take. The past four years have been marked by extensive deregulatory efforts that affect climate and public health. The Trump administration has also taken various steps that could undercut access to health care. And it has appointed industry officials to scientific advisory boards and made other moves that are likely to diminish the role and influence of scientific expertise. This approach has shown up acutely in what many public health experts see as the disastrous handling of the pandemic at the federal level—which has, in turn, undermined the reputation of storied agencies, including the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Here, Scientific American takes a look at how the election could shape a few key scientific issues, depending on who wins.
Will We Bend the Pandemic Curve?
Undoubtedly the most immediate issue Biden or Trump will face as president is the COVID-19 pandemic, which has killed more than 227,000 people in the U.S. to date. Trump and his administration have consistently downplayed the threat to the public. They have failed to address severe testing shortages, flouted basic public health guidelines by holding large rallies and refusing to wear masks (while mocking those who do), and even proved unable to contain outbreaks in the White House itself. The administration has been accused of interfering with federal health agencies for political gain. It has refused funding to the hardest-hit states and communities and, in concert with Republicans in the Senate, opposed pandemic relief bills that included extending the extra unemployment benefits of $600, thus letting them lapse.* Although several potential vaccines are in the final testing stages, none are on track for approval before the election. The president himself has repeatedly spread misinformation about COVID-19, promoting ineffective and dangerous therapies and falsely calling the disease no worse than the flu. He has, again and again, claimed the U.S. is “turning the corner” on the public health crisis, despite record-high numbers of cases and hospitalizations. His own chief of staff recently admitted that “we are not going to control the pandemic.”
Biden, by contrast, has put forth a detailed COVID-19 plan to make testing more widely available and to guarantee that testing and treatment are free. The plan would also continue supporting vaccine development and ensure states have adequate protective equipment and staffing. Further, it would provide economic relief for workers and small businesses and paid emergency leave. Biden has pledged to put scientists and public health experts front and center in daily pandemic briefings. His plan additionally includes preparing the country for future pandemics by supporting research and developing robust disease-surveillance programs. He has promised that on his first day in office, the U.S. would rejoin the World Health Organization (which the Trump administration pulled out of earlier this year). He also aims to restore the White House’s National Security Council Directorate for Global Health Security and Biodefense, which was established by then president Barack Obama in 2014—and disbanded by the Trump administration in 2018. Biden has stopped short of calling for a national mask mandate but has said he would require masks in all federal buildings and interstate transportation.
“The biggest priority will be ending the pandemic and continuing to shepherd vaccines,” says Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University. “That’s going to be very challenging because of the loss of trust in health agencies like the CDC.” Biden would need to reengage the public and rebuild that trust, and he should also invest heavily in research and pandemic preparedness and response, Rasmussen adds.
How Clean Will the Air Be?
Despite Trump’s pledges to ensure the U.S. has clean air and water, his administration has undertaken significant environmental deregulations. Some of the biggest changes have been to rules addressing greenhouse gases and other air pollutants. The administration has repealed the Obama-era Clean Power Plan (which set limits on carbon emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants) and now allows states to set their own rules. It has also weakened the fuel-efficiency standards for cars, permitting more tailpipe emissions of greenhouse gases, and has loosened restrictions on toxic mercury emissions from oil- and coal-fired power plants.
A second Trump term would likely continue down the same path. It could, however, face some legal challenges: agencies have not always followed clearly set procedures for rulemaking, which leaves some Trump-era changes open to being overturned by the courts. “This administration’s track record in court is pretty bad,” notes Hillary Aidun, a fellow at Columbia’s Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.
The Trump administration’s existing rollbacks would add the equivalent of an estimated 1.8 billion metric tons of excess carbon dioxide to the atmosphere by 2035, according to an analysis by the Rhodium Group, an independent research outlet. Analyses from both academic scientists and the Environmental Protection Agency have shown that less stringent air pollution regulations can lead to thousands of premature deaths and cause or exacerbate lung illnesses.
Biden has been vocal about reversing Trump’s actions and strengthening regulations—as well as addressing the disproportionate harm pollution causes in Black, brown and low-income communities. Some actions would be easier to undo than others. It would be relatively simple to revoke or alter executive orders and guidance, such as the Trump administration’s directive not to use Obama-era estimates for the social cost of carbon.
Biden can also issue his own executive orders, as he has pledged to do to set a target for reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. Rule changes completed within the past 60 legislative days could be overturned by the new Congress, though this is only likely to happen if Democrats win control of both chambers. Some older regulations, such as the revisions to fuel-efficiency standards, would have to be altered through the laborious federal rulemaking process, which can take years. (There is one exception to the fuel-standards rule: a Biden administration could rescind the withdrawal of California’s waiver to set its own more stringent regulations—which other states would then be free to adopt.)
Who Will Have Reliable and Affordable Health Care?
Trump and congressional Republicans have repeatedly tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, or ACA. The law provides health insurance to more than 20 million Americans and protects up to 129 million people with preexisting conditions (which could include COVID-19). Repeal efforts have thus far failed, and the Trump administration has not revealed a plan for replacing the coverage. Instead Trump has issued a toothless executive order claiming he will protect insurance for those with preexisting conditions. He has signed several other executive orders that he contends will reduce drug prices, but the details are murky, and the orders are far from being implemented. Meanwhile, in a highly unusual and widely condemned move, his Republican party rammed through Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to fill Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Supreme Court seat—just a week before the election. In early November the court is scheduled to hear a case to decide whether the entire ACA is unconstitutional because of its individual mandate to purchase health insurance. The court’s six-to-three conservative majority could also threaten to overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that guarantees the right to an abortion. The Trump administration has already chipped away at women’s reproductive rights through a series of rules that threaten insurance coverage for abortions and contraception. If reelected, he could roll these rights back even further.
Biden was part of the Obama administration, which created the ACA, and he has said that if he is elected, he will build on it rather than replace it. His health plan would add a public option to the ACA, increase tax credits in order to lower premiums and provide coverage for Americans who would have become eligible for Medicaid if their state had not refused to expand it. Biden’s plan aims to make health care more affordable by allowing the public option section to negotiate costs with providers and by repealing the exception that allows pharmaceutical companies to avoid negotiating with Medicare over drug prices. He would also work to shore up access to contraception and abortion by protecting Roe v. Wade, restoring funding to Planned Parenthood and rescinding the so-called Mexico City Policy that bars federal funding to global health organizations that perform or promote abortion as a method of family planning. Biden also says he wants to reduce the unacceptably high maternal mortality rate among women of color and to guard the ACA’s health care protections, regardless of gender, gender identify or sexual orientation. He supports paid leave for workers and has floated a plan to address gun violence.
But Biden’s ideas face some potential roadblocks. “One thing that’s really important to realize, [with a six-to-three conservative majority in the Supreme Court and 200 confirmed judges nominated by Trump], is: anything Biden does is going to be immediately challenged,” says Tim Jost, an emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law. And of course, in order to pass any health care legislation, he would likely need a Democratic majority in the Senate.
Who Will Keep the U.S.—and the World—Safe?
In the high-stakes arena of nuclear weapons, the differences between the two candidates could not be clearer. Biden has expressed support for existing arms-control agreements as a way to prevent nuclear proliferation—and annihilation. In contrast, Trump has consistently sought to weaken U.S. participation in such agreements, arguing that unilateral freedom of action is better than accepting safety-boosting norms set by international partnerships.
This “America First” approach has led to numerous setbacks in nuclear nonproliferation during Trump’s first term, most notably the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018. More commonly known as the “Iran deal,” this 2015 agreement between Tehran and the member nations of the United Nations Security Council was meant to halt Iran’s nuclear-weapons program in return for the lifting of crippling economic sanctions—many of which the Trump administration has now reinstated. Iran has responded in kind by continuing its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Biden has stated he would seek for the U.S. to rejoin the deal.
Similarly, Trump has denounced the only active nuclear arms agreement between the U.S. and Russia—the New START treaty enacted in 2010, which aims to prevent a ruinous cold war–style arms race by limiting the sizes of both nations’ nuclear arsenals. The treaty expires in February, 15 days after the next presidential inauguration, but it includes a provision that it can be renewed for up to five years. Trump had previously called for China to join the treaty (which would be unlikely) before the U.S. would renew, placing New START in limbo. Russia and the Trump administration now seem to be moving toward a short-term extension, but the treaty’s fate remains uncertain. Biden has said his administration would renew it.
Despite his high-profile courting of North Korea’s authoritarian leader Kim Jong-un, Trump has failed to contain the rogue nuclear state’s ongoing development of warhead-carrying missiles that threaten the U.S. and its allies. Biden, in contrast, has compared Kim to Hitler and vowed to take a tougher stance against his regime’s aggressive nuclear aspirations. But even so, according to Jeffrey Lewis, a nuclear-arms expert at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies, in the aftermath of Trump’s actions, “it’s not clear that [a Biden administration] can put Humpty Dumpty back together again.” As for another four years of Trump? “It’s probably back to the arms race and proliferation,” Lewis says.
Who Will Be Allowed to Enter the Country?
Trump has followed through on his campaign promise to restrict immigration, establishing a number of barriers to reduce the number of both authorized and unauthorized entrants to the U.S. Biden has pledged not only to tear down Trump’s restrictions but also to reform the U.S. immigration system to encourage entry. “Currently, we are not taking advantage of America’s ability to attract the best and brightest workers in the world,” reads a statement on his campaign Web site. Evidence suggests that immigrants boost the economy in general—and they play a particularly significant role in academia and technology.
The president’s anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric are already impacting U.S.’s ability to attract foreign-born talent. The number of new international students has fallen each year since 2016, depriving colleges and universities of their tuition—and the tech sector of their abilities. After graduation, many such people continue working here: for example, more than 80 percent of international students who earn doctorates in artificial intelligence at U.S. institutions remain in the country after graduation. In fact, more than half of the nation’s AI workers were born abroad, and as China strives to overtake it in this field, the U.S.’s ability to attract AI researchers will be vital. Artificial intelligence is only one example. Any highly technical research field, such as quantum computing, relies on skilled workers with specialized knowledge, many of whom come from beyond U.S. borders. This reliance is so important to both academia and technology companies that the Trump administration’s onerous new visa rules for skilled workers have drawn lawsuits from entities in both fields.
If Biden wins the election, his proposed immigrant-friendly policies could restore the U.S.’s reputation as an attractive destination for scientists from all over the world. If Trump remains in power, his administration will likely continue to restrict people born elsewhere from entering the country, driving many stars of artificial intelligence, quantum computing and other fields to take their valuable talents elsewhere.
Where Will We Go in Space?
The next administration must decide whether to push on toward Trump’s goal of sending astronauts back to the moon by 2024 and then on to Mars in the 2030s under the Artemis program. Budget uncertainties and technical challenges make the deadline for a moon landing tight. The main hurdle in returning to Earth’s satellite is transportation, and NASA is developing its Space Launch System (SLS) heavy-lift rocket for the mission. It is also contracting with three commercial companies to develop vehicles to touch down on the moon’s surface and then launch astronauts back to lunar orbit for the return trip.
New presidential administrations have a history of changing space-exploration plans, with the inevitable result of delaying any eventual goal by forcing NASA to change gears. Former president George W. Bush had instructed the agency to head for the moon under the Constellation program, but his successor Obama cancelled Constellation and directed NASA to make a charge for an asteroid instead. When Trump took office, the U.S. set its sights back on the moon—resulting in neither goal being achieved so far. If Trump wins again, he will presumably continue on the current course. Biden has not explicitly stated his space goals, but he might at least push back the Artemis time line, as suggested by a U.S. House bill introduced in January 2020.
What Will Happen to Our Shared Lands?
The fate of more than a quarter of the nation’s land—and with it, a sizable chunk of its greenhouse gas emissions—is in the hands of the next president. The federal government owns some 640 million acres of land in the U.S., managing its use for purposes ranging from conservation to energy development. Nearly 20 percent of the country’s emissions come from producing and using oil, gas and coal extracted from these public lands, which encompass ecologically important wilderness areas, as well as culturally and scientifically significant national monuments. Tensions over how to balance preservation of the land with natural-resource development have always existed. But against the backdrop of the unfolding climate crisis, the stakes are now higher than ever before.
Trump’s administration has made vast tracts of public land available for resource extraction. It has opened up parts of Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development—and now proposes to do the same with most of the nearby National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. The latter is the country’s largest single piece of public land; it contains critical habitats for polar bears, caribou and other animals. In September the administration released its plan to open more than half of Alaska’s Tongass National Forest—an intact temperate rain forest that stores about 8 percent of the carbon held in all the forests in the lower 48 states combined—to logging, which would release greenhouse gases back into the atmosphere.
In Utah, Trump has drastically downsized the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears national monuments, which contain hundreds of key fossil and archaeological sites. This change leaves nearly two million acres of previously protected land open to uranium mining, oil and gas drilling, and road construction. In New Mexico, his administration is looking to sell oil and gas leases in the area around Chaco Canyon, the sacred ancestral grounds of Navajo and Pueblo peoples. Since taking office, the Trump administration has offered millions of acres of public lands across the country for fossil-fuel-lease sales. And in July it rewrote the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)—a foundational conservation law—to limit environmental review of, and public input on, proposed infrastructure projects, among other changes. In his pursuit of his “energy dominance” agenda, Trump will continue to push for deregulation, exploration and fossil-fuel extraction on public land if he is reelected.
If Biden is elected, he has pledged to take executive action on day one that would include “permanently protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and other areas impacted by President Trump’s attack on federal lands and waters” and “banning new oil and gas leasing on public lands and waters.” Importantly, Biden would be able to nominate new people to lead the Department of the Interior and its subagencies, including the Bureau of Land management, which control most public land. And he could, with the support of a Democratic Congress, undo Trump’s changes to NEPA.
*Editor’s Note (10/30/20): This sentence was edited after posting to correct the figure for extra unemployment benefits.