Earthlings Through Alien Eyes: The Quirks, Quandaries, and Quibbles of Homo Sapiens
The ethereal morning light crests over an unassuming planet in the Milky Way galaxy, illuminating a peculiar and paradoxical scene. A non-human biologic — a visitor from the cosmos, lands on Earth. It doesn’t take long for this non-terrestrial observer to sunrise, an alien term for summarizing an assessment of a foreign entity, that the inhabitants of this planet are an enigmatic lot.
The first oddity? Large, boxy contraptions on wheels, emitting noxious fumes, threading across the landscape like metallic beetles. These ‘automobiles’, it transpires, are the Earthlings’ favorite mode of transit. The aliens’ bewildering discovery – these contraptions are powered by the long-deceased remains of prehistoric creatures. An odd choice for a species with access to an ongoing nuclear fusion reactor in the sky.
While deciphering the local customs, the aliens’ attention is drawn to the humans’ diet. With an array of potential sustenance on their planet, it’s curious that they show particular predilection towards devouring specific creatures: the bovine and the poultry. Meanwhile, a closer look reveals a division in the populace, with a fraction advocating for a diet devoid of fellow sentient beings, creating what can only be termed ‘food wars’.
Their planetary habits raise alien eyebrows too. Amid a growing chorus of concern over the degradation of their blue sphere, many Earthlings paradoxically resist the call for protective measures. Despite the stark warnings from their own scientific community, this existential tug-of-war continues. It seems these beings are not just survivalists, but passionate debaters, even when the debate might cost them their only home.
Even more puzzling is the human concept of ‘money’, an abstraction they’ve erected to facilitate exchange and hoard power. Our alien visitor marvels at the complexity of this system, and how it breeds both innovation and stark inequality, often polarizing their societies.
The complexities don’t stop at economics. The ‘government’, a ruling apparatus, retains information about sightings of ‘UAPs’ or unidentified aerial phenomena, potentially their own cosmic neighbors. Why would a civilization, just finding its feet in the cosmic arena, hide potential proofs of life beyond their sphere?
As the alien biologic prepares to leave, it ponders. Humans, despite their peculiarities and paradoxes, have an undeniable drive to survive and a capacity for great creativity and empathy. Perhaps, it muses, they’re not so different from other life forms in the vast cosmos.
Perhaps, amid the strange and nonsensical, these aliens might sunrise a beacon of hope – that Earthlings, with all their quirks and quibbles, have the potential for a future that’s as bright and promising as the dawn they’re named for. Perhaps the story of Earth is not yet written in the stars, and maybe, just maybe, the quirky inhabitants of this blue planet could yet surprise the cosmos.
Blue Sphere Balancing Act: The Paradox of Preservation
As the alien visitor observes, the Earthlings’ management of their planet raises quite a few extraterrestrial eyebrows. Amidst the concrete and metal of sprawling cities, patches of verdant wilderness still persist – a testament to the planet’s resilience. But closer scrutiny reveals a worrisome trend. Vast forests are disappearing, oceans are brimming with plastic waste, and invisible clouds of gases envelope the globe, heating it at an unprecedented rate.
The alien’s advanced sensors detect voices of concern, a burgeoning movement of Earthlings alarmed at these changes. These ‘environmentalists’ promote conservation, recycling, and a shift towards renewable energy sources, often sacrificing personal comfort for the greater good. Yet, intriguingly, there is resistance. There are Earthlings who, in the face of mounting evidence, dismiss these calls to action, clinging to ways that contribute to the degradation.
The existential debate on Earth seems reminiscent of the Cosmic Conundrum of Zog, where beings had to choose between harnessing the energy of their dying star or seeking a new cosmic home. Unlike the Zogians, however, the Earthlings are still arguing.
Monetary Mysteries: An Abstraction of Power and Division
As the observer further investigates Earthling civilization, it stumbles upon an even more puzzling phenomenon: the concept of ‘money’. While barter systems and resource exchanges are common throughout the cosmos, the abstraction and complexity of human currency are unique.
On Earth, pieces of paper, bits of metal, and even invisible digital codes are valued more than the resources they’re meant to represent. This ‘money’ is hoarded, fought over, and often decides an individual’s access to life necessities and luxuries. It seems an unnecessarily complicated system to the visitor, who comes from a civilization that long ago transitioned to a post-scarcity economy.
Yet, it’s not just the concept of money that’s puzzling, it’s the inequality it creates. Some Earthlings amass wealth far beyond their needs, constructing gigantic abodes and acquiring multiple terrestrial vehicles, while others struggle for basic sustenance. Even more intriguing, this system somehow also fuels innovation, driving the creation of everything from life-saving medical technologies to the very machines contributing to the planet’s degradation.
As the visitor gazes upon Earth, it cannot help but wonder if the humans, too, will transcend their self-imposed chains of inequality and environmental disregard, much like the Zogians did.
Rep. Tim Burchett (R-TN): “How do you know that these [UAPs] were not our aircraft?”
Former Navy fighter pilot Ryan Graves: “These objects were staying completely stationary in Category 4 hurricane winds. These same objects would then accelerate to supersonic speeds.” pic.twitter.com/qQiOEJAgL4
The pioneering spirit driving Elon Musk’s SpaceX to prepare for life on Mars is captivating, but a compelling alternative suggests we should use this same spirit to heal and nurture our home planet.
The sun, our local star, is central to this Earth-centric vision. According to NASA, Earth receives approximately 174 petawatts of incoming solar radiation in the upper atmosphere.
By efficiently harnessing just a fraction of this energy, we could significantly reduce our dependence on environmentally harmful fossil fuels.
Over the past decade, the cost of solar power has dramatically decreased and, with improvements in energy storage, (like Tesla’s Powerwall units, for example), solar energy is becoming a reliable, 24/7 power source.
Ephemeralization: Doing More with Less
However, the shift towards sustainable living extends beyond changing our energy source. This is where the principles of R. Buckminster Fuller, a visionary architect, systems theorist, author, designer, and inventor, come into play.
Fuller proposed the concept of “doing more with less,” forecasting a future where technological advancements lead to “ephemeralization,” a scenario in which we could fulfill everyone’s needs using fewer resources. This notion could help pave the way for a more environmentally sustainable world that also addresses issues of scarcity and inequality.
Building Efficiency: Embracing Integrative Design
Our journey towards a sustainable future is complemented by the principles of “integrative design,” a concept championed by Amory Lovins, co-founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute.
Lovins’ approach focuses on a holistic systems design where individual components work together in synergy, maximizing energy and resource efficiency.
This concept applies prominently to building efficiency, an area where Lovins has made significant contributions. By considering elements such as orientation, insulation, window placement, and ventilation, buildings can be designed to maintain comfortable temperatures with minimal active heating or cooling.
This “passive house” approach dramatically reduces energy consumption, making buildings part of the climate solution rather than a source of the problem.
Lovins’ approach also applies to manufacturing and industry, which, together, account for over 40% of total U.S. energy consumption.
By redesigning industrial processes to minimize waste, utilize waste heat, and prioritize energy-efficient equipment, Lovins argues that industries can dramatically reduce their energy use without sacrificing output or quality.
Taken to the furthest logical conclusion, the principles of integrative design could revolutionize how we conceive of energy use across all sectors.
Circular Economy and Soil Regeneration: Emulating Nature’s Cycle
To create a genuinely sustainable society, we need to redefine our economic systems and our relationship with the land. Our shift must be from a linear economic model—where we extract, use, and discard resources—to a circular one that mimics nature’s endless cycles of growth, decay, and renewal.
The Ellen MacArthur Foundation has been instrumental in leading efforts to establish an economy that is restorative and regenerative by design.
A key part of this shift involves regenerating our agricultural systems. Soil health is vital for maintaining biodiversity, water quality, and carbon sequestration.
Regenerative agriculture, including practices like cover cropping, no-till farming, and composting, can restore soil health and enhance its capacity to absorb carbon from the atmosphere.
According to the Rodale Institute, if current farmlands globally shifted to regenerative organic practices, it could sequester more than 100% of current annual CO2 emissions. Transitioning towards such practices could significantly mitigate climate change and rejuvenate our food systems.
Economic Justice: Power to All
An Earth-centric future also calls for economic justice. In a world powered by the sun, where resources are used wisely, waste is minimized, and the soil is restored, basic needs—such as healthcare, education, and equal opportunity—could be universally provided.
Establishing these rights is not just about altruism—it’s about creating a society where every individual can fully contribute to the collective good.
Mars Can Wait, But Can Earth?
The dream of a city on Mars is undoubtedly inspiring, but we must not overlook the opportunities beneath our feet. Our planet is not merely a stepping stone to the stars; it is a star in its own right.
Mars can wait, but can the Earth? With the elements for a sustainable revolution already within our grasp, it’s up to us to weave them together, creating a future that embraces both sustainability and economic justice.
The Long Road to an Earthly Future
The real odyssey, the true journey that demands our audacity and pioneering spirit, lies not in the red sands of a distant planet or under the shadows of unfamiliar stars. Instead, it unravels here, beneath the azure sky and upon the rich, verdant expanses of our home, Earth.
This journey may be long and fraught with challenges. The road toward a sustainable, just, and abundant future will require us to reassess our values, reinvent our systems, and redefine our relationship with the environment.
It calls for us to weave together principles of ephemeralization, integrative design, circular economy, soil regeneration, and economic justice into the fabric of our societies.
Yet, even as we embark on this formidable quest, we should remember that the destination is not merely a point in the future. It is a process, a continuous evolution that offers us countless opportunities for growth, learning, and reinvention.
Every step we take towards this envisioned future—whether it’s a solar panel installed, a passive house built, or a plot of land regenerated—brings us closer to realizing our potential as a species.
Unlike the cold, alien landscapes of Mars, the Earth provides us with a setting that is intimately familiar yet brimming with untapped potential.
We have the knowledge, the technology, and the means. All we need now is the collective will to channel our exploratory spirit inward, to heal, nurture, and transform the world we already have.
So let the red planet wait. For now, we have an extraordinary world under our feet, a world that we are yet to fully comprehend and appreciate.
Our gaze should not be fixed on distant celestial bodies, but on the potential lying dormant in our societies and within ourselves. The future of humanity is not just out there in the cosmos, but also right here, on the third rock from the Sun. The Earth and its promise of a sustainable and equitable future, is real, and attainable.
Energy efficiency is sending a love letter to your amygdala
If you take a Tesla on a test drive at the HQ located next to SpaceX in Hawthorne, CA you’ll find yourself behind the wheel and, once you are strapped in, your official co-pilot will suggest one thing immediately. “Try pushing the pedal to metal, once, if you want to feel the g-force”, he or she will say.
When you do as suggested, you’ll be shocked at the torque and sudden acceleration, as you slam back against the head-rest and your face turns nearly liquid. That’s how the limbic system and the human need for sensual gratification becomes enamored with something “boring” like an EV.
It’s an example of how Tesla and Elon Musk transformed the auto trade, and brought the term “limbic resonance marketing” into the lexicon of contemporary speech.
While this all sounds thrilling and harmless, this kind of magical behavioral manipulation is missing, and desperately needed, for the next most important area in the transition to a sustainable economy: built-world upgrades and energy efficient retrofits (EE Retrofits for short).
The built environment, a sector that contributes approximately 40% of global carbon emissions, is one area where urgent action can have a dramatic impact. Specifically, the EE retrofitting of existing buildings and homes represents a remarkable opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Our collective preoccupation with the immediate, the easily marketable, and the visibly green overlooks a profound truth: energy efficiency is more than just about using less energy—it’s about achieving the same level of comfort, productivity, stimulation and even joy, with less. At scale it could mean a new energy economy, one that prioritizes living benefits, not just the ability to burn and combust fossilized plant matter as a path to living large.
Think of the energy system as a gourmet meal. The LED lights, the low-flow shower-heads, the energy-efficient heating and cooling appliances—they’re the condiments. They add flavor, they’re necessary, but they’re not the main course.
The main course is the EE retrofit—an ambitious reimagining of our existing buildings that holistically incorporates energy-saving measures, such as those that meet the passive house standard, including insulation, air sealing, HVAC upgrades, and high-performance windows. This means we could be needing fewer heat pumps, less energy production, fewer solar PV panels, a transition less dependent on grid expansion or upgrades.
The added spice to this gourmet meal, the pièce de résistance if you will, is a stunning architectural integration that enhances the building’s value beyond its pre-retrofit counterpart. This is where long-term thinking and smart design meet, offering not only reduced energy consumption, but a high-performing, aesthetically pleasing living or working environment.
Deep value and abundance by design
It’s important to note that this isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution—each building has its own unique challenges and opportunities. What’s necessary is a model that allows for that flexibility while still pushing for the highest efficiency.
An integrative design process that involves owners, architects, engineers, contractors, and building operators from the earliest stages can ensure that energy efficiency measures are built into the very fabric of the design, rather than tacked on as an afterthought.
We can no longer afford to take the path of least resistance. The climate crisis demands ambitious, long-term solutions. Retrofitting our existing buildings, first, to be more energy efficient is a significant step in that direction. We just need to make sure we’re aiming for the main course, and not settling for the condiments.
How can an energy realignment excite and stimulate?
In a world enthralled by the allure of the ‘next big thing,’ it’s easy to get lost in the narrative that technology alone will guide us through the current environmental crisis.
There’s an understandable, if somewhat misguided, emphasis on the simple mass production and consumption of green tech—solar panels, heat pump HVAC units, and electric cars. It’s a straight line thesis that is the stuff of future-world dreams, the kind that Silicon Valley venture capitalists find irresistibly compelling.
Public subsidies and venture capital investments, unfortunately, often narrowly follow this line of thinking, pouring billions into the manufacturing and implementation of these technologies.
Governments around the globe are eager to foster the expansion of these industries, both as a means of curbing carbon emissions and as a strategy for economic growth. But what if this focus on producing ‘green’ technology is diverting resources from a solution that could be even more impactful—increasing the energy efficiency of existing buildings?
There is an inconvenient truth in the realm of energy efficiency. The greatest potential for reducing our energy use and mitigating greenhouse gas emissions is not in the new gizmos we can attach to our homes, but in transforming the energy performance of the buildings themselves. As the saying goes, the greenest building is the one that’s already built.
The enemy of the good is not perfection: it’s a solution that solves nearly nothing
Ironically, many government subsidies are skewed towards upgrades to mechanical and electrical systems, but neglect to cover improvements in energy efficiency.
The result is that while buildings may be equipped with the latest in green technology, they remain fundamentally inefficient, their new solar panels and heat pumps mere band-aids masking the core issues.
Imagine pouring water into a leaky bucket—the more water you pour in, the more it continues to leak out. You can keep pouring faster and faster, or you can fix the leaks. The latter is undoubtedly more effective, and yet, our current approach to energy efficiency often looks like the former.
The remedy lies in comprehensive energy retrofits. Rather than attaching green tech appendages to inefficient structures, we should focus first on overhauling the buildings themselves, making them more efficient and reducing the energy demand.
A highly insulated and airtight building, for instance, such as one upgraded to passive house standards, requires fewer solar PV panels and smaller, less energy-intensive HVAC systems.
These upgrades are often seen to have higher upfront costs, which, when compared to doing nothing is a subjective assessment. But the long-term benefits of EE retrofits— in terms of energy savings, reduced greenhouse gas emissions, and improved indoor environmental quality— are enormous.
And if we redirected even a fraction of the funds currently being funneled into green tech appliances towards deep energy retrofits, as a first step, we could begin to tackle this issue on a significant scale.
The path forward requires a paradigm shift, one that repositions energy efficiency buildings as the cornerstone of our response to the climate crisis.
We need to realign our funding mechanisms, from venture capital to public subsidies, to prioritize energy efficiency.
In the end, the greenest future might not be the one filled with the shiniest new technology, but the one in which we learned to use less, waste less, and value our existing resources more. It’s a future that’s within our grasp—if we choose to reach for it.
The first step, just as takes place on a Tesla test drive, is to push the pedal hard and find ways to demonstrate the sensual gratification and technical superiority of an indoor world that is designed for a better, more exciting future.
For the past 150 years, the world’s dependence on oil has been all-encompassing, shaping nearly every aspect of modern life. Beyond energy production, oil has become an integral component in the manufacturing of products and the foundation of virtually all economic activity.
This heavy reliance on fossil fuels has led to the development of an intricate network deeply rooted in oil-based resources. In the past, a gradual transition away from fossil fuels might have been possible as the supply dwindled, but instead, the emergence of global warming now necessitates a rapid shift towards sustainable alternatives.
As the consequences of climate change become more apparent, societies must adapt and learn to live without the resource that has been at the heart of human civilization for generations. The challenge lies in navigating this critical transition and embracing renewable and environmentally-friendly practices to ensure a sustainable and resilient future for the planet.
It is important to recognize that fossil fuel energy has permeated numerous aspects of our daily lives and industries, making the transition to sustainable energy sources an intricate and multifaceted challenge. As we seek to address the impacts of global warming and move towards a more sustainable future, reducing our dependence on fossil fuels becomes essential in mitigating climate change and preserving the environment. In other words, building a completely new reality and new way of life in order that we might survive, and one day, create a far better world than fossil fuels could ever provide.
In a world where the rhythm of life has been entwined with the dance of fossil fuels, the idea of letting go feels like severing ties with an old friend, perhaps dirty and imperfect, but a friend who has always been there, reliable and ever-present. From the moment we awaken to the day’s first light to the glow of city skylines under night’s dark cloak, fossil fuels have shaped our existence like the strokes of a painter’s brush on a canvas.
The list, below, provides a glimpse into the extensive reliance on oil and fossil fuels across diverse industries and products. As we confront the challenges posed by global warming, transitioning to renewable and sustainable alternatives becomes an urgent imperative to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and protect the environment.
Detailed List of Products and Uses for Oil and Fossil Fuels:
Transportation:
Gasoline: Used as fuel for cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles, and small engines.
Diesel fuel: Utilized in heavy-duty trucks, buses, and some cars.
Aviation fuel: Jet fuel for airplanes.
Marine fuel: Fuel for ships and boats.
Lubricants: Used in engines, machinery, and various moving parts.
Energy Production:
Natural gas: Used for electricity generation, heating, and cooking.
Crude oil: Processed in refineries to produce gasoline, diesel, and other fuels.
Manufacturing and Industry:
Petrochemicals: Serve as feedstock for manufacturing a wide range of products.
Chemical feedstocks: Used in the production of plastics, pharmaceuticals, and synthetic rubber.
Plastics and Polymers: Used in various applications like packaging, construction materials, and electronics.
Plastics and Polymers:
Packaging materials: Plastic bags, bottles, containers, and shrink wraps.
Construction materials: PVC pipes, vinyl siding, and insulation materials.
Synthetic fibers: Polyester, nylon, and acrylic used in clothing and textiles.
Electronics: Plastic components and casings for electronic devices.
Agriculture:
Fertilizers: Made from natural gas or petroleum, used to enhance crop yields.
Pesticides and herbicides: Often derived from petroleum, used to protect crops from pests and weeds.
Medical and Healthcare:
Pharmaceuticals: Many medicines and medical supplies are derived from petrochemicals.
Medical equipment: Some medical devices are made with petroleum-based materials.
Electronics:
Production of components and devices such as computers, smartphones, and televisions relies on petrochemicals.
Construction:
Paints and coatings: Many paints and coatings contain petroleum-based ingredients.
Insulation materials: Some insulation products are made from petrochemicals.
Textiles and Clothing:
Synthetic fibers: Polyester, nylon, and acrylic fibers are made from petrochemicals.
Household Products:
Cleaning products: Some household cleaners contain petrochemicals.
Personal care products: Shampoo, conditioner, lotions, and cosmetics often have petroleum-derived ingredients.
Adhesives and Sealants:
Petroleum-based adhesives and sealants are used in various industries and construction.
Sports Equipment:
Many sports equipment, such as balls, synthetic tracks, and gear, contain petrochemical-based materials.
Aviation and Aerospace:
Jet fuel for aircraft propulsion.
Roads and Infrastructure:
Asphalt and bitumen for road construction and maintenance.
Rubber and Tires:
Tires and rubber products are often made with petrochemical-based materials.
Toiletries and Cosmetics:
Some toiletries and cosmetics contain petroleum-based ingredients.
Paints and Coatings:
Many paints and coatings use petrochemical-based compounds.
Packaging:
Plastic packaging materials for various products.
Printing:
Inks and printing materials often contain petroleum-based components.
Space Exploration:
Rocket fuel for space missions.
Alternative Energy Production:
Natural gas used in combined-cycle power plants for electricity generation.
Heating and Cooling Systems:
Natural gas for residential and commercial heating systems.
Water and Wastewater Treatment:
Petrochemicals used in various treatment processes.
Firefighting Equipment:
Foam used in firefighting is often petroleum-based.
Chemical Industry:
Petrochemicals serve as raw materials for producing various chemicals.
This comprehensive list highlights the extensive range of products and applications that rely on oil and fossil fuels. The widespread use of fossil fuels underscores the significant challenge posed by global warming, necessitating the urgent transition to renewable and sustainable alternatives to protect the environment and ensure a more sustainable future.
There are many other things not included in the list that are useful or necessary in our modern world and require fossil fuel energy in some way to exist. Fossil fuels are deeply integrated into various aspects of our lives and industries. Some examples of additional items or activities that rely on fossil fuel energy include:
Electrical Appliances: Many electrical appliances we use daily, such as refrigerators, washing machines, and dishwashers, indirectly rely on fossil fuels for electricity generation.
Electronics Manufacturing: The production of electronic devices, including smartphones, laptops, and tablets, involves processes that often use fossil fuel-derived energy.
Transportation Infrastructure: The construction and maintenance of roads, highways, and transportation infrastructure often rely on equipment powered by fossil fuels.
Public Transportation: Many buses, trains, and other forms of public transportation run on fossil fuels like diesel or natural gas.
Shipping and Freight: The shipping industry heavily relies on fossil fuel-powered vessels to transport goods worldwide.
Air Conditioning and Heating: Heating and cooling systems in homes and commercial buildings often use natural gas or oil.
Industrial Machinery: Various industrial processes, such as manufacturing, mining, and construction, rely on machines powered by fossil fuels.
Food Production and Distribution: Agricultural machinery, transportation of food products, and refrigeration in the food supply chain are dependent on fossil fuels.
Emergency Services: Firefighting equipment and emergency response vehicles use fossil fuels.
Aviation Industry: Apart from jet fuel for airplanes, the aviation industry relies on fossil fuel-derived materials for aircraft construction.
Construction Materials: Some building materials, such as plastics used in pipes and wiring, are derived from petrochemicals.
Medical Devices: Certain medical devices, such as those used in imaging and diagnostics, may rely on fossil fuel-derived materials in their manufacturing processes.
Water Desalination: Some water desalination plants use fossil fuel energy to power the process of converting seawater into freshwater.
Chemical Industry: Petrochemicals serve as feedstock for various chemical processes, producing a wide range of products beyond those included in the previous list.
We’ve woven a tapestry of progress, innovation, and convenience with threads of oil and coal. It has been a story of miracles and wonders, from the roaring engines of cars that whisk us away to distant lands to the plastics that mold our lives in convenience. The very structures of our homes and roads bear the mark of the fossil age, solid and dependable.
But the winds of change now howl with an urgency that cannot be ignored. Our old friend, fossil fuel, whispers tales of warmth and familiarity, but behind its gentle voice lies the echo of a world in peril. The Earth cries out, her ecosystems challenged by the burden of carbon emissions. The once predictable seasons now waltz in erratic patterns, leaving farmers with uncertainty and storms raging with newfound fury.
We stand at the crossroads, hearts heavy with the weight of what was, and the uncertainty of what could be. To imagine a life without the cradle of fossil fuels seems akin to losing a part of ourselves, a connection so deeply ingrained that it feels like severing a limb. Fear of the unknown clutches at our hearts, as we grapple with the idea of stepping into a future that lies beyond the horizon of what we’ve always known.
Yet, amidst this tempest of emotions, a spark of hope flickers. Within this pivotal moment, we find a glimmer of unity and determination. The time to adapt, to learn, to forge a path towards a sustainable tomorrow has come. It may be a journey into uncharted territory, but the human spirit has a remarkable capacity to rise, to evolve, to create beauty from the ashes of the past.
As we contemplate a world where reliance on fossil fuels is but a distant memory, let us embrace this emotional challenge with courage and compassion. Let us cherish the lessons of our past and harness the power of collective endeavor to write a new narrative – one that dances in harmony with the rhythms of nature, and leaves a legacy of resilience and hope for generations yet to come. For it is in the face of uncertainty that the human spirit shines brightest, embracing change with open arms, and creating a future that echoes with the heartbeat of our shared humanity.
Seemingly endless atmospheric river systems reduce drought conditions and could have other benefits
The West Coast is not a fan of extreme rain events, such as the recent atmospheric river conditions, that are so rare in the region. Floods, snarl ups on the freeways, potential landslides, and conditions that can lead to wildfires later in the year, are all unwelcome repercussions.
Fortunately, along with the mainly negative fallout, there’s also a silver lining of sorts, lurking beneath.
Although the extreme drought conditions have only been partially mitigated, less extreme conditions are far better to have than ever worsening ones.
A silver lining without an obvious caveat is the potential for a Superbloom, that could happen again this Spring, mainly in the desert areas of Southern California.
A Superbloom is a term used to describe a rare and beautiful occurrence in which various wildflowers bloom simultaneously in one location. These occurrences are frequently brought on by a number of elements, such as a lot of rain, warm weather, and the presence of specific plant species.
Awe-inspiring superblooms blanket hillsides and fields in a dazzling variety of hues and patterns. They contribute significantly to the ecosystem by giving a range of animals and insects food and a place to live.
Scientifically, superblooms provide an opportunity for researchers to study the factors that contribute to their formation and the effects they have on the ecosystem.
For example, the recent superbloom in California in 2019 was triggered by a combination of heavy rainfall and mild temperatures, leading to a proliferation of wildflowers in the state’s grasslands and chaparral regions.
Scientists can use this information to better understand the conditions that are required for superblooms to occur and impacts they have on the environment. This can be useful for predicting future superblooms as well as for conserving and protecting natural habitats.
Early in the 20th century, California had the first superbloom, which was characterized by a profusion of wildflowers in the state’s green and desert areas as a result of several wet winters and mild springs.
Since then, superblooms have seemingly become a regular occurrence in California, with the most recent one occurring in 2019.
However, superblooms are not exclusive to California. They have also been observed in other parts of the United States, including Nevada, Arizona, and Texas, as well as in countries such as Australia, South Africa, and Israel.
While superblooms are a natural and beautiful phenomenon, they can also sometimes be a source of conflict. In recent years, the popularity of superblooms has led to an increase in tourism to the areas where they occur, causing overcrowding and damage to the environment.
To address these issues, some local governments have implemented measures to manage the large influx of visitors, such as limiting the number of people allowed to roam in certain areas or establishing designated viewing areas.
In addition to their potential for environmental and tourism impacts, Superblooms also have cultural significance.
For indigenous communities, Superblooms can have spiritual significance. In some cases, wildflowers are used in traditional medicine and rituals, and the presence of a Superbloom may be seen as a sign of good fortune or a blessing.
For example, the Native American Kumeyaay tribe in California the arrival of a Superbloom may be seen as a time of renewal and celebration.
Even with the potential for various issues and controversies, a Superbloom for the Spring of 2023 would be a welcome silver lining to help us all by propagating beauty, even as the outcome of stormy weather.
Over the years there has been some measure of mutual admiration between Elon Musk and Greta Thunberg. More recently, however, Musk’s shift to the right has put them at odds, clearly.
Also, Greta has not hesitated to criticize the “Techno King” when she thought he was off-base regarding the climate and his actions and statements regarding his support for an accelerated transition to sustainable energy.
After Greta Thunberg’s tweet (and a monumental follow up) became one of the most popular tweets in history (278M views and 3.8M likes, as of this writing), it seems that fame was just too strong of an aphrodisiac for Elon Musk to resist.
Hence the return to her bandwagon:
The sheer amount of brand awareness achieved by Greta within a few years is astounding. I think she’s cool tbh.
Though both are climate positive, there have been disagreements
Elon Musk and Greta Thunberg have had a number of interactions in the media over the past few years. These interactions have ranged from supportive tweets and praise to public disagreements and criticism.
The tweet heard round the globe:
yes, please do enlighten me. email me at smalldickenergy@getalife.com https://t.co/V8geeVvEvg
One of the first interactions between Musk and Thunberg occurred in 2019, when Musk tweeted his support for Thunberg’s efforts to raise awareness about climate change. In the tweet, Musk wrote: “Greta, you are a hero. Keep going. You are doing a great job.” Thunberg later responded to the tweet, thanking Musk for his support.
In 2020, Musk and Thunberg had a more public interaction when Thunberg criticized Musk’s plans to build a tunnel to alleviate traffic congestion in Los Angeles. Thunberg tweeted that the tunnel was “not the solution” to the problem of climate change and that “we must focus on the real solutions and not let ourselves be sidetracked by shiny distractions.”
Musk responded to the tweet, saying that the tunnel would “help with traffic & create jobs” and that “sustainability must be at the forefront of all decisions.”
Later that year, Thunberg criticized Musk again when he announced that Tesla would be selling carbon credits to other companies as a way to offset their carbon emissions. Thunberg tweeted that the sale of carbon credits was “not a solution” and that it was “a way for companies to avoid cutting their own emissions.”
Musk responded to the tweet, saying that the sale of carbon credits was “better than nothing” and that it was “a first step towards a greener future.”
In 2021, Musk and Thunberg had another public disagreement when Musk tweeted that “the last thing the world needs is a new type of gasoline” in response to Thunberg’s call for a ban on fossil fuels.
Thunberg responded to the tweet, saying that “the last thing the world needs is a Tesla owner who ignores the fact that burning fossil fuels is the main driver of the climate crisis and continues to spread misinformation about renewable energy.”
Despite these disagreements, Musk and Thunberg have also found common ground on some issues. For example, both have expressed support for renewable energy as a way to combat climate change. In 2019, Musk tweeted that “solar and storage are a critical part of the solution” to the climate crisis, and Thunberg has frequently called for a transition to renewable energy as a way to reduce carbon emissions.
Overall, the interactions between Musk and Thunberg in the media have been complex and varied. While they have had public disagreements on some issues, they have also found common ground on others and have expressed support for each other’s efforts to raise awareness about climate change.
Some of the most effective climate tech is proven and ready to roll
George Monbiot, columnist for The Guardian, released an article with the eye-catching title “Embrace what may be the most important green technology ever. It could save us all”. The article goes into some interesting detail regarding precision fermentation as a way to grow staple foods. He goes on to point out that, by switching from animal or even soy protein as our worldwide source, we could increase efficiency by a factor of 17,000 (Soy) of 138,000 (Beef).
And, he goes on, in the process this would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and water use by significant amounts. The detail is well presented and, if true, does add up to a world changing, planet saving formula, or at least a major step toward rescue.
The problem? In a nutshell this idea, even if rock solid in the data, would require the entire world to not only change the production methods for food (protein) but we would have to banish centuries of eating customs and traditions.
Ultimately if we are to be saved by this solution, it would only happen when no other food is available. Not a pleasant thought.
Reading between the lines the piece underscores a real and important issue, that finding a planet saving solution for global warming is one thing, finding a way to achieve mass adoption is another.
The Tesla Example
Tesla self driving sensors map photo: Tesla
EVs are the most obvious example of a technology, around since before the fossil fuel industry became dominant, that has finally reached a tipping point of eventual total adoption vs. internal combustion engine cars.
The transition, though perhaps inevitable, happend sooner, most would agree, because of Tesla and Elon Musk. And the difference was in the transformation of the concept and image from one of giving up pleasure for the good of the planet to “Have fun going 0 to 60 in 3.1 seconds while you save the planet”.
This formula, don’t sell the problem, sell the beauty, power and pleasure of the solution, is probably going to be the most important factor in deciding if the planet, and humanity, will survive.
Why make such a drastic claim? Because there are more solutions that are ready to be scaled up in a massive push worldwide, without any unproven or yet to be invented technology involved, if only the demand can be boosted with desire and excitement, not fear.
While precision fermentation might be too difficult to market at scale, there are other sectors ripe for positive disruption and change, that could save us all.
Unfortunately, not everything is as endorphin inducing as pounding the pedal to the metal in a Model S Plaid edition. Some things, like superior design, are only exciting when the results are felt over time.
The important thing is to make sure that attention is paid, not just to the climate benefits, but to the superior aesthetics and owner experience made possible by the new thing.
New built communities using hyper-efficient design and sustainable energy
Design technology that can reduce the energy required to heat and cool homes and buildings by up to 90% is available right now and proven. This method, combined with sustainable energy systems, including grid interactive generation and storage, could ultimately remove nearly 40% of worldwide emissions that can be traced back to to construction and buildings.
Not only would the new infrastructure in towns and cities eliminate greenhouse gas emissions but a host of other benefits for health, such as indoor air quality, would be automatically improved.
Further, climate adaptation, the ability to continue to live in maximum comfort even when the outdoor temperatures are at high or low extremes, would be built-in.
As if this is not enough, at scale, with some propagated construction and manufacturing intelligence added, the cost for all of this? Less than zero, in other words, the same or less than the current costs for obscenely inefficient “business as usual” homes and buildings.
So why is this not already a new standard, even mandatory?
For much the same reason it took more than a century for Tesla to come along and change the car industry. The challenge is to change the perception of the product. To build a focus on the beauty, power and excitement of a real life solution that does not trade fun and abundance for austerity and “do it because it’s right”.
There has to be so much momentum toward such an obviously superior concept that the public, the people that will live work and play in the structures, will demand nothing less.
This quote lays out one of the challenges, support and funding for efficiency, in a nutshell
“In our house we save 97% of the pumping energy by properly laying out some pipes. Well, if everyone in the world did that to their pipes and ducts, you would save about a fifth of the world’s electricity, or half the coal-fired electricity. And you get your money back instantly in new-build or in under a year typically in retrofits in buildings and industry. And yet, this sort of energy efficiency is not taught, and it’s certainly not in any government study or climate model. Why not? Because it’s not a technology. It’s a bloody design,”
Amory Lovins, cofounder (1982) and chairman emeritus of RMI, integrative designer of super-efficient buildings, factories, and vehicles
The challenges are layered but can be overcome
Tesla was subsidized, to the tune of $2.48 billion for ZEV credits alone, and more than $.3.2 billion in total from the State of California, but bear in mind that this is just one state, the total is far higher if all of the US is included.
The accomplishment, changing the perception of the EV and, ultimately, causing a worldwide shift toward sustainable transport to be accelerated, is no less remarkable, subsidies or not.
The point should be, that another mature design and technology, the hyper-efficient design system for homes and buildings as described above, needs both the genius marketing push and the financial support, both public and private that Tesla had.
It’s important to note, that Tesla did not invent the electric car. As a matter of fact, they were more than 100 years late to the party. Without Elon Musk as an early investor (with his own funds) the entire story might never have happened.
All of this just underscores the magnitude of the challenge. The perception of solutions like hyper-efficient building design as optional or unnecessary must be destroyed in favor of a focus on the excitement of a better built world and a more affordable magnificence and beauty, within reach now and will exist for all future generations.
If you are reading this and you get it – reach out, shout out, respond in every way you are able to help the world begin the march toward a positive change that is possible, and fun.
In the US and some other nations, bread and wheat products have been cast in the role of villain due to gluten intolerance and related illnesses. In the UK alone, in 2017, there were a reported 10% of the population suffering from some form of intolerance. Such a percentage would translate into tens of millions in the US.
Photo / Adobe Stock
Is bread really the culprit or is there something else going on?
As a disclaimer, let it be stated up-front that there are certainly many people who suffer from conditions such as Celiac Disease who have a very real, hereditary response to gluten which is very serious. Many of the rest of us, however, who are not in that category, may have a situation brought on by a completely different set of circumstances.
Regardless of exact statistics, intolerance to gluten is clearly a “thing”, particularly in the US. Many theories are out there as to the cause, including industrial bread manufacturing methods, suspect ingredients such as emulsifiers used in baking and pesticides on wheat farms. Some have even reported that when intolerant individuals travel to Europe, symptoms disappear, although they eat bread and other gluten containing foods.
An entirely different culture producing a drastically different result: German baking tradition
While American Style bread is also available in Germany, it is rare and not commonly sold in Bakeries but rather only in SuperMarkets. They call it “Toast-Bread” as it’s primary advantage is being square and machine cut, therefore a better fit for a common toaster than the various shapes and sizes of slices cut from what they consider “normal” loaves.
What is considered normal bread is, for example, never sold more than eight hours after baking (except at “day old” scavenger prices). The number of real bakeries, ones that take very seriously the task of making “the daily bread”, per capita is large compared to any US city. This can be dug up in statistics, but is easier to realize by just walking down any street in a German city. Literally every other shop is a small bakery with a dozen different types of bread baked that same morning.
Another factor is the wide range of fresh ingredients included. A short list of the types of bread and various ingredients is vast, and varies from region to region. Six hundred main bread types are well known and this does not include many specialty breads and rolls.
In addition to wheat, bread is often made with rye, barley, potato, oat, spelt, soy and other lesser known grains. Added seeds, nuts and fruit often include one or more of the following (partial list):
sunflower seeds
pumpkin seeds
poppy seeds
fled seeds
walnuts
raisins
currants
sesame seeds
olives
linseed
hazelnuts
almonds
oat flakes
whole gain groats
whey
In Germany, at any common bakery on the street, most, if not all of the items described above would be available on any given day. No need to go to a special, overpriced “organic” or “gourmet” bakery in some high end neighborhood. Just any average bakery will do.
Oddly, these same ingredients are often touted in online health advice articles – implying that there are health benefits to adding these “special” ingredients to one’s diet, all while other countries have had them as daily menu items for centuries if not thousands of years.
Taking all of the above into account, it should come as little surprise that, in the US, obscure health issues due to the lack or misuse of heretofore standard food items would be on the rise. In the case of gluten intolerance, it rises to practically epidemic proportions. Fixing this for any individual, short of taking residence outside the US, would require extra efforts and involve a possible increase in the cost of nourishment. However, considering the alternatives (suffering with a condition without a cure), it might be well worth it.
net-zero by 2050 was a joke, but nobody’s laughing
Attitude matters. Imagine that in the run-up to the 20xx Olympics your country declared: we will strive to not-lose and achieve net-zero gold medals!
OK maybe not the best metaphor but still – why aim to not trigger armageddon by… 2050?
It is international scientific consensus that, in order to prevent the worst climate damages, global net human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) need to fall by about 45 percent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero around 2050. –
Once that lofty non-goal was agreed upon by governments across the globe, it quickly became apparent that virtually none of them were doing anywhere near what it would take to get to said uninspired non-goal.
The idea was (and still is) to drag and under-achieve as long as politically possible and then suddenly, in the final stretch, accelerate efforts (with resources controlled by future politicians) and reach net-zero. And then declare victory.
People want more than net-zero. People need more than net-zero. At the very least there has to be a better name, and a serious plan to make it actually happen.
You are going to hear a lot about minus-zero carbon soon. The reason is a good one. When the stakes are as high as the extinction of all life on earth, just getting to a tie score is not a good plan. So those who are in the trenches, working on solutions for global warming and reducing the carbon footprint, are search also for better ways to communicate what the goal is and what it means.
This, hopefully, can lead to a focus on a goal, or at least the articulation of a desire, that can inspire people to become highly active, even agitated, perhaps even alarmed, and begin the hard work and striving that it will take to get to a net-positive outcome for all of us.
And, who exactly decided that it would be a good idea to prolong the carbon carnival as long as possible in the first place? Carbon emitters and oil profiteers perhaps?
60 years of feet dragging, obfuscation and deliberate blocking of any solutions threatening the status quo have already come and gone.
Also, if energy is clean and abundant, why not use more? Energy is good, more energy use, if clean and sustainable, could be better. It can give us amazing things. Efficient use is good too, of course, but this is a mind-set issue. This is thought error or a thought liberation.
Minus-zero carbon x 100% (with 200% energy availability) is a much better goal and represents a thought liberating idea.
Perfection can’t be the enemy of good in the energy arena
Do we need architects and inventors, innovators and scientists, and massive amount of ammunition in the form of trillions of dollars in funding, from both public and private sources? Hell yes.
And must these magicians and Mavericks do amazing things that were believed impossible just a short while ago? Absolutely. Is this a ‘moon-shot’ to, not just save, but catapult humanity into a better future? You bet-ur-a%$ it is.
That means that the challenges of finding better tech, examples such as for soil regeneration, or more efficient battery storage, or for alternatives to rare earth metals, if they are too, um, rare need to be figured out and set into motion, fast. It means inventing and discovering tech that does not exist, that has not been tried or even sought after, why never sought? Because oil was cheap and available, so don’t stress it, Bub.
And, there are those out there, already today, that are thinking beyond net-zero in 2050. There are those that want more, that know that we need more. Those that understand that political inertia and corrupt vested interests are not the excuses we want written on our tombstones.
And why not look for half-full glasses or beliefs manifested into action? Why not aim for something that makes us want to get up, stand up, and make something possible that looks like hope and feels like success and winning?
Decentralized solutions are coming, in every part of life
The reality is that it is not only the world’s energy infrastructure that needs a total makeover. Financial inequality, political and economic systems are fragile and failing, regardless where.
There is a whiff of collapse that could turn into a whirlwind and then could derail any progress made, as we plunge into dark ages, even before factoring in the catastrophic climate challenges.
We need new, innovative ways to learn, to communicate, interact and collaborate. And these are emerging – if you don’t believe in crypto, web3 or any other new directions that many are seeing as alternatives to broken systems of the past, you at least have to acknowledge that actively looking for a better way, one that does represent a solution, is what is needed even as the current systems are failing us.
So if you don’t agree with the ideas for change and proposed ways to improve methods for human interaction and coexistence, come up with new ideas and put them forth, ok?, maybe we have to try and strive and stumble until a truly better way presents itself.
Give yourself and all you have into actions that will finally change the direction from one that spells doom, in this case continuing to burn carbon in insanely massive amounts while we fight, disagree and kill one another (war, etc.), to something new, something that at least could have a chance to win the peace.
Losing is unacceptable for-real this time. Winning isn’t everything, no sir, it’s the only thing. And starting on 04-22-2022 this net-zero BS needs to be sent to Mars, or perhaps Uranus.
Meanwhile here on earth we gotta get busy building the only thing that will prevent oblivion: a tiny taste of utopia that will grow from a seed into a raging forest of real, not fossilized, success.
Reducing fossil fuel use is important, but it’s more important to increase zero carbon energy production
Increasing sustainable energy production is possibly the most important goal for the world today. This idea is mostly couched, however, in negative terms, the idea that without a shift to clean, green sustainable sources climate change will destroy the future.
This is an important and essentially true statement.
However the automatic association of sustainable energy as being inevitably connected to less energy availability is a false premise. One that can be proven wrong with positive action towards building clean energy infrastructure, not as a defensive, desperate survival goal, but as a natural expansion of more energy and power that could lead to increased prosperity for the human race.
Deeply embedded thought patterns prevent us, perhaps, from imagining a world where more energy is not associated with more pollution, eventual depletion of a finite and limited resource and ultimately death, destruction and a CO2 induced climate catastrophe.
Optimism and abundance are linked with hope and a dream of a better standard of living for all. That dream is possible not with less energy use, but rather, more and cheaper energy availability that can be created by building a global, sustainable, renewable energy infrastructure.
A change in thought and perspective is necessary and could be more powerful than the sun
Utopia is a word that will get you laughed at, while oblivion is becoming the expected outcome of our century. Predicted by R. Buckminster Fuller in his book ‘Utopia or Oblivion‘, the choice we face in this century is not oblivion and catastrophic suffering or ‘business as usual’, it is not survival vs extinction, it is survival by unleashing utopian potential or total annihilation.
The paradox of sustainable energy is that, without it becoming the primary energy production system for the planet, combined with reduced consumption of fossil fuels until 100% sustainability is reached, oblivion or at least massive pain is assured; while at the same time, achieving 100% carbon free, clean energy from sustainable sources like solar, wind and geothermal, can create virtually unlimited increases in beneficial uses of energy, leading to an almost utopian potential for quality of life.
Thinking is the Difference Between Utopia or Oblivion
The clarity of realizing that clean sustainable energy ubiquity means unlimited energy consumption is non-destructive, and can end the malthusian nightmare of finite resources, that so many have fought over and even died for, is truly mind altering.
More is less, is another way to say it. Or at least more consumption and benefits, but none of the negative costs to the environment that we have come to see as inextricably linked to fossil fuel energy production and use.
At the same time it also harkens back to Elon Musk and Tesla’s mission statement. Tesla has had a vision for sustainable energy that is S3XY; more luxury, more beauty, more fun.
That mind-set, a mind set of abundant clean unlimited energy from sustainable sources, used to power beautiful powerful EVs, has made the company the enormous success that it is and ushered in an era EV production as job #1 throughout the entire auto industry.
The genius of this perspective centers on the idea that humans, when striving toward a positive goal, are always more powerful and successful than they are when simply trying to avoid a negative outcome.
Interestingly, the dream of reaching Mars, Musk’s other stated goal, is both positive and negative, since one reason for the urgent need to establish colonies there could be the destruction of earth due to climate disaster, caused by a failure to create a sustainable clean energy infrastructure in time.
It is the power and dream of much more abundant energy that can remove the idea from our minds that energy consumption is inherently bad, just because it does have negative ramifications galore when the source for that energy is dirty fossil fuels.
The Utopian Mindset must begin to permeate our consciousness if we are to overcome the challenges of 2000-2050 and beyond
Energy abundance is not the only type of abundance that our minds must learn to accept as possible for our species if we hope to turn things around. Bitcoin, for example, is currently being scapegoated in the media generally and is having endless disinformation hurled at its proof of work mining system based on the premise that it uses “too much” energy and too much of that energy is sourced from fossil fuels at this time.
But why not focus on the real problem? Why not see that a monumental and heroic effort to rid the world of dependence on “bad” and ultimately finite and limited sources of energy from fossil fuels and shift, ultimately, 100% of production to clean and renewable sources, needs to be job #1 for team earth?
Again, in an all-or-nothing scenario there is no option to equivocate. The negative reasons that fossil fuels must be phased out as soon as possible (‘the stick’ as per Cleo Abram in her video below) become more inevitable each minute and are already threatening everything humans have accomplished to date.
The positive motivation is less obvious for most at this point (‘the carrot’) and yet is ultimately more powerful (S3XY!) since it carries with it the hope that we can not only avert disaster, death and destruction, but can build a clean, abundant and infinitely expandable energy supply that could be used to build the first tentative steps toward a utopian dream.
The recent announcement of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s retirement has ignited widespread speculation about the future of Roe v. Wade. Some analysts believe that a new appointment to the Supreme Court would mean a conservative justice, particularly one who is against abortion rights, will threaten the status of the law.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted women an essential degree of reproductive freedom on on Jan. 22, 1973, by supporting the right to terminate a pregnancy under specific conditions.
Childbearing was still closely tied to marriage. Those who conceived before marriage were likely to marry before the birth occurred. It wasn’t yet common for married women with young children under age 6 to be employed; about 37 percent were in the labor force. Then, as now, finding satisfactory child care was a challenge for employed mothers.
By 1980, the average age at marriage had increased to 22. Thirty percent of American women aged 18 to 24 who had graduated from high school were enrolled in college, and 13.6 percent had completed a four-year college degree. Forty-five percent of married mothers with young children were in the labor force.
While these changes may not be directly attributable to Roe v. Wade, they occurred shortly after its passage – and they’ve continued unabated since then.
Today, roughly two generations after Roe v. Wade, women are postponing marriage, marrying for the first time at about age 27 on average. Seventeen percent over age 25 have never been married. Some estimates suggest that 25 percent of today’s young adults may never marry.
Moreover, the majority of college students are now women, and participation in the paid labor force has become an expected part of many women’s lives.
Control over choices
If the Roe v. Wade decision were overturned – reducing or completely eradicating women’s control over their reproductive lives – would the average age at marriage, the educational attainment level and the labor force participation of women decrease again?
These questions are also difficult to answer. But we can see the effect that teen pregnancy, for example, has on a woman’s education. Thirty percent of all teenage girls who drop out of school cite pregnancy and parenthood as key reasons. Only 40 percent of teen mothers finish high school. Fewer than 2 percent finish college by age 30.
Educational achievement, in turn, affects the lifetime income of teen mothers. Two-thirds of families started by teens are poor, and nearly 1 in 4 will depend on welfare within three years of a child’s birth. Many children will not escape this cycle of poverty. Only about two-thirds of children born to teen mothers earn a high school diploma, compared to 81 percent of their peers with older parents.
The future depends in large part on efforts at the state and federal level to protect or restrict access to contraception and abortion. Ongoing opposition to the legalization of abortion has succeeded in incrementally restricting women’s access to it. According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that studies reproductive policies, between 2011 and mid-2016, state legislatures enacted 334 restrictions on abortion rights, roughly 30 percent of all abortion restrictions enacted since Roe v. Wade.
In 2017, Kentucky enacted a new law banning abortion at or after 20 weeks post-fertilization. Arkansas banned the use of a safe method of abortion, referred to as dilation and evacuation, which is often used in second-trimester procedures.
New battles
Of course, medical abortion isn’t the only way in which women can exert control over reproduction.
Even before 1973, American women had access to a wide range of contraceptives, including the birth control pill, which came on the market in 1960. Five years later, in Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court ruled that married couples could not be denied access to contraceptives. In 1972, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, the court extended this right to unmarried persons.
In 2017, a record number of states acted to advance reproductive health rights in response to actions by the federal government. In 2017, 645 proactive bills were introduced in 49 states and the District of Columbia. Eighty-six of those were enacted and an additional 121 passed at least one committee in a state legislature.
How would the lives of American women in the last decades of the 20th century and early 21st century have unfolded if the court had made a different decision in Roe v. Wade? Would women be forced into compulsory pregnancies and denied the opportunity to make life plans that prioritized educational and employment pursuits? Would motherhood and marriage be the primary or exclusive roles of women in typical childbearing ages?
With the availability of a greater range of contraception and abortion drugs other than medical procedures available today, along with a strong demand for women’s labor in the U.S. economy, it seems unlikely that women’s status will ever go back to where it was before 1973. But Americans shouldn’t forget the role that Roe v. Wade played in advancing the lives of women.
This story has been updated to correct the proportion of women enrolled in college in 1970 and 1980.
Six months ago, negotiators at the United Nations’ Glasgow climate summit celebrated a series of new commitments to lower global greenhouse gas emissions and build resilience to the impacts of climate change. Analysts concluded that the new promises, including phasing out coal, would bend the global warming trajectory, though still fall short of the Paris climate agreement.
In the U.S., the Biden administration has struggled to get its promised actions through Congress. Last-ditch efforts have been underway to salvage some kind of climate and energy bill from the abandoned Build Back Better plan. Without it, U.S. commitments to reduce emissions by over 50% by 2030 look fanciful, and the rest of the world knows it – adding another blow to U.S. credibility overseas.
As a former senior U.N. official, I’ve been involved in international climate negotiations for several years. At the halfway point of this year’s climate negotiations, with the next U.N. climate conference in November 2022, here are three areas to watch for progress and cooperation in a world full of danger and division.
In the short term, Europe’s pivot means much more energy efficiency – the International Energy Agency estimates that the European Union can save 15%-20% of energy demand with efficiency measures. It also means importing oil and gas from elsewhere.
There are issues to solve. As Europe buys up gas from other places, it risks reducing gas supplies relied on by other countries, and forcing some of those countries to return to coal, a more carbon-intense fuel that destroys air quality. Some countries will need help expanding renewable energy and stabilizing energy prices to avoid a backlash to pro-climate policies.
Their promises faced cries of “greenwash” from many climate advocacy groups. Some efforts are now underway to hold companies, as well as countries, to their commitments.
A U.N. group chaired by former Canadian Environment Minister Catherine McKenna is now working on a framework to hold companies, cities, states and banks to account when they claim to have “net-zero” emissions. This is designed to ensure that companies that pledged last year to meet net-zero now say how, and on what scientific basis.
For many companies, especially those with large emissions footprints, part of their commitment to get to net-zero includes buying carbon offsets – often investments in nature – to balance the ledger. This summer, two efforts to put guardrails around voluntary carbon markets are expected to issue their first sets of guidance for issuers of carbon credits and for firms that want to use voluntary carbon markets to fulfill their net-zero claims. The goal is to ensure carbon markets reduce emissions and provide a steady stream of revenue for parts of the world that need finance for their green growth.
Climate change influencing elections
Climate change is now an increasingly important factor in elections.
French President Emmanuel Macron, trying to woo supporters of a candidate to his left and energize young voters, made more dramatic climate pledges, vowing to be “the first major nation to abandon gas, oil and coal.”
With Chile’s swing to the left, the country’s redrafted constitution will incorporate climate stewardship.
In Australia, Scott Morrison’s government – which supported opening one of the world’s largest coal mines at the same time the Australian private sector is focusing on renewable energy – faces an election on May 21, 2022, with heatwaves and extreme flooding fresh in voters’ minds. Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro faces opponents in October who are talking about protecting the climate.
Elections are fought and won on pocketbook issues, and energy prices are high and inflation is taking hold. But voters around the world are also experiencing the effects of climate change firsthand and are increasingly concerned.
The next climate conference
Countries will be facing a different set of economic and security challenges when the next round of U.N. talks begins in November in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, compared to the challenges they faced in Glasgow. They will be expected to show progress on their commitments while struggling for bandwidth, dealing with the climate emergency as an integral part of security, economic recovery and global health.
There is no time to push climate action out into the future. Every decimal point of warming avoided is an opportunity for better health, more prosperity and better security.
What does a sustainable civilisation look like and how do we get there? A burgeoning movement of artists and activists is seeking answers.
“It is 2050. In most places in the world, the air is moist and fresh, even in cities. It feels a lot like walking through a forest, and very likely this is exactly what you are doing. The air is cleaner than it has been since before the Industrial Revolution. We have trees to thank for that. They are everywhere.”
In the current moment, these words from Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac’s 2020 book The Future We Choose might seem like pure fantasy. The world they describe seems so far from the present, where over 90% of the Earth’s population breathes air deemed unsafe by the World Health Organization, scientists warn that humans are causing “irreversible” changes to the climate and nature is declining globally at an unprecedented rate.
But a burgeoning artistic and political movement known as “solarpunk” is trying to bring this lush, verdant world closer to reality.
Solarpunk imagines an optimistic future where humans have overcome the major environmental and social crises of our time and in the process created a safe, just world powered by clean energy and organised around collaborative social ideals.
It rejects the pessimism of cyberpunk, which paints the future as a corporate-controlled and environmentally degraded dystopia. As stated in a manifesto written collectively by the online solarpunk community, “as our world roils with calamity, we need solutions, not only warnings”.
The concept of solarpunk originally emerged in the late 2000s, when a handful of artists on the social media platform Tumblr began sharing drawings of futuristic green cities. Over time, the aesthetic and ethos evolved into a more robust vision for the world, and in the process has been embraced by other art forms. There are now published collections of solarpunk literature, subgenres of music, movements within architecture and even tabletop role-playing games.
At the core of this vision is the idea that humans can coexist in harmony with the rest of nature. A solarpunk world is one where vast swathes of land have been returned to wilderness, rooftop gardens dot the skylines of high-tech cities and vertical farms provide food to their residents.
Responsible use of technology is also a prominent theme. Solar, wind and wave power have entirely replaced fossil fuels as sources of energy, while widespread 3D printing has made it much easier to produce things locally, creating resilient, self-sufficient communities.
Increasingly, artists and writers in the solarpunk movement also describe a world that is just and safe for marginalised groups – especially those facing the brunt of the climate and ecological crisis today. “BIPOC [black, indigenous and people of colour] and queer people are safe in solarpunk futures,” says Brianna Castagnozzi, co-editor-in-chief of Solarpunk Magazine.
Although it may seem utopian and idealistic, solarpunk attempts to answer real questions being asked more and more often in light of the unfolding climate and ecological crisis. What can be saved? What does a truly sustainable civilisation look like? How do we get there?
It may be a big ask, but it’s increasingly clear that the scale of the environmental crises facing humanity demands transformational changes to the way we live, as well as the way we think. Art has the power to shape our attitudes, so perhaps it’s time – as Nigerian poet Ben Okri said recently – for artists of all kinds to “dedicate our lives to nothing short of re-dreaming society”.
So much is going on in the area of Crypto-currencies, Blockchain, Alt Coins, and Decentralized Finance (DeFi) that it can make your head spin. And that is not to even mention Crypto Mining, Farming, Baking and Trading, all of which have had skyrocketing activity recently.
How much interest there is runs the gamut from the curious onlooker to the serious professional. And then there are predictions regarding the future of the world financial system, the political and legal ramifications of the rise of crypto and all the opinions going every which way, and more.
Based on all of the above it only makes sense to put together a list of fundamental ground floor guidebooks to help anyone who wants and needs to really understand what all the fuss is about. Bitcoin and the whole area of blockchain technology has come so far already, and is so established and entrenched that it is unlikely to disappear completely anytime soon, no matter which way the political winds may blow.
So if you are a beginner an intermediate or even advanced learner that wants to know more, these are the best books to really dig into the phenomena and explosion of information and viewpoints. To make it easier they are featured front and center, below, along with descriptions, provided courtesy of the Bookshop (and the various publishers), and with some links for a variety of options of where to purchase.
Mastering Blockchain – Third Edition: A deep dive into distributed ledgers, consensus protocols, smart contracts, DApps, cryptocurrencies
Blockchain technology is the backbone of cryptocurrencies, and it has applications in finance, government, media, and many other industries. With a legacy of providing technologists with executable insights, the third edition of Mastering Blockchain is thoroughly revised and updated with the latest blockchain research, including four new chapters on consensus algorithms, Serenity (Ethereum 2.0), tokenization, and enterprise blockchains.
Apart from covering the basics, including blockchain’s technical underpinnings, cryptography, and consensus protocols, this book provides you with expert knowledge on decentralization, decentralized application development on Ethereum, Bitcoin, alternative coins, smart contracts, alternative blockchains, and Hyperledger.
Furthermore, you will explore how to implement blockchain solutions beyond cryptocurrencies, such as the Internet of Things with blockchain, blockchain scalability, enterprise blockchains, and tokenization using blockchain, and the future scope of this fascinating and disruptive technology.
By the end of this book, you will have gained a thorough understanding of the various facets of blockchain technology and be comfortable applying them to diverse real-world scenarios.
Updated with four new chapters on consensus algorithms, Ethereum 2.0, tokenization, and enterprise blockchains
Dive deep into foundational pillars of blockchain technology such as decentralization, cryptography, and consensus protocols
Get to grips with Solidity, Web3, cryptocurrencies, smart contract development and solve scalability, security, and privacy issues
Discover the architecture of different distributed ledger platforms including Ethereum, Bitcoin, Hyperledger Fabric, Hyperledger Sawtooth, Corda, and Quorum
Cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, Blockchain Technology& Altcoins For Beginners: Explore The Decentralized World, Investing in Crypto Blueprint, Mining Basics+
Do you want to understand what Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency actually is? Do you want to understand how it could change the world & finance industry FOREVER? Do you want to discover how you can get started investing in Crypto TODAY?
By now we’ve all heard of it, yet few of us understand it, and without understanding it how could you even dream of investing in it?
You hear all the tech ‘bros’ talking about it, you hear the media slandering it, you can see the bankers are scared by it’s potential, but you still don’t quite get the fuss.
Don’t worry, we’ve all been there.
But, luckily, this book has been written for people just like you.
The purpose of it is to demystify the world of Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, Decentralization & The Blockchain.
And, if those 4 words currently sound like a foreign language to you, you’re not alone. But, after this book, you’ll be the one explaining about the ‘Crypto Craze’ to everyone you see!
Inside, we will go over the origins & history of Bitcoin, it’s potential to change the world, as well as how it could all go wrong.
And, of course, we will go over how you can invest in potentially the greatest wealth transfer the world has ever seen.
Here’s a tiny Example of what’s inside..
Exactly What Bitcoin Actually Is And How It Is Drastically Disrupting The Global Economy
Everything You Need To Know About The ‘Bitcoin Halving’ Cycles & How To Maximize Your Gains From Them
What Is A ‘Blockchain’ And How It Could Quite Literally Revolutionize EVERY Aspect Of Your Life In The Coming Decades
What Are ‘Altcoins’ And How They Are Different To Bitcoin & What Their Purpose In All Of This Is…
Why We Are Still In The VERY Early Days Of The Crypto ‘Boom’
And SO Much More!
So, If You Want To FINALLY Understand The World Of Bitcoin & Cryptocurrency So You Can Actually Understand What All The Fuss Is About And Whether You Want To Get Involved, Then Scroll Up And Click
From preeminent math personality and author of The Joy of x, a brilliant and endlessly appealing explanation of calculus–how it works and why it makes our lives immeasurably better.
Without calculus, we wouldn’t have cell phones, TV, GPS, or ultrasound. We wouldn’t have unraveled DNA or discovered Neptune or figured out how to put 5,000 songs in your pocket.
Though many of us were scared away from this essential, engrossing subject in high school and college, Steven Strogatz’s brilliantly creative, down-to-earth history shows that calculus is not about complexity; it’s about simplicity. It harnesses an unreal number–infinity–to tackle real-world problems, breaking them down into easier ones and then reassembling the answers into solutions that feel miraculous.
Infinite Powers recounts how calculus tantalized and thrilled its inventors, starting with its first glimmers in ancient Greece and bringing us right up to the discovery of gravitational waves (a phenomenon predicted by calculus). Strogatz reveals how this form of math rose to the challenges of each age: how to determine the area of a circle with only sand and a stick; how to explain why Mars goes “backwards” sometimes; how to make electricity with magnets; how to ensure your rocket doesn’t miss the moon; how to turn the tide in the fight against AIDS.
As Strogatz proves, calculus is truly the language of the universe. By unveiling the principles of that language, Infinite Powers makes us marvel at the world anew.
The Bitcoin Standard: The Decentralized Alternative to Central Banking
When a pseudonymous programmer introduced “a new electronic cash system that’s fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party” to a small online mailing list in 2008, very few paid attention. Ten years later, and against all odds, this upstart autonomous decentralized software offers an unstoppable and globally-accessible hard money alternative to modern central banks. The Bitcoin Standard analyzes the historical context to the rise of Bitcoin, the economic properties that have allowed it to grow quickly, and its likely economic, political, and social implications.
While Bitcoin is a new invention of the digital age, the problem it purports to solve is as old as human society itself: transferring value across time and space. Ammous takes the reader on an engaging journey through the history of technologies performing the functions of money, from primitive systems of trading limestones and seashells, to metals, coins, the gold standard, and modern government debt. Exploring what gave these technologies their monetary role, and how most lost it, provides the reader with a good idea of what makes for sound money, and sets the stage for an economic discussion of its consequences for individual and societal future-orientation, capital accumulation, trade, peace, culture, and art. Compellingly, Ammous shows that it is no coincidence that the loftiest achievements of humanity have come in societies enjoying the benefits of sound monetary regimes, nor is it coincidental that monetary collapse has usually accompanied civilizational collapse.
With this background in place, the book moves on to explain the operation of Bitcoin in a functional and intuitive way. Bitcoin is a decentralized, distributed piece of software that converts electricity and processing power into indisputably accurate records, thus allowing its users to utilize the Internet to perform the traditional functions of money without having to rely on, or trust, any authorities or infrastructure in the physical world. Bitcoin is thus best understood as the first successfully implemented form of digital cash and digital hard money. With an automated and perfectly predictable monetary policy, and the ability to perform final settlement of large sums across the world in a matter of minutes, Bitcoin’s real competitive edge might just be as a store of value and network for final settlement of large payments–a digital form of gold with a built-in settlement infrastructure.
Ammous’ firm grasp of the technological possibilities as well as the historical realities of monetary evolution provides for a fascinating exploration of the ramifications of voluntary free market money. As it challenges the most sacred of government monopolies, Bitcoin shifts the pendulum of sovereignty away from governments in favor of individuals, offering us the tantalizing possibility of a world where money is fully extricated from politics and unrestrained by borders.
They’re also chipping away at the most fundamental freedom of all: the right to vote – restricting everything from mail-in voting to ballot dropboxes.
But their chipping away at freedom is even bigger than all this.
Can you really be free if you’re saddled with medical debt and have to routinely pay outrageous health care costs?
Can you really be free if you have no voice in your workplace and your employer refuses to let you organize with your coworkers for the right to collectively bargain?
Can you really be free if you’re not paid a living wage and have to choose between feeding your family or keeping your lights on?
A living wage, the right to join a union, guaranteed healthcare, the right to vote – these are the foundations of real freedom.
Yet Republicans oppose all of these.
There’s a reason the historic 1963 rally was called The March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. Because freedom also means the ability to work in a job that pays enough to provide food, clothing, shelter, and medical care.
What Republicans want to preserve isn’t freedom, it’s power. The power to impose their narrow ideology on everyone else, no matter who suffers. Don’t let their propaganda convince you otherwise.
The Russian-Canadian citizen and co-founder of the Ethereum blockchain, Vitalik Buterin took to this social media minutes after Putin’s announced a “special military operation” and effectively go to war with Ukraine. Buterin condemned the Russian President on his Twitter, see the below translated post.
Translation of the post from Russian: Very upset by Putin’s decision to abandon the possibility of a peaceful solution to the dispute with Ukraine and go to war instead. This is a crime against the Ukrainian and Russian people. I want to wish everyone security, although I know that there will be no security. Glory to Ukraine.
Vitalik also included that although his company remains neutral politically, however as a human being, Vitalik has taken a personal stance on the matter. This is another example of Russian born international citizens speaking out loud and clear against Putin and his attack. (Buterin was born in Kolomna, a city near Moscow, in 1994. When he was just six years old, he moved with his family to Canada)
Очень расстроен решением Путина отказаться от возможности мирного решения спора с Украиной и вместо этого начать войну. Это преступление против украинского и русского народа.
Хочу желать всем безопасности, хотя знаю, что не какой безопасности не будет.
“The 1.5°C figure is not some random statistic,” said the head of the World Meteorological Organization. “It is rather an indicator of the point at which climate impacts will become increasingly harmful for people and indeed the entire planet.”
The World Meteorological Organization warned Monday that the planet now faces a 50% chance of temporarily hitting 1.5°C of warming above pre-industrial levels over the next five years, another signal that political leaders—particularly those of the rich nations most responsible for carbon emissions—are failing to rein in fossil fuel use.
“For as long as we continue to emit greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue to rise.”
In 2015, by comparison, the likelihood of briefly reaching or exceeding 1.5°C of global warming over the ensuing five-year period was estimated to be “close to zero,” the WMO noted in a new climate update. The report was published amid a deadly heatwave on the Indian subcontinent that scientists say is a glimpse of what’s to come if runaway carbon emissions aren’t halted. Thus far, the heatwave has killed dozens in India and Pakistan.
Signatories to the Paris climate accord have agreed to act to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2°C—preferably to 1.5°C—by the end of the century. Climate advocates have deemed the 1.5°C target “on life support” following world leaders’ refusal to commit to more ambitious action at the COP26 summit in Glasgow late last year.
“We are getting measurably closer to temporarily reaching the lower target of the Paris Agreement,” Petteri Taalas, the secretary-general of the WMO, said in a statement Monday. “The 1.5°C figure is not some random statistic. It is rather an indicator of the point at which climate impacts will become increasingly harmful for people and indeed the entire planet.”
“For as long as we continue to emit greenhouse gases, temperatures will continue to rise,” Taalas added. “And alongside that, our oceans will continue to become warmer and more acidic, sea ice and glaciers will continue to melt, sea level will continue to rise and, our weather will become more extreme. Arctic warming is disproportionately high and what happens in the Arctic affects all of us.”
BREAKING from the World Meteorological Organization @WMO: There is now a 50% probability that at least one of the next 5 years will temporarily reach the Paris Agreement threshold of 1.5°C. In 2015 this chance was estimated to be zero.Our house is truly on fire. #ClimateEmergencyhttps://t.co/u5sTx63weR
— Scientist Rebellion (@ScientistRebel1) May 10, 2022
Dr. Leon Hermanson, a climate expert at the U.K. Met Office who led the WMO report, stressed that a short-lived breach of the 1.5°C threshold would not mean that the world is guaranteed to fall short of the Paris accord’s most ambitious warming target, which climate experts and campaigners have long decried as inadequate.
Such a breach, however, would “reveal that we are edging ever closer to a situation where 1.5°C could be exceeded for an extended period,” said Hermanson.
The WMO’s latest research also estimates that there is a 93% chance that at least one year between 2022 and 2026 will be the warmest on record. Currently, 2016 and 2020 are tied for the top spot.
Even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C by 2100, countless people across the globe will still face devastating heatwaves, droughts, and other extreme weather, with the poor facing the worst consequences.
Meanwhile, key ecosystems could be damaged beyond repair in a 1.5°C hotter world. One recent study found that 99% of the world’s coral reefs would experience heatwaves that are “too frequent for them to recover” if the planet gets 1.5°C warmer compared to pre-industrial levels.
Scientists behind the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report cautioned last month that if there’s to be any hope of keeping warming to 1.5°C or below by 2100, “it’s now or never.”
“Without immediate and deep emissions reductions across all sectors, it will be impossible,” said Jim Skea, co-chair of IPCC Working Group III.
Originally published on Common Dreams by JAKE JOHNSON and republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
A leaked draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito suggests the Supreme Court is on the brink of overturning two rulings, including Roe v. Wade, that guarantee the right to abortion in the U.S.
The Supreme Court confirmed that the document, obtained and first reported on by Politico, is real, but said “Although the document described in yesterday’s reports is authentic, it does not represent a decision by the court or the final position of any member on the issues in the case.”
The opinion is due to be issued later in the year. The leaked document indicates that a conservative majority in the court is on track to end a woman’s constitutional right to abortion, opening the door for states to enact bans.
Although a seismic development in the long-running legal battle and social debate over abortion rights, the development is not entirely unexpected. In recent years, pro-abortion rights advocates have been ringing alarm bells over threats to Roe. Legal scholars, health experts and sociologists have helped explain in The Conversation U.S. what is at stake and what it would mean for American women should the historic ruling be overturned.
1. How Roe changed women’s lives
A lot has changed in the nearly 50 years that separate the constitutional enshrining of the right to abortion in the U.S. to the brink of ending that right.
Constance Shehan, a sociologist at the University of Florida, provides a snapshot of life for women prior to the landmark case. In 1970, the “average age at first marriage for women in the U.S. was just under 21. Twenty-five percent of women high school graduates aged 18 to 24 were enrolled in college and about 8 percent of adult women had completed four years of college,” she notes. But today, she says, “roughly two generations after Roe v. Wade, women are postponing marriage, marrying for the first time at about age 27 on average. Seventeen percent over age 25 have never been married. Some estimates suggest that 25 percent of today’s young adults may never marry.”
How much of this change in the experiences of American women is due to Roe? And if it is overturned, will the trends be reversed? Such questions are difficult answer. But there is evidence that carrying through with an unwanted pregnancy may have a detrimental effect on a woman’s education – and that, in turn, has an impact on career opportunities and income, writes Shehan. “Two-thirds of families started by teens are poor, and nearly 1 in 4 will depend on welfare within three years of a child’s birth. Many children will not escape this cycle of poverty. Only about two-thirds of children born to teen mothers earn a high school diploma, compared to 81 percent of their peers with older parents.”
Medical abortion isn’t the only option for young women seeking abortion. As Shehan notes: “With the availability of a greater range of contraception and abortion drugs other than medical procedures available today, along with a strong demand for women’s labor in the U.S. economy, it seems unlikely that women’s status will ever go back to where it was before 1973. But Americans shouldn’t forget the role that Roe v. Wade played in advancing the lives of women.”
2. Who might be affected?
“One important group’s voice is often absent in this heated debate: the women who choose abortion,” writes Luu D. Ireland at UMass Chan Medical School. She notes that 1 in 4 American women have the procedure at some point in their life, yet because of the perceived stigma involved, their perspective is largely missing. As an obstetrician/gynecologist, Ireland does, however, hear on a daily basis stories from women who opt for an abortion.
She notes that while abortion is a routine part of reproductive health care for many, and women of all backgrounds choose to end their pregnancies, unintended pregnancies are more common in certain groups: poorer women, women of color and those with lower levels of formal education.
“Women living in poverty have a rate of unintended pregnancy five times higher than those with middle or high incomes. Black women are twice as likely to have an unintended pregnancy as white women,” she writes.
The reason women opt to terminate a pregnancy varies. The most common reason is that the timing is wrong – it would interfere with education, careers or caring for family members. The second most cited reason is financial – the women seeking an abortion just can’t afford the associated costs of raising a child at that time. One impact of abortion restrictions, research has shown, is that women unable to get one “are more likely live in poverty or depend on cash assistance, and less likely to work full-time,” Ireland writes.
To be clear, this is not what would happen should the Supreme Court overturn Roe – rather, it would allow states to implement bans based on the ending of a constitutionally guaranteed right to abortion. Nonetheless, Stevenson’s research gives context as to risks involved for women who may find themselves in states that do not allow abortion, and who lack the means to get to a state that does.
She notes that staying pregnant actually carries a greater risk of death than having an abortion.
“Abortion is incredibly safe for pregnant people in the U.S., with 0.44 deaths per 100,000 procedures from 2013 to 2017. In contrast, 20.1 deaths per 100,000 live births occurred in 2019,” she writes. Stevenson estimates that “the annual number of pregnancy-related deaths would increase by 21% overall, or 140 additional deaths, by the second year after a ban.” The jump in deaths would be even higher among non-Hispanic Black women.
Other progressive lawmakers echoed that message, with Rep. Cori Bush declaring: “Abolish the filibuster. Codify Roe. Expand the Supreme Court. Protect abortion rights by any means necessary.”
After a leaked draft ruling provided the most concrete evidence yet that the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority is set to end the constitutional right to abortion, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez late Monday said Democrats in Congress must pull out all the stops to enshrine Roe v. Wade into federal law as “people’s futures and equality are on the line.”
“We need all of the above. This is an emergency.”
“People elected Democrats precisely so we could lead in perilous moments like these—to codify Roe, hold corruption accountable, and have a president who uses his legal authority to break through congressional gridlock on items from student debt to climate,” Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) wrote in a pair of tweets. “It’s high time we do it.”
“If we don’t, what message does that send? We can’t sit around, finger point, and hand-wring,” the New York Democrat added. “It’s time to be decisive, lead with confidence, fight for a prosperous future for all, and protect the vulnerable.”
If we don’t, what message does that send? We can’t sit around, finger point, & hand wring as people’s futures + equality are on the line.
It’s time to be decisive, lead with confidence, fight for a prosperous future for all and protect the vulnerable.
In September 2021—weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court let Texas’ draconian abortion ban take effect—the House of Representatives passed the Women’s Health Protection Act (WHPA), legislation that would enshrine into federal law the right to abortion care free from medically unnecessary restrictions such as mandatory waiting periods, which are commonplace in states across the U.S.
“Removing medically unjustified restrictions on abortion services would constitute one important step on the path toward realizing reproductive justice,” the legislation states. “This Act is intended to protect all people with the capacity for pregnancy—cisgender women, transgender men, non-binary individuals, those who identify with a different gender, and others—who are unjustly harmed by restrictions on abortion services.”
“If there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not, we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.”
But the bill has stalled in the U.S. Senate thanks to opposition from the entire Republican caucus and Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), an opponent of abortion who has previously voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Earlier this year, Manchin joined Senate Republicans in filibustering the WHPA.
Other progressive lawmakers joined Ocasio-Cortez in calling on Democratic leaders to do everything in their power—including launching another push to abolish the 60-vote legislative filibuster—to defend abortion rights from the Supreme Court and Republicans, who are reportedly scheming to pursue a nationwide abortion ban if they take control of Congress in November and the high court overturns Roe.
“This will endanger the very people who need access to legal abortion,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) said of the leaked draft ruling authored by right-wing Justice Samuel Alito.
The draft opinion states that Roe, a 1973 decision, was “egregiously wrong from the start” and should be overturned along with Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 ruling that largely reaffirmed Roe.
“The Senate must pass the House legislation to codify Roe, abolish the filibuster, and expand SCOTUS,” Tlaib added late Monday.
Manchin and Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) tanked their party’s attempt to temporarily weaken the filibuster to pass voting rights legislation earlier this year and—to the dismay of progressives—Democrats have done nothing since to diminish the 60-vote rule’s power.
“Abolish the filibuster. Codify Roe. Expand the Supreme Court. Protect abortion rights by any means necessary,” Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) tweeted Tuesday. “We need all of the above. This is an emergency.”
In a joint statement after Politico published Alito’s draft opinion, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) condemned the document as an “abomination,” arguing it would mark “one of the worst and most damaging decisions in modern history.”
But the Democratic leaders didn’t provide any indication that they intend to target the filibuster as part of a renewed effort to pass the WHPA.
Speaking to CBS News Monday night, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.)—the lead sponsor of the WHPA in the Senate—said congressional Democrats are “going to support states that resist” the Supreme Court but lamented that options at the federal level are “limited” due to the party’s narrow majority in the upper chamber.
Such an excuse for inaction is unlikely to satisfy progressive members of Congress or advocates who are planning to take to the streets in the nation’s capital and across the country Tuesday.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Budget Committee, urged his colleagues to “pass legislation that codifies Roe v. Wade as the law of the land in this country NOW.”
“And if there aren’t 60 votes in the Senate to do it, and there are not,” Sanders added, “we must end the filibuster to pass it with 50 votes.”
Originally published on Common Dreams and republished under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)
The United States, the European Union, and dozens of other countries on Thursday launched a global Declaration for the Future of the Internet vowing online protection of human rights, respect for net neutrality, and no government-imposed shutdowns that was applauded by progressive advocates for a more open and democratic web.
“If acted upon,” the declaration “would ensure that people everywhere can connect, communicate, organize, and create new and amazing things that will benefit the entire world—not entrench the power of unaccountable billionaires and oligarchs.”
“Today, for the first time, like-minded countries from all over the world are setting out a shared vision for the future of the internet, to make sure that the values we hold true offline are also protected online, to make the internet a safe place and trusted space for everyone, and to ensure that the internet serves our individual freedom,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said in a statement.
“Because the future of the internet,” she said, “is also the future of democracy, of humankind.”
The unveiling of the three-page document came months after President Joe Biden’s Summit for Democracy at which his administration was reportedly mulling the launch of an Alliance for the Future of the internet. It also comes amid swelling scrutiny over the power of big tech corporations and continued attacks to online access imposed by authoritarian regimes.
The nonbinding declaration references a rise in “the spread of disinformation and cybercrimes,” user privacy concerns as vast troves of personal data is collected online, and platforms that “have enabled an increase in the spread of illegal or harmful content.”
It further promotes the internet operating “as a single, decentralized network of networks—with global reach and governed through the multistakeholder approach, whereby governments and relevant authorities partner with academics, civil society, the private sector, technical community and others.”
Signed by over 55 nations—including all the E.U. member states, the U.K, and Ukraine—the document states in part:
We affirm our commitment to promote and sustain an internet that: is open, free, global, interoperable, reliable, and secure and to ensure that the internet reinforces democratic principles and human rights and fundamental freedoms; offers opportunities for collaborative research and commerce; is developed, governed, and deployed in an inclusive way so that unserved and underserved communities, particularly those coming online for the first time, can navigate it safely and with personal data privacy and protections in place; and is governed by multistakeholder processes. In short, an internet that can deliver on the promise of connecting humankind and helping societies and democracies to thrive.
The declaration won plaudits from U.S.-based digital rights group Free Press, whose co-CEO Craig Aaron said it “points to a vision of the internet that puts people first” and that, “if acted upon… would ensure that people everywhere can connect, communicate, organize, and create new and amazing things that will benefit the entire world—not entrench the power of unaccountable billionaires and oligarchs.”
“We’re encouraged by the declaration’s strong statements of support for net neutrality, affordable and inclusive internet access, and data-privacy protections, and its decisive stance against the spread of hate and disinformation,” he added.
Aaron called on the U.S. to “take the necessary steps to live up to these ideals—protecting the free flow of information online, safeguarding our privacy, ending unlawful surveillance, and making broadband affordable and available to everyone.”
The Center for Democracy & Technology also welcomed the declaration, describing it in a Twitter thread as “an important commitment by nations around the world to uphold human rights online and off, advance democratic ideals, and promote an open Internet.”
While it “hit on the right priorities” including protection of personal data privacy and a commitment to a multistakeholder internet governance process, the group called on each signatory to “review their own laws and policies against admirable standards articulated in the Declaration.”
“For the Declaration to have any persuasive power,” said the group, “the U.S. and other nations need to get their own houses in order.”
Jennifer Brody, U.S. advocacy manager at Access Now, also greeted the document with a tepid welcome.
“Of course we support calls in the declaration, like refraining from shutting down the internet and reinvigorating an inclusive approach to internet governance, but we have seen so many global principles and statements come and go without meaningful progress,” she said. “The burden is on the Biden administration and allies to do more than talk the talk.”
Originally published on Common Dreams and republished under a Creative Commons license (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0).
Around the world, many countries are becoming less democratic. This backsliding on democracy and “creeping authoritarianism,” as the U.S. State Department puts it, is often supported by the same industries that are escalating climate change.
It’s a dangerous shift, both for representative government and for the future climate.
Corporate capture of environmental politics
In democratic systems, elected leaders are expected to protect the public’s interests, including from exploitation by corporations. They do this primarily through policies designed to secure public goods, such as clean air and unpolluted water, or to protect human welfare, such as good working conditions and minimum wages. But in recent decades, this core democratic principle that prioritizes citizens over corporate profits has been aggressively undermined.
Today, it’s easy to find political leaders – on both the political right and left – working on behalf of corporations in energy, finance, agribusiness, technology, military and pharmaceutical sectors, and not always in the public interest. These multinational companies help fund their political careers and election campaigns to keep them in office.
When it comes to the political parties, it’s easy to find examples of campaign finance fueling political agendas.
In 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen testified before a U.S. Senate committee about the greenhouse effect, both the Republican and Democratic parties took climate change seriously. But this attitude quickly diverged. Since the 1990s, the energy sector has heavily financed conservative candidates who have pushed its interests and helped to reduce regulations on the fossil fuel industry. This has enabled the expansion of fossil fuel production and escalated CO2 emissions to dangerous levels.
The industry’s power in shaping policy plays out in examples like the coalition of 19 Republican state attorneys general and coal companies suing to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions from power plants.
Corporate interests have also fueled a surge in well-financed antidemocratic leaders who are willing to stall and even dismantle existing climate policies and regulations. These political leaders’ tactics have escalated public health crises, and in some cases, human rights abuses.
Brazil, Australia and the US
Many deeply antidemocratic governments are tied to oil, gas and other extractive industries that are driving climate change, including Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq and China.
In “Global Burning,” I explore how three leaders of traditionally democratic countries – Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil, Scott Morrison of Australia and Donald Trump in the U.S. – came to power on anti-environment and nationalist platforms appealing to an extreme-right populist base and extractive corporations that are driving climate change. While the political landscape of each country is different, the three leaders have important commonalities.
Bolsonaro, Morrison and Trump all depend on extractive corporations to fund electoral campaigns and keep them in office or, in the case of Trump, get reelected.
For instance, Bolsonaro’s power depends on support from a powerful right-wing association of landowners and farmers called the União Democrática Ruralista, or UDR. This association reflects the interests of foreign investors and specifically the multibillion-dollar mining and agribusiness sectors. Bolsonaro promised that if elected in 2019, he would dismantle environmental protections and open, in the name of economic progress, industrial-scale soybean production and cattle grazing in the Amazon rainforest. Both contribute to climate change and deforestation in a fragile region considered crucial for keeping carbon out of the atmosphere.
Bolsonaro, Morrison and Trump are all openly skeptical of climate science. Not surprisingly, all have ignored, weakened or dismantled environmental protection regulations. In Brazil, that led to accelerated deforestation and large swaths of Amazon rainforest burning.
In Australia, Morrison’s government ignored widespread public and scientific opposition and opened the controversial Adani Carmichael mine, one of the largest coal mines in the world. The mine will impact public health and the climate and threatens the Great Barrier Reef as temperatures rise and ports are expanded along the coast.
Notably, all three leaders have worked, sometimes together, against international efforts to stop climate change. At the United Nations climate talks in Spain in 2019, Costa Rica’s minister for environment and energy at the time, Carlos Manuel Rodriguez, blamed Brazil, Australia and the U.S. for blocking efforts to tackle climate injustice linked to global warming.
Brazil, Australia and the U.S. are not unique in these responses to climate change. Around the world, there have been similar convergences of antidemocratic leaders who are financed by extractive corporations and who implement anti-environment laws and policies that defend corporate profits. New to the current moment is that these leaders openly use state power against their own citizens to secure corporate land grabs to build dams, lay pipelines, dig mines and log forests.
Fortunately, there is a lot that people can do to protect democracy and the climate.
Replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy and reducing the destruction of forests can cut greenhouse gas emissions. The biggest obstacles, a recent U.N. climate report noted, are national leaders who are unwilling to regulate fossil fuel corporations, reduce greenhouse gas emissions or plan for renewable energy production.
The path forward, as I see it, involves voters pushing back on the global trend toward authoritarianism, as Slovenia did in April 2022, and pushing forward on replacing fossil fuels with renewable energy. People can reclaim their democratic rights and vote out anti-environment governments whose power depends on prioritizing extractive capitalism over the best interests of their citizens and our collective humanity.
By the time Leamsy Salazar sat down in front of a video recorder in a lawyer’s office in Dallas, he had grown accustomed to divulging state secrets. After swearing to tell nothing but the truth so help him God, he recounted that he was born in Venezuela in 1974, enlisted in the army and rose through its special operations ranks. He described how in 2007 he became the chief of security for Hugo Chávez, the Venezuelan leader whose electoral victories had been challenged by outside observers and opposition parties. After Chávez died in 2013, Salazar said he provided intelligence on top Venezuelan officials involved in drug trafficking to American law enforcement agencies, which had helped him defect.
After about 45 minutes of Salazar telling his life story, the lawyer questioning him, Lewis Sessions, abruptly changed the course of the conversation. “I want to take a moment to get off the track,” said Sessions, the brother of Republican Rep. Pete Sessions of Texas. “Why are you here? What has motivated you to come forward?”
“I feel that the world should know — they should know the truth,” Salazar answered. “The truth about the corruption. About the manipulation. About the lies.”
“The truth about what?” Sessions asked.
“In this case, it’s the manipulation of votes,” Salazar said. “And the lies being told to a country.”
That morning of Nov. 13, 2020, Salazar had a new sort of intelligence to share. He claimed to know that the 2020 U.S. presidential election had been rigged — and how.
Speaking through an interpreter, Salazar said that when he worked for Chávez, he had attended meetings in which the administration discussed how to develop specialized software to steal elections with representatives from Smartmatic, a voting technology company whose founders had ties to Venezuela.
He recalled that during the 2013 presidential election, in a secret counting center in Caracas, the capital, he saw officials use software to change votes in favor of Chávez’s successor, Nicolás Maduro, after the polls closed. Watching the 2020 American election, he said, he noticed votes for Joe Biden jumping in a pattern that he thought was similar.
When Sessions asked if Salazar could draw a connection between the events in Venezuela and the recent American election, Salazar replied, “I can show the similarity.” In the 2020 election, Smartmatic machines were only used in Los Angeles, but Salazar explained away this discrepancy. He claimed that the company’s software had been “purchased” by Dominion Voting Systems, whose machines were used in such battleground states as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — all of which had gone to Biden, sealing his victory over Donald Trump.
Salazar said in a subsequent court filing that he had taken his concerns about the election to “a number of reliable and intelligent ex-co-workers of mine that are still informants and work with the intelligence community.” (He did not specify whether he meant the U.S. or Venezuelan intelligence community.) From there, sources told ProPublica, his concerns reached a former intelligence officer active in Republican politics and then the conservative lawyer Sidney Powell.
Powell was on the hunt for just such information.
By the second week of November, it had become known in right-wing circles that she was working behind the scenes with the president’s legal team to challenge the results of the election. In an email to ProPublica, Sessions wrote that he “conducted the interview at the request of a person working with Sidney Powell’s legal team.” The day after the interview, Trump made Powell’s position official with an announcement on Twitter.
The following morning, Powell traveled to South Carolina, where a loose coalition of lawyers, cybersecurity experts and former military intelligence officers were gathering on a plantation owned by the defamation lawyer Lin Wood to search for evidence of election fraud. One person present at the plantation said that Wood and Powell treated the Salazar video “like the holy grail of evidence.” (In an email to ProPublica, Wood wrote that he was not part of any coalition and that he had only seen “a few minutes” of the video, in which he had “no interest beyond general curiosity.” Powell did not respond to requests for comment.)
There was just one problem. Salazar’s claims were easily disprovable. Hours after the video was recorded, Trump campaign staffers reviewed some allegations about Dominion that were almost identical, and it took them less than a day to discover they were baseless. The staffers prepared an internal memo with section headings that read: “Dominion Has No Company Ties To Venezuela,” “Dominion And Smartmatic Terminated Their Contract In 2012” and “There Is No Evidence That Dominion Used Smartmatic’s Software In The 2020 Election Cycle.” Independent fact-checkers came to the same conclusions.
Dominion later released a statement calling a version of these allegations that Powell pushed in a lawsuit, “baseless, senseless, physically impossible, and unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.” A lawyer for Smartmatic wrote to ProPublica: “There are no ties between Dominion Voting Systems and Smartmatic — plain and simple.” He added that “Salazar’s testimony is full of inaccuracies,” strongly denied that Smartmatic’s technology was designed to steal Venezuelan elections, and said the company, which operates worldwide, has “registered and counted over 5 billion votes without a single security breach.” (Salazar did not respond to requests for comment.)
Salazar’s story was just one of many pieces of so-called evidence that members of the coalition have offered as proof that the 2020 election was rigged. That unfounded belief has emerged as one of the most potent forces in American politics. Numerous polls show that over two-thirds of Republicans doubt the legitimacy of the 2020 election. Millions of those Republicans believe foreign governments reprogrammed American voting machines.
ProPublica has obtained a trove of internal emails and other documentation that, taken together, tell the inside story of a group of people who propagated a number of the most pervasive theories about how the election was stolen, especially that voting machines were to blame, and helped move them from the far-right fringe to the center of the Republican Party.
Those records, as well as interviews with key participants, show for the first time the extent to which leading advocates of the stolen-election theory touted evidence that they knew to be disproven or that had been credibly disputed or dismissed as dubious by operatives within their own camp. Some members of the coalition presented this mix of unreliable witnesses, unconfirmed rumor and suspect analyses as fact in published reports, talking points and court documents. In several cases, their assertions became the basis for Trump’s claims that the election had been rigged.
Our examination of their actions from the 2020 election to the present day reveals a pattern. Many members of the coalition would advance a theory based on evidence that was never vetted or that they’d been told was flawed; then, when the theory was debunked, they’d move on to the next alternative and then the next.
The coalition includes several figures who have attracted national attention. Retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, who served briefly as national security adviser to Trump before pleading guilty to lying to law enforcement about his contacts with Russian officials, is the most well known. Patrick Byrne, the former CEO of Overstock.com who left his position after his romantic relationship with the convicted Russian agent Maria Butina became public, is the coalition’s chief financier and a frequent intermediary with the press. Powell, who represented Flynn in his attempt to reverse his guilty plea, spearheaded efforts in the courts.
Before Powell arrived at the plantation, Wood had filed a lawsuit in federal court in Atlanta against Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger that sought to stop him from certifying Biden’s victory. Soon after Powell showed up, Wood submitted an anonymized declaration from Salazar as evidence of how the election was corrupted. He then filed an emergency motion that sought access to Dominion machines in Georgia to “conduct a forensic inspection of this equipment and the data therein.” The case was eventually dismissed, but it would serve as a template for the series of high-profile lawsuits that Powell would file in Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia.
Salazar’s declaration was central to the four lawsuits, and it went further than the assertions he had made in the video. His claim that he could show “the similarity” between anomalies in Venezuelan and American elections expanded to become an allegation that “the DNA of every vote tabulating company’s software and system” in the United States was potentially compromised.
Wood told ProPublica, “I was not involved in the vetting, drafting or filing any of the lawsuits filed by Sidney Powell,” though his name appears as “of counsel” in all four. A judge sanctioned him in the Michigan case, writing that “while Wood now seeks to distance himself from this litigation to avoid sanctions, the Court concludes that he was aware of this lawsuit when it was filed, was aware that he was identified as co-counsel for Plaintiffs, and as a result, shares the responsibility with the other lawyers for any sanctionable conduct.”
All the lawsuits would fail, with judges excoriating the quality of their evidence. It wasn’t just the evidence in the lawsuits that was flawed. In fact, much of the evidence that members of the coalition contributed to the stolen election myth outside the courts was also weak. Yet the coalition’s failure to prove its theories has not hindered its ability to spread them.
This is the story of how little untruths added up to the “big lie.”
When Powell and Rudy Giuliani, who was leading the Trump campaign’s legal team in challenging the vote, began investigating election fraud in November 2020, they quickly were inundated with tips. This flood increased once Wood and others began soliciting evidence on far-right message boards and mainstream social media platforms.
Some of the participants at the plantation described the inundation of claims, which overwhelmed their inboxes, as a type of evidence in itself: There must be something to allegations of election fraud if so many people were making them. ProPublica spoke to eight sources with firsthand knowledge of the coalition’s efforts on the plantation, many of whom said they worked relentlessly in a chaotic environment. Tips that easily could have been dismissed as dubious instead were treated as credible.
In examining hundreds of emails sent to the plantation, ProPublica found that some were hearsay or anecdotes seemingly misinterpreting everyday events; others were internet rumors; and many were recycled narratives that some members of the coalition had pushed on social media. None of the tips that ProPublica examined provided concrete proof of election fraud or manipulation.
One of the first tips Powell and Giuliani promoted came from Joe Oltmann, a Denver-based conservative podcast host who said he had infiltrated an antifa conference call and had heard a high-level Dominion employee named Eric Coomer declare that he would make sure that Trump lost the election. Powell and Giuliani highlighted Oltmann’s claim at a press conference on Nov. 19, 2020, at the Republican National Committee headquarters.
By that time, Powell was paying for an investigator to travel to Denver, according to a person familiar with the events. The investigator, the source said, interviewed Oltmann at a brewery in Castle Rock, Colorado, and spent several days checking out his story. Not long after the press conference, according to the source, the investigator emailed Powell his assessment that Oltmann was at the very least embellishing, but she did not respond.
Powell soon referred to Oltmann’s allegations in court filings in Georgia and Michigan; roughly a week later, she submitted an affidavit from Oltmann in the Arizona and Wisconsin lawsuits. Coomer has denied being on the call and has brought a defamation suit against Oltmann, Powell, Giuliani, the Trump campaign and others. Oltmann has never presented proof of Coomer being on the call, and in March 2022, the judge overseeing the defamation case sanctioned Oltmann, fining him almost $33,000 for failing to appear for a deposition. When Powell was asked in a July 2021 deposition if she had anyone look into Oltmann and “his background,” she said she did not recall. (Oltmann did not provide responses to questions about the investigator’s assessment.)
Within days of the investigator’s Oltmann probe, Powell turned to another dubious witness: Terpsehore Maras, a QAnon-promoting social media influencer and podcaster who goes by the online handle Tore Says.
In September 2020, in a civil consumer-fraud judgment in North Dakota, Maras had been found to have made false online charitable fundraising solicitations and to have created “an entirely fake online persona.” (Maras has claimed that the allegations against her remain “unproven” despite the legal finding and that “false identities were imperative for me to execute my duties,” which include being a “former private intelligence contractor, whistleblower, and investigative journalist.”)
Powell filed a declaration in early December 2020 from an anonymous individual in the Arizona and Wisconsin lawsuits. The individual claimed that there was “unambiguous evidence” that “foreign interference is present in the 2020 election” and pointed to a vast and unproven conspiracy that involved Dominion, George Soros, a company with an office in China, and the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations. The Washington Post later identified the declaration’s author to be Maras.
In the weeks after the election, Maras presented herself to Byrne as knowledgeable about election fraud. But he discovered that she was unreliable after he had a team of investigators debrief her. Byrne and Maras said the debriefing occurred after Powell filed the declaration.
In an email to another witness he had debriefed, Byrne described the investigators’ assessment: “Tore was taken out and interviewed by some people I know from the intelligence community who are absolutely on our side. They came back telling me: ‘She knows some things and has been behind the curtain, but she also lies, exaggerates, deflects, changes subject rapidly trying to throw people off, and we cannot rely on her for anything factual because we caught her in too many lies and exaggerations over three hours.’” (“I tried my best to deceive” the debriefers, Maras wrote on her blog in response to questions from ProPublica. “I was scared.”)
Byrne has since repeatedly promoted Maras’ right-wing activism, as he does in this September 2021 video, some of which revolves around questioning the legitimacy of the election. (“She’s a friend and an ally, and I know that she’s a little goofy,” Byrne told ProPublica in an interview, explaining that he had recently been impressed by work she had done on their shared causes. “I think she has relevant knowledge.”)
Byrne, Powell and other coalition members weren’t just relying on witness statements in their effort to prove the election was rigged. Some of them also pointed to multiple mathematical analyses. One that Powell and Byrne advanced came from a man named Edward Solomon. In the weeks after Nov. 3, 2020, Solomon produced a series of online videos purporting to demonstrate how algorithms adjusted the vote total in Biden’s favor.
Before Byrne and Powell highlighted Solomon’s voting analysis, he came to public attention briefly in 2016, after authorities seized 240 bags of heroin, 25 grams of cocaine and weapons from his home; he later pleaded guilty to selling drugs. (Solomon did not respond to requests for comment.)
One person who coalition members entrusted to vet Solomon’s analysis was Seth Keshel, a former Army intelligence officer who was brought into the group by Flynn and who acknowledged to ProPublica that his mathematical expertise drew from “a long track record of baseball statistics.” In the end, his level of expertise didn’t matter; because of a server error, the emailed request to vet Solomon never reached Keshel, who said he had no memory of checking Solomon’s claims.
Byrne used Solomon’s analysis in his book, “The Deep Rig,” to make the case that the election was fraudulent. In February 2021, a month after the book was published, the University of Pennsylvania’s FactCheck.org reported that officials at the college Solomon had attended said that, though he had been a math major, he had never received a degree. The article quoted experts who pointed to flaws in Solomon’s analysis, especially that the “vote shares” he suggested were suspicious were “not at all surprising,” and a Georgia elections official who said that Solomon “shows a basic misunderstanding of how vote counts work.”
A paper posted that month by University of Chicago and Stanford researchers found that the numbers Solomon had said were suspicious were normal for a fraud-free election and that by not considering this, his analysis was a classic example of how “fishing for a finding” can “lead an argument astray.”
Byrne kept promoting Solomon’s work until at least July 2021, when he described him in a blog post as a “Renowned Mathematician.”
Five months after the FactCheck.org story and the research paper, Powell was asked in a sworn deposition which mathematicians or statisticians she relied on to support her belief that the election was fraudulent. She cited among others a “Mr. Solomon.”
In addition to relying on the flawed claims of Salazar, Oltmann, Maras and Solomon, Powell also promoted the assertions of an Arizona woman named Staci Burk, who had contributed to two fraud rumors after the election. In the first, Burk claimed that she’d spoken with a worker at a FedEx operations center in Seattle who had observed suspicious canvas bags marked as “election mail ballots” passing through the facility. The second involved a South Korean airplane flying fake ballots for Biden into Phoenix a few days after the election; Burk said that she had recorded a man who had confessed to the scheme.
A lawsuit that Powell filed in Arizona on Dec. 2, 2020, later included a “Jane Doe” witness who would “testify about illegal ballots being shipped around the United States including to Arizona.” Burk told ProPublica that she was the “Jane Doe.” The same day that Powell filed the Arizona lawsuit, she claimed at a rally outside of Atlanta to have evidence of “a plane full of ballots that came in,” and she continued pushing the idea, declaring in a Dec. 5 interview with the host of a YouTube channel, “We have evidence of a significant plane-load of ballots coming in.” The judge tossed the case before Burk could testify.
Burk’s theories proved false, and at least three coalition members were informed of this. Byrne said that he passed Burk’s claims to a contact at the Department of Homeland Security, who told him about a week later that it “had been looked into and there was nothing there.” This was in November 2020, before Powell filed her lawsuit. Byrne said that he let some of his associates know that Homeland Security had dismissed the claim but was unsure if he informed Powell. (He also said that later his contact showed renewed interest in the idea.)
In late December, James Penrose, a former senior official for the National Security Agency who had been at the plantation and described himself as working for Wood and Powell, called Burk and explained that he had spent $75,000 on a team of former FBI analysts turned private investigators to check out the theories. On the call, which she recorded, Penrose said that the investigators had tracked the claims about the South Korean airplane to the person who first made them. “When he was pressed, that guy admitted that he made it up because he hated the MAGA people that he worked with. And he was purposely trying to troll them by saying he saw ballots on the plane,” Penrose told Burk. “That created the rumor.” The man whom Burk recorded confessing to his involvement in the ballot scheme told Penrose’s investigators that in trying to impress Burk “he fabricated everything.”
“I mean, are you saying that it — that none of it’s true?” Burk asked. Penrose replied: “Yes. I’m saying that the entire thing was fabricated. It’s all bullshit.”
Penrose’s team had also checked out the Seattle FedEx incident, and he told Burk, “We’re not able to confirm anything that looked like conspiracy along those lines.”
Neither Penrose nor anyone associated with the coalition ever publicly released the findings of the investigation. (Penrose did not respond to requests for comment.)
Burk has since renounced her belief in the rumors she had once backed. “I obviously made a mistake believing lies,” Burk wrote to ProPublica. She said she had come to believe that some members of the coalition had manipulated her and her stories to further their ends. “As things unfolded over time, it became apparent I [was] used as a theatre set piece.”
Burk’s stories would shape the audit of the election results that Arizona legislators would later authorize — and which Byrne, Flynn, Powell, Wood and other associates helped fund, contributing about $5.7 million. The 2021 audit was criticized by elections experts and uncovered no proof of fraud.
“You have no idea how widespread the belief is in Arizona to this day that there’s 300,000 ballots that were brought in via an airplane,” said Doug Logan, a coalition member who worked with Penrose on the plantation and whose company Cyber Ninjas would run the audit. Logan said that Penrose told him that the woman’s theories were false. Still, Logan said, he had auditors examine ballots to check a range of theories, including whether bamboo fibers were mixed into the paper, which auditors believed could show that they were imported from Asia. “Our goal in the audit was to figure out what’s really true and deal with it,” Logan told ProPublica. “That’s why we did paper examination.”
No fibers were found.
Few pieces of evidence were more consequential to the stolen-election theory than a report that claimed to have found evidence of intentional election fraud in Dominion voting machines in Antrim County, Michigan. It was heralded as technical proof that votes were stolen for Biden. It was repeatedly promoted by the president. And Byrne and other proponents of the stolen election myth continued to refer to it when speaking to ProPublica reporters.
However, one of the authors of the report recently told ProPublica that the original version never found definitive evidence of election fraud in the Antrim voting machines.
“There was no proof at that specific moment,” the author, Conan James Hayes, said. He described finding what he considered a surprising number of errors in the data logs that he thought “could lead to” election fraud. “But there was no, like, ‘There was election fraud,’” he said, “at least at that time in my mind.”
Antrim had been the subject of national attention when, on election night, returns showed that Biden had unexpectedly won the Republican stronghold. The next day, the county clerk, a Republican who supported Trump, explained that officials had discovered that a clerical error had switched roughly 3,000 votes from the president to Biden. After the clerk’s office made corrections, Trump, as expected, had won the county with more than 60% of the vote.
Internal documents reviewed by ProPublica reveal that some members of the coalition almost immediately suspected that the mistake in Antrim was not human error. Rather, it was an incident in which the voting machine software hadn’t been surreptitious enough in stealing votes and unintentionally revealed itself. Their logic was simple: If they could do a forensic audit of the Antrim machines, they could finally establish how the election was stolen. The challenge was how to access the machines.
The day after Thanksgiving 2020, Byrne paid for a private plane to fly two cybersecurity specialists working with the coalition to Antrim: Hayes, a former professional surfer who had taught himself about computers, and Todd Sanders, a Texas businessman with a cybersecurity consulting business. Hayes and Sanders were turned away from the first two offices they tried, but at a third, a county worker agreed to unroll voting tabulation scrolls, which they photographed.
Highlighting discrepancies in the vote tally produced by the error, a Michigan lawyer won a court order to allow the machines to be formally accessed. On Dec. 6, Hayes, Sanders, a deputy for Giuliani and data forensic specialists engaged by Wood flew to Antrim, again on a private plane paid for by Byrne, and imaged the hard drives of a computer that was the county’s election management server.
Hayes and Sanders returned to Washington, where they examined the data and, in less than a week, assembled a report. Hayes and another individual familiar with the original version described it as a straightforward technical document, which noted aspects about the data that seemed suspicious but was cautious about claiming election fraud. Then the report was turned over to Russell J. Ramsland, the head of Allied Security Operations Group, a small security contracting company connected to Texas conservative circles.
When the report was released after a court hearing on Dec. 14, it was a very different document, according to Hayes and the other person familiar with the original version. It had “REVISED PRELIMINARY SUMMARY, v2” and Ramsland’s name at the top and his signature at the bottom, and it made an outright accusation. “The Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results,” it claimed. “This leads to voter or election fraud.” Allied Security, it said, had discovered enough proof of election fraud to decertify the results in Antrim.
Hayes’ and Sanders’ names were nowhere on the report. Hayes told ProPublica that the new “information must have been written by” Allied Security. (Sanders did not respond to repeated requests for comment.)
It wasn’t just people associated with the original report who believed Ramsland’s version was flawed. An analysis commissioned by the Michigan secretary of state found that the report contained an “extraordinary number of false, inaccurate, or unsubstantiated statements,” including that “the errors in the log file do not mean what Mr. Ramsland purports them to” and were instead “benign” lines of code generated by processes that did not affect the vote outcome. A bipartisan investigation led by Republican legislators in Michigan declared that the Antrim theories are “a complete waste of time to consider.” (Ramsland did not respond to ProPublica’s questions about revising the report. But he did tell The Washington Post that the Michigan analysis only addressed 12 of Allied Security’s 29 “core observations.”)
Trump supporters immediately seized on the report as definitive proof that the election was rigged. Flynn tweeted, “MI forensics report shows a massive breakdown in national security & must be dealt w/ immediately. @realDonaldTrump must appoint a special counsel now.” Byrne and Flynn lobbied for Powell to become the special counsel.
In a statement, Giuliani said: “This new revelation makes it clear that the vote count being presented now by the democrats in Michigan constitutes an intentionally false and misleading representation of the final vote tally. The Electors simply cannot be certified based on these demonstrably false vote counts.” (Giuliani did not respond to requests for comment.)
Byrne described the report as a “BOMBSHELL,” posting it on his blog under the claim: “You wanted the evidence. Here is the evidence.”
Trump tweeted: “WOW. This report shows massive fraud. Election changing result!” Over the next three days, on social media, he promoted the Antrim report and suspicions about Dominion voting machines 11 times.
Late on the afternoon of Dec. 14, Trump’s personal secretary sent an email to the deputy attorney general with the subject line “From POTUS.” The Antrim report was attached to the email. An additional document included talking points (“This is a Cover-up of voting crimes”) and conclusions (“these election results cannot be certified in Antrim County”). That email launched Trump’s attempt to persuade the Department of Justice to assist in overturning the election results, according to a 2021 report by Senate Democrats. In the end, the deputy attorney general rebuffed the president, and officials in the department threatened to resign en masse if he was replaced.
When Trump demanded that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger “find 11,780 votes,” enough for him to win the state, in a recorded phone call on Jan. 2, the president mentioned the Dominion conspiracy 10 times.
At the Jan. 6 “Save America” rally on the Ellipse, directly before Trump spoke, Giuliani took the stage and suggested that halting the certification of Biden’s victory was justified because of “these crooked Dominion machines.”
Trump’s speech emphasized the “highly troubling matter of Dominion Voting Systems” and the events in Antrim to explain that the election had been stolen.
Not long after, while Trump supporters made their initial assault on police barricades, Republican Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona was on the House floor objecting to the certification of his state’s electoral votes — the beginning of the effort to block the certification of Biden’s victory by Congress. He cited as evidence “the Dominion voting machines with a documented history of enabling fraud.” About a minute later, Gosar’s speech was interrupted and then cut off. The crowd was storming the Capitol. One person in the throng raised a sign that read, “No Machines Dominion STEALS.”
In the aftermath of the attack on the Capitol, many of the same people who had pushed the claims about Dominion repackaged their theory of how the election was stolen. It relied on the same data and the same arguments, except now it had a new name.
This transformation happened after Dominion’s parent company filed a lawsuit against Powell for defamation in a Washington court on Jan. 8. She and others began talking less about Dominion and more about voting machines in general. Dominion would go on to sue Byrne, Giuliani and others for billions of dollars in collective damages, contending that they promoted and in some cases manufactured false claims. The defendants have each denied responsibility or wrongdoing. (Smartmatic USA Corp. also brought defamation suits against Powell, Giuliani and others, all of whom have denied wrongdoing.)
By the summer of 2021, Hayes and Sanders, the two cybersecurity specialists who had performed the Antrim operation, had become involved in an effort to prove a theory called Hammer and Scorecard. The theory had been making the rounds in conservative circles for more than five years, and Powell had promoted it before the 2020 election. It posited that a supercomputer called Hammer had been developed by the CIA and then commandeered by the Obama administration to spy on Americans, including Trump, Flynn and Powell. Around the time of the election, the theory expanded to suggest that Hammer was using a software called Scorecard to alter results in voting machines and that foreign governments had possibly gotten ahold of it.
Part of the usefulness of Hammer and Scorecard is that built into the theory is an explanation for why it can’t be disproven: It is so top secret that the person who could expose the conspiracy can’t. That person is a former Department of Defense contractor named Dennis Montgomery. The people promoting the theory claim he can’t reveal the evidence because he’s under a gag order imposed by the U.S. government.
Phil Waldron, a former Army colonel, a spokesperson for Allied Security and a member of the coalition who worked remotely with those on the plantation, said in an online interview that if the gag order against Montgomery were lifted, “Specifically what that would reveal is the level of foreign interference in the election.”
Montgomery has been accused of fraud by former associates, though no criminal charges have resulted from those accusations. In the aftermath of 9/11, he allegedly duped the Department of Defense and other federal agencies out of more than $20 million in part by selling them software that he claimed could unearth messages to terrorist sleeper cells hidden in Al-Jazeera broadcasts. (It does not appear that the government ever attempted to get the money back.) Once those claims collapsed, allies of Montgomery began spreading the idea of Hammer. In 2018, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a suit Montgomery had filed against FBI Director James B. Comey, which attempted to expose an alleged government spy program, calling it “a veritable anthology of conspiracy theorists’ complaints.” (Montgomery did not reply to repeated requests for comment, but in the past he has denied the fraud accusations.)
The person behind the 2021 campaign pushing Hammer and Scorecard was Mike Lindell, the My Pillow magnate who has claimed to have poured about $35 million into efforts to prove the 2020 election was fraudulent. In July 2021, Lindell announced that he had gotten hold of a mysterious set of data that would prove the election was stolen. According to sources and messages reviewed by ProPublica, the data related to Hammer and Scorecard, though Lindell didn’t publicly name the theory or refer to Montgomery.
Lindell said he would reveal the data at a three-day “cyber symposium” he was hosting in August 2021 in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Reporters, cybersecurity experts and elected officials — as well as anyone tuning in online — would finally see the proof that the election was fraudulent. Lindell said that independent cybersecurity experts would vet 37 terabytes of data at the symposium and posted an online offer of a $5 million reward to any attendee who could prove that “this cyber data is not valid data from the November 2020 election.” The event, he suggested, would result in Trump being returned to the presidency.
In the run-up to the symposium, before the independent experts did their analysis, the data was given to a group that included Waldron, Hayes, Sanders and Joshua Merritt, a self-described “white hat” hacker — all of whom had been associated with Allied Security at one time or another. (They called themselves the “Red Team” but coordinated on a group chat named “Purple Unicorns.”) Also on the team was Ronald Watkins, who has been identified by two independent forensic linguistic analyses as “Q,” the anonymous figure behind the QAnon conspiracy theory. (Watkins has denied on numerous occasions that he is Q; he did not respond to requests for comment.) Private communications reviewed by ProPublica show that he was in contact with people at the plantation in November 2020, advising them on how to set up secure systems to transfer information and helping with research into the Dominion theory.
Soon after arriving at Sioux Falls, it became evident to the Red Team that the data Lindell had provided wasn’t what was promised. “I have checked them all and they are NOT PROOF,” Watkins wrote in a text message to the rest of the team. “So there are a few files that could potentially be from hammer/scorecard in there, but that is only because it didn’t include a source. Since there is no source, it could be from anywhere — or even fake.”
“At the 11th hour, why do we still have zero proof,” another person on the chat wrote, frustrated that Montgomery hadn’t delivered on his guarantees. “If this software does exist, and the developer” — Montgomery — “is working with us, it shouldn’t take him 10 months to figure out how to extract data” that would prove his assertions.
According to Merritt, when the Red Team tried to inform Lindell two nights before the symposium was to start that the data contained no proof, the CEO yelled at them that they were wrong.
For months leading up to the event, conservatives who believed that the 2020 election was stolen had warned Lindell or an attorney working with him that promoting Hammer and Scorecard risked discrediting other efforts to prove the election was rigged. Two people, including election fraud activist Catherine Engelbrecht, the executive director of True the Vote, cautioned that they had had negative experiences with Montgomery and his representatives and that Hammer and Scorecard wasn’t credible, according to documents viewed by ProPublica and interviews with people familiar with the matter.
On the eve of the symposium, the Red Team learned that Montgomery would not be attending; he said he had suffered a stroke. The final proof of election fraud, which he was supposed to deliver last minute, was no longer going to arrive.
The event drew hundreds of thousands of viewers online, with more than 40 state legislators and others gathering in person. Onstage with Lindell, Waldron explained that the Red Team had looked at the data and “we’ve seen plausibility” and that a separate group of independent analysts would now comb through it.
By the end of the third day, the independent analysts — longtime election security and computer experts, some skeptical of Lindell’s claims and others sympathetic — appeared to have reached a consensus: None of the data contained the proof that Lindell had promised, according to accounts from five of them. In fact, much of the data turned out to be from the Antrim voting machines or harvested from other elections offices and was just a recycling of evidence that had already been discredited.
The data “was some gobbledygook,” said Bill Alderson, a cybersecurity specialist from Texas who had voted for Trump. Merritt told ProPublica that he feared that the hollowness of the data undermined other, more legitimate efforts to prove the election was stolen. Partway through the symposium, The Washington Times quoted him saying that “we were handed a turd.”
Waldron and Lindell, however, did not inform the crowd and those online what the analysts had found. On the last day of the conference, Waldron claimed to have “credible information on a threat in the data streams,” implying the evidence could have been sabotaged.
The day after the symposium ended — the day he had suggested that Trump would be returned to office — Lindell dined with the former president at Mar-a-Lago, a photo of which was leaked to Salon. At a rally, not long after, Trump called the symposium “really amazing,” and he has continued to praise Lindell’s efforts on his behalf. Lindell did not respond to a list of questions from ProPublica and instead wrote, “The election crime movement started November 3rd when the CCP” — the Chinese Communist Party — “and many others did a cyber attack on our election!”
In March 2022, ProPublica sent dozens of letters to the individuals named in this article and others that asked about factual problems with the evidence many had put forth as proof that the election was rigged.
Some of the responses were dismissive. “Stupid article,” wrote Michael T. Flynn’s spokesperson and brother, Joseph J. Flynn. “No one we care about will read it.”
Others contested the article’s findings. Russell J. Ramsland wrote, “So much of this narrative is false or highly misleading that I am not willing to respond point-by-point.”
Despite repeated requests, others did not respond. They include Sidney Powell, James Penrose, Phil Waldron and Todd Sanders.
Some, like Doug Logan, disputed that they had worked as part of a coalition. Others, however, felt it was an accurate description. “I was a member of said coalition,” wrote Seth Keshel.
“‘Coalition’ may not be the right word,” wrote Patrick Byrne, who said that he has spent $12 million on “election integrity” efforts through early 2022, often working in close coordination with Flynn. “We think of it as a network of fellow-travelers who were all volunteering to work to expose what we believed was a rigging of the election on November 3. But I can live with ‘coalition.’” Messages and documents reviewed by ProPublica reveal that the named individuals were in closer contact than has been publicly known, especially in the weeks immediately following the election.
On the whole, coalition members who responded to ProPublica doubled down on their belief in the stolen election myth. “I’ve not wavered on this,” Keshel emailed ProPublica. “I can spend hours with you showing you point after point after point to demand full investigation of this.” The single exception was Conan James Hayes, who wrote to ProPublica: “I don’t believe anything until I have all of the information to analyze, which to this point I do not have. So I can’t say either way.”
Over the course of months, Byrne acted as a champion of sorts for the coalition’s ideas, making himself available for numerous interviews and message exchanges. He also sent a 16,000-word letter in response to more than 80 fact-checking questions.
When presented with evidence that some of his past claims had proven incorrect, he acknowledged that there were instances when he and his allies had been wrong, especially when they were trying to interpret shifting information in the weeks after the election. He downplayed the weight they had put on claims about Dominion voting machines being exploited by foreign governments, though their own court filings and public statements from the time show this was their major claim. “I think that it’s picking at nits to look back at some of the stuff,” he said. He defended the coalition, saying, “I think they got the gestalt of it correct.”
Don’t pay attention, Byrne argued, to the many parts of the Antrim report that a technical expert commissioned by the Michigan secretary of state had debunked. (These errors included Allied Security’s central contention that Dominion machines were “purposefully designed” to create “systemic fraud” through a process known as “adjudication.”
The machines in question did not have the “adjudication” software installed, according to the Michigan analysis.) Instead, Byrne stressed that what was now important was the claim that the voting machines’ security logs only went back to the day after the election, making it impossible to rely on any data on them. (The Michigan secretary of state expert found that logs were automatically overwritten to free up memory and that “the timing appears to be a coincidence,” though it said that having a limited amount of memory “is contrary to best practice.”)
Dominion voting machines, South Korean jets and Dennis Montgomery, Byrne suggested, weren’t central to the case. He repeatedly turned the conversation toward newer arguments for election fraud. He highlighted a March 2021 interim election audit report from a special counsel hired by Republican legislators in Wisconsin.
The report’s primary claim was that a nonprofit had engaged in “election bribery” by providing funds to boost voter turnout in five urban areas, where voters are disproportionately Democratic. The special counsel raised the possibility that the report’s findings were serious enough that Biden’s victory in the state could be decertified. (A federal judge in October 2020 rejected the argument that the nonprofit’s work was illegal, and courts have repeatedly come to the same conclusion.)
Byrne continued to bring up new, supposedly bombshell claims. In his letter to ProPublica, he promoted a forthcoming documentary called “2000 Mules” by conservative activist Dinesh D’Souza that alleged that thousands of shadowy operatives filled drop boxes across the nation with ballots marked for Biden. “Videotapes of drop boxes, cell phone tower pings, and the testimony of a whistleblower,” Byrne wrote, “all point to about one million votes being stuffed” in Georgia.
There was always another report. Another debunking of the debunking.
Byrne acknowledged that no single piece of smoking gun evidence of election fraud had emerged, but he argued that the breadth of evidence that he and those with similar views had assembled made it inconceivable that elections weren’t corrupted.
What he was doing was necessary to save American democracy, Byrne had concluded. He was sure of it. “I’ve got my cards. You got your cards,” he said. “I’ll go all in.”
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
