Reading the latest international climate report can feel overwhelming. It describes how rising temperatures caused by increasing greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are having rapid, widespread effects on the weather, climate and ecosystems in every region of the planet, and it says the risks are escalating faster than scientists expected.

Global temperatures are now 1.1 degree Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than at the start of the industrial era. Heat waves, storms, fires and floods are harming humans and ecosystems. Hundreds of species have disappeared from regions as temperatures rise, and climate change is causing irreversible changes to sea ice, oceans and glaciers. In some areas, it’s becoming harder to adapt to the changes, the authors write.

Still, there are reasons for optimism – falling renewable energy costs are starting to transform the power sector, for example, and the use of electric vehicles is expanding. But change aren’t happening fast enough, and the window for a smooth transition is closing fast, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warns. To keep global warming below 1.5 C (2.7 F), it says global greenhouse gas emissions will have to drop 60% by 2035 compared with 2019 levels.

In the new report, released March 20, 2023, the IPCC summarizes findings from a series of assessments written over the past eight years and discusses how to stop the damage. In them, hundreds of scientists reviewed the evidence and research.

Here are four essential reads by co-authors of some of those reports, each providing a different snapshot of the changes underway and discussing solutions.

1. More intense storms and flooding

Many of the most shocking natural disasters of the past few years have involved intense rainfall and flooding.

In Europe, a storm in 2021 set off landslides and sent rivers rushing through villages that had stood for centuries. In 2022, about a third of Pakistan was underwater, and several U.S. communities were hit with extreme flash flooding.

The IPCC warns in the sixth assessment report that the water cycle will continue to intensify as the planet warms. That includes extreme monsoon rainfall, but also increasing drought, greater melting of mountain glaciers, decreasing snow cover and earlier snowmelt, wrote UMass-Lowell climate scientist Mathew Barlow, a co-author of the report examining physical changes.

“An intensifying water cycle means that both wet and dry extremes and the general variability of the water cycle will increase, although not uniformly around the globe,” Barlow wrote.

“Understanding this and other changes in the water cycle is important for more than preparing for disasters. Water is an essential resource for all ecosystems and human societies.”

2. The longer the delay, the higher the cost

The IPCC stressed in its reports that human activities are unequivocally warming the planet and causing rapid changes in the world’s atmosphere, oceans and icy regions.

“Countries can either plan their transformations, or they can face the destructive, often chaotic transformations that will be imposed by the changing climate,” wrote Edward Carr, a Clark University scholar and co-author of the IPCC report focused on adaptation.

The longer countries wait to respond, the greater the damage and cost to contain it. One estimate from Columbia University put the cost of adaptation needed just for urban areas at between US$64 billion and $80 billion a year – and the cost of doing nothing at 10 times that level by mid-century.

“The IPCC assessment offers a stark choice,” Carr wrote. “Does humanity accept this disastrous status quo and the uncertain, unpleasant future it is leading toward, or does it grab the reins and choose a better future?”

3. Transportation is a good place to start

One crucial sector for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is transportation.

Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero by mid-century, a target considered necessary to keep global warming below 1.5 C, will require “a major, rapid rethinking of how people get around globally,” wrote Alan Jenn, a transportation scholar at the University of California Davis and co-author on the IPCC report on mitigation.

There are positive signs. Battery costs for electric vehicles have fallen, making them increasingly affordable. In the U.S., the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act offers tax incentives that lower the costs for EV buyers and encourage companies to ramp up production. And several states are considering following California’s requirement that all new cars and light trucks be zero-emissions by 2035.

“Behavioral and other systemic changes will also be needed to cut greenhouse gas emissions dramatically from this sector,” Jenn wrote.

For example, many countries saw their transportation emissions drop during COVID-19 as more people were allowed to work from home. Bike sharing in urban areas, public transit-friendly cities and avoiding urban sprawl can help cut emissions even further. Aviation and shipping are more challenging to decarbonize, but efforts are underway.

He adds, however, that it’s important to remember that the effectiveness of electrifying transportation ultimately depends on cleaning up the electricity grid.

4. Reasons for optimism

The IPCC reports discuss several other important steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including shifting energy from fossil fuels to renewable sources, making buildings more energy efficient and improving food production, as well as ways to adapt to changes that can no longer be avoided.

There are reasons for optimism, wrote Robert Lempert and Elisabeth Gilmore, co-authors on the IPCC’s report focused on mitigation.

“For example, renewable energy is now generally less expensive than fossil fuels, so a shift to clean energy can often save money,” they wrote. Electric vehicle costs are falling. Communities and infrastructure can be redesigned to better manage natural hazards such as wildfires and storms. Corporate climate risk disclosures can help investors better recognize the hazards and push those companies to build resilience and reduce their climate impact.

“The problem is that these solutions aren’t being deployed fast enough,” Lempert and Gilmore wrote. “In addition to pushback from industries, people’s fear of change has helped maintain the status quo.” Meeting the challenge, they said, starts with embracing innovation and change.

Editor’s note: This story is a roundup of articles from The Conversation’s archives.

Stacy Morford, Environment + Climate Editor, The Conversation

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The big idea

Despite the heightened poverty and unemployment seen when the COVID-19 pandemic got underway, many low-income U.S. children did not experience a decline in their emotional and mental health, we found in a new study.

We looked specifically at kids whose families were participating in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program – commonly known as SNAP – the government program that helps low-income Americans afford food.

The government began to boost SNAP benefits in early 2020 to help offset pandemic-driven food insecurity for participating families, which now number around 41 million.

As a result, families got an extra US$95 or more per month for groceries to replace the meals children were missing at schools that had closed. Some eligibility rules were loosened to expand the program’s reach, and for the first time, people could buy groceries online with their SNAP benefits.

To learn whether these extra benefits affected children’s mental and emotional health, we analyzed five years of data collected by the National Survey of Children’s Health on 30,748 low-income families with children aged 6 to 17 years. The data, which included both families who were and were not getting SNAP benefits, covered the four years prior to the pandemic, as well as 2020.

Among the 8,680 families getting SNAP benefits during this period, 38% had at least one child with problems such as doctor-diagnosed mental, emotional, developmental or behavioral health issues – including anxiety and depression.

To assess whether the temporarily expanded benefits had an impact on these children, we conducted a “difference in differences” analysis: We compared data regarding children whose families enrolled in the SNAP program over time with children whose families didn’t get those benefits. In addition, we considered the potential influence of several factors that could play a role, such as parents’ mental health.

We found that children in families getting SNAP benefits in 2020 did not generally experience any change in their mental or emotional health compared to prior years, despite the heavy stress of the pandemic.

Why it matters

Typically, low-income children are more at risk of developing mental health or emotional problems, compared with high-income children. Our study adds to earlier evidence that SNAP benefits can lower that risk by reducing psychological distress and improving food security.

While 2020’s extra SNAP benefits protected children’s mental and emotional health, they did not improve it. This suggests that actually reducing food insecurity for low-income families would have required additional steps.

In March 2023, the federal government ended the pandemic-era SNAP expansions in 35 states and territories that hadn’t yet rolled them back. With inflation driving the cost of groceries up 11.4% in 2022, we believe that losing these benefits threatens the well-being of millions of families.

What’s next

We are now studying the effects of pandemic-related changes to the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, better known as WIC.

We are looking at, for example, how expanding WIC benefits to cover canned, frozen and dried fruits and vegetables in addition to fresh produce has affected the low-income families’ purchasing behavior. Our team for this research also includes public health and nutrition scholars Alexandra MacMillan Uribe and Elizabeth Racine,

What is not known

When we did our study, data from the years after 2020 wasn’t yet available, so we couldn’t investigate the potential impact of subsequent pandemic-related changes to SNAP benefits. Notably, in 2021, the federal government increased maximum benefit levels by 15% and extended the extra $95 or more in monthly food assistance for the lowest-income households.

Grace Melo, ACES Faculty Fellow, Texas A&M University; Pourya Valizadeh, Research Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University, and Rodolfo M. Nayga Jr., Professor of Agricultural Economics, Texas A&M University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

When Silicon Valley and Signature banks failed in early March 2023, government regulators rushed in to guarantee deposits and protect bank customers. Under current banking regulations, though, there was no obligation for the government to step in.

Now, both Democratic and Republican politicians are making pronouncements about whether bipartisan-backed deregulation in 2018 led to the banks’ collapse and whether the banking industry needs more government intervention.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and U.S. Rep. Katie Porter of California, both Democrats, introduced a bill on March 15, 2023, to restore stiff banking regulations that they maintain would have prevented the practices that led to the recent bank collapses. But some Republicans, including U.S. Rep. Andy Barr of Kentucky, say lax government policy that included overspending – which Barr says, fueled inflation, as well as long-term low interest rates – not deregulation, was behind the banks’ failures.

In dispute are requirements in the 2010 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act that were rolled back in 2018. Dodd-Frank put in place financial regulatory changes in response to the 2008 global financial meltdown. The legislation included among its requirements one that banks with US$50 billion in assets be subject to strict standards. Some lawmakers, including Porter and Warren, say those requirements should have remained intact.

But the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 loosened the standards, raising the asset threshold to $250 billion, meaning fewer banks were under strict controls.

The Conversation asked Gerard W. Comizio, a law professor, former Wall Street attorney and former senior Treasury Department official, to explain some of the problems that spurred Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and another bank to fail.

What caused Silicon Valley, Signature and a third bank, Silvergate, to fail?

Significant withdrawals at all three banks caused cash crises that could not be addressed by selling assets, such as bank notes and bonds. In the case of all three banks, sales of their assets would have triggered significant additional losses, since their portfolios were worth less than they paid for them and interest rates were rising.

While some aspects of each failure were different, there were common elements, and a certain level of Murphy’s law – the idea that if something can go wrong, it will. In the case of these banks, everything went wrong.

In the last three months of 2022, Silvergate had a record $1 billion loss, due to heavy lending to troubled and failed crypto trading exchanges. And its interest rate-sensitive securities portfolio became kindling for the current crisis.

During 2022, Silvergate’s deposit base grew dramatically, almost doubling its assets to $210 billion. But the bank did not have either the administrative capacity or market demand to lend out all of the money, as banks normally do. So, it invested the excess deposits in Treasury bonds and mortgage investment products.

But the bond purchases became a problem as the Federal Reserve began to raise interest rates to address inflation. As Business Insider reported, a two-year U.S. Treasury note that offered nearly triple the amount of Silicon Valley Bank’s portfolio of long-term bonds – which generated income at an average of just 1.6% – was much more attractive.

Bond prices plunged, creating billions of dollars in paper losses for Silicon Valley Bank, popularly known as SVB.

To shore up its cash assets, in the face of increasing customer withdrawals, SVB sold $21 billion in bonds at a $1.8 billion loss.

Which regulations from the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act were designed to prevent banking failures?

Section 165 of the Dodd-Frank Act adopted so-called “enhanced prudential regulation” rules for all banking organizations with more than $50 billion in assets, designating them as “systemically important financial institutions,” popularly known by the term “too big to fail.” These standards were designed to be more stringent than those applied to smaller banks. Lawmakers believed the larger institutions posed far greater risk to the financial stability of the U.S.

These stricter rules required, among other things, that the banks deemed too big to fail periodically update for the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. a comprehensive resolution plan. Dubbed the Living Will, that plan details a company’s plans for a “rapid and orderly” dissolution of the bank in the event it is failing or has already failed. In addition, these too-big-to-fail banks had a requirement to periodically assess their risk under a variety of market conditions, including rises in interest rates and risk hedging strategies. The rules also said designated banks had significantly higher capital requirements.

No longer required to adhere to those key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, the failed banks did not. Arguably, the provisions could have saved them.

Why weren’t the banks subject to those regulations?

Industry leaders, among them Greg Becker, CEO of Silicon Valley Bank, lobbied Congress in 2015 to roll back some of the Dodd-Frank Act provisions.

Arguing that the $50 billion threshold needed to be raised, Becker said the restrictions on midsize banks under the Dodd-Frank Act were too burdensome and inhibited banks’ ability to “provide the banking services our clients need.”

In 2018, Congress, in a bipartisan vote, with the support of then-President Donald Trump’s administration, all of the federal banking agencies and the banking industry, passed the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief and Consumer Protection Act. It amended the Dodd-Frank Act to substantially reduce the number of banks subject to the more stringent regulation by raising the threshold at which banks posed potential systemic risk, from $50 billion up to $250 billion.

On July 6, 2018, all of the banking agencies issued a statement confirming the elimination of these requirements.

If the Dodd-Frank Act had remained intact, would the banks have failed?

There are a number of arguments as to whether these failures could have been prevented and addressed faster if the Dodd-Frank standards had still been in place. These standards were arguably designed to specifically prevent and address the type of circumstances that triggered these recent bank failures: multiple failures and contagion in the financial system, market panic, deposit runs and liquidity crisis.

For example, abiding by Living Wills and stress testing would have identified problems far earlier and potentially required these banks to address a number of potential red flags that constituted higher risk, such as:

• Interest rate risk in the banks’ securities portfolio investments, and the consequences of liquidating those investments at a significant loss in the event of a cash crisis;

• Lack of interest rate risk hedging strategies;

• Excessive uninsured deposits that posed a risk to the bank if customers withdrew their money en masse; and

• The need to hold higher-than-normal levels of money to address their risks.

Ironically, in taking steps to provide unprecedented deposit insurance coverage to uninsured deposits at these banks, the U.S. Treasury, the Fed and the FDIC issued a joint statement on March 12 that they were invoking the systemic risk exception which allowed them to replace depositors’ money, even though the law was changed in 2018 to make clear banks of their size no longer posed systemic risk.

V. Gerard (Jerry) Comizio, Professor of Law, American University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Without water, life on Earth could not exist as it does today. Understanding the history of water in the universe is critical to understanding how planets like Earth come to be.

Astronomers typically refer to the journey water takes from its formation as individual molecules in space to its resting place on the surfaces of planets as “the water trail.” The trail starts in the interstellar medium with hydrogen and oxygen gas and ends with oceans and ice caps on planets, with icy moons orbiting gas giants and icy comets and asteroids that orbit stars. The beginnings and ends of this trail are easy to see, but the middle has remained a mystery.

I am an astronomer who studies the formation of stars and planets using observations from radio and infrared telescopes. In a new paper, my colleagues and I describe the first measurements ever made of this previously hidden middle part of the water trail and what these findings mean for the water found on planets like Earth.

How planets are formed

The formation of stars and planets is intertwined. The so-called “emptiness of space” – or the interstellar medium – in fact contains large amounts of gaseous hydrogen, smaller amounts of other gasses and grains of dust. Due to gravity, some pockets of the interstellar medium will become more dense as particles attract each other and form clouds. As the density of these clouds increases, atoms begin to collide more frequently and form larger molecules, including water that forms on dust grains and coats the dust in ice.

Stars begin to form when parts of the collapsing cloud reach a certain density and heat up enough to start fusing hydrogen atoms together. Since only a small fraction of the gas initially collapses into the newborn protostar, the rest of the gas and dust forms a flattened disk of material circling around the spinning, newborn star. Astronomers call this a proto-planetary disk.

As icy dust particles collide with each other inside a proto-planetary disk, they begin to clump together. The process continues and eventually forms the familiar objects of space like asteroids, comets, rocky planets like Earth and gas giants like Jupiter or Saturn.

Two theories for the source of water

There are two potential pathways that water in our solar system could have taken. The first, called chemical inheritance, is when the water molecules originally formed in the interstellar medium are delivered to proto-planetary disks and all the bodies they create without going through any changes.

The second theory is called chemical reset. In this process, the heat from the formation of the proto-planetary disk and newborn star breaks apart water molecules, which then reform once the proto-planetary disk cools.

To test these theories, astronomers like me look at the ratio between normal water and a special kind of water called semi-heavy water. Water is normally made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Semi-heavy water is made of one oxygen atom, one hydrogen atom and one atom of deuterium – a heavier isotope of hydrogen with an extra neutron in its nucleus.

The ratio of semi-heavy to normal water is a guiding light on the water trail – measuring the ratio can tell astronomers a lot about the source of water. Chemical models and experiments have shown that about 1,000 times more semi-heavy water will be produced in the cold interstellar medium than in the conditions of a protoplanetary disk.

This difference means that by measuring the ratio of semi-heavy to normal water in a place, astronomers can tell whether that water went through the chemical inheritance or chemical reset pathway.

Measuring water during the formation of a planet

Comets have a ratio of semi-heavy to normal water almost perfectly in line with chemical inheritance, meaning the water hasn’t undergone a major chemical change since it was first created in space. Earth’s ratio sits somewhere in between the inheritance and reset ratio, making it unclear where the water came from.

To truly determine where the water on planets comes from, astronomers needed to find a goldilocks proto-planetary disk – one that is just the right temperature and size to allow observations of water. Doing so has proved to be incredibly difficult. It is possible to detect semi-heavy and normal water when water is a gas; unfortunately for astronomers, the vast majority of proto-plantary disks are very cold and contain mostly ice, and it is nearly impossible to measure water ratios from ice at interstellar distances.

A breakthrough came in 2016, when my colleagues and I were studying proto-planetary disks around a rare type of young star called FU Orionis stars. Most young stars consume matter from the proto-planetary disks around them. FU Orionis stars are unique because they consume matter about 100 times faster than typical young stars and, as a result, emit hundreds of times more energy. Due to this higher energy output, the proto-planetary disks around FU Orionis stars are heated to much higher temperatures, turning ice into water vapor out to large distances from the star.

Using the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array, a powerful radio telescope in northern Chile, we discovered a large, warm proto-planetary disk around the Sunlike young star V883 Ori, about 1,300 light years from Earth in the constellation Orion.

V883 Ori emits 200 times more energy than the Sun, and my colleagues and I recognized that it was an ideal candidate to observe the semi-heavy to normal water ratio.

Completing the water trail

In 2021, the Atacama Large Millimeter/submillimeter Array took measurements of V883 Ori for six hours. The data revealed a strong signature of semi-heavy and normal water coming from V883 Ori’s proto-planetary disk. We measured the ratio of semi-heavy to normal water and found that the ratio was very similar to ratios found in comets as well as the ratios found in younger protostar systems.

These results fill in the gap of the water trail forging a direct link between water in the interstellar medium, protostars, proto-planetary disks and planets like Earth through the process of inheritance, not chemical reset.

The new results show definitively that a substantial portion of the water on Earth most likely formed billions of years ago, before the Sun had even ignited. Confirming this missing piece of water’s path through the universe offers clues to origins of water on Earth. Scientists have previously suggested that most water on Earth came from comets impacting the planet. The fact that Earth has less semi-heavy water than comets and V883 Ori, but more than chemical reset theory would produce, means that water on Earth likely came from more than one source.

John Tobin, Scientist, National Radio Astronomy Observatory

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.