Amazon’s first US union overcomes hurdles, faces new ones

By HALELUYA HADERO and ANNE D'INNOCENZIO

1 of 3

 Staten Island-based Amazon.com Inc distribution center union organizer Chris Smalls, center, wearing baseball cap, celebrates with union members after getting the voting results to unionize workers at the Amazon warehouse on Staten Island, in New York, Friday, April 1, 2022. (AP Photo/Eduardo Munoz Alvarez, File)


NEW YORK (AP) — When a scrappy group of former and current warehouse workers on Staten Island, New York went head-to-head with Amazon in a union election, many compared it to a David and Goliath battle.

David won. And the stunning upset on Friday brought sudden exposure to the organizers and worker advocates who realized victory for the nascent Amazon Labor Union when so many other more established labor groups had failed before them, including most recently in Bessemer, Alabama.

Initial results in that election show the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union down by 118 votes, with the majority of Amazon warehouse workers in Bessemer rejecting a bid to form a union. The final outcome is still up in the air with 416 outstanding challenged ballots hanging in the balance. A hearing to review the ballots is expected to begin in the coming weeks.

Chris Smalls, a fired Amazon worker who heads the ALU, has been critical of the RWDSU’s campaign, saying it didn’t have enough local support. Instead, he chose an independent path, believing workers organizing themselves would be more effective and undercut Amazon’s narrative that “third party” groups were driving union efforts.

“They were not perceived as outsiders, so that’s important,” said Ruth Milkman, a sociologist of labor and labor movements at the City University of New York.

While the odds were stacked against both union drives, with organizers facing off against a deep-pocketed retailer with an uninterrupted track record of keeping unions out of its U.S. operations, ALU was decidedly underfunded and understaffed compared with the RWDSU. Smalls said as of early March, ALU had raised and spent about $100,000 and was operating on a week-to-week budget. The group doesn’t have its own office space, and was relying on community groups and two unions to lend a hand. Legal help came from a lawyer offering pro-bono assistance.

Meanwhile, Amazon exercised all its might to fend off the organizing efforts, routinely holding mandatory meetings with workers to argue why unions are a bad idea. In a filing released last week, the company disclosed it spent about $4.2 million last year on labor consultants, who organizers say Amazon hired to persuade workers not to unionize.

Outmatched financially, Smalls and others relied on their ability to reach workers more personally by making TikTok videos, giving out free marijuana and holding barbecues and cookouts. A few weeks before the election, Smalls’ aunt cooked up soul food for a union potluck, including macaroni and cheese, collard greens, ham and baked chicken. Another pro-union worker got her neighbor to prepare Jollof rice, a West African dish organizers believed would help them make inroads with immigrant employees at the warehouse.

Kate Andrias, professor of law at Columbia University and an expert in labor law, noted a successful union — whether it is local or national — always has to be built by the workers themselves.

“This was a clearer illustration of this,” Andrias said. “The workers did this on their own.”

Amazon’s own missteps may have also contributed to the election outcome on Staten Island. Bert Flickinger III, a managing director at the consulting firm Strategic Resource Group, said derogatory comments by a company executive leaked from an internal meeting calling Smalls “not smart or articulate” and wanting to make him “the face of the entire union/organizing movement” backfired.

“It came out as condescending and it helped to galvanize workers,” said Flickinger, who consults with big labor unions.

In another example, Smalls and two organizers were arrested in February after authorities got a complaint about him trespassing at the Staten Island warehouse. The ALU used the arrests to its advantage days before the union election, teaming up with an art collective to project “THEY ARRESTED YOUR CO-WORKERS” in white letters on top of the warehouse. “THEY FIRED SOMEONE YOU KNOW,” another projection said.

“A lot of workers that were on the fence, or even against the union, flipped because of that situation,” Smalls said.

Experts note it’s difficult to know how much of ALU’s grassroots nature contributed to its victory when compared with the RWDSU. Unlike New York, Alabama is a right-to-work state that prohibits a company and a union from signing a contract that requires workers to pay dues to the union that represents them.

There was also a grassroots element to the union drive in Bessemer, which began when a group of Amazon workers there approached the RWDSU about organizing.

At a virtual press conference Thursday held by the RWDSU following the preliminary results in Alabama, president Stuart Appelbaum said he believed the election in New York benefited because it was held in a union-friendly state and Amazon workers on Staten Island voted in person, not by mail as was done in Alabama.

Despite some friction between the two labor groups in the leadup to the elections, both have adopted a friendlier public relationship in the past few days. Appelbaum praised Smalls during Thursday’s press conference, calling him a “charismatic, smart, dedicated leader.” Likewise, Smalls offered the RWDSU words of encouragement after their initial election loss.

For now, ALU is focusing on its win. Organizers say Amazon workers from more than 20 states have reached out to them to ask about organizing their warehouses. But they have their hands full with their own warehouse, and a neighboring facility slated to have a separate union election later this month.

Organizers are also preparing for a challenging negotiation process for a labor contract. The group has demanded Amazon officials to come to the table in early May. But experts say the retail giant, which has signaled plans to challenge the election results, will likely drag its feet.

“The number one thing is going to be fighting for the contract,” Smalls said. “We have to start that process right away because we know the longer drawn out the contract is, workers will lose hope and interest.”

Meanwhile, some workers are waiting to see what happens.

Tinea Greenway, a warehouse worker from Brooklyn, said before the election, she felt pressured by the messages she kept hearing both from Amazon and ALU organizers, and just wanted to make the decision herself. When the time came, she voted against the union because of a bad experience she’s had in the past with another union who she says didn’t fight for her.

“They won,” she said of the ALU. “So let’s see if they live up to the agreement of what they said they were going to do.”

____

Follow Haleluya Hadero: http://twitter.com/masayett

Follow Anne D’Innocenzio: http://twitter.com/ADInnocenzio

Rockefeller’s $105M plan to produce climate-friendly food

By KRISTEN GRIFFITH of The Chronicle of Philanthropy

In this photo provided by the Rockefeller Foundation, Jason Grauer, the Seed and Crop Director at Stone Barns, poses for a photo at Stone Barns’s greenhouse on April 7, 2021, in Tarrytown, N.Y. Rockefeller grantee Stone Barns Center for Food and Agriculture is working on innovative, community-based ways to increase access to food and use sustainable environmental practices. (William Rouse/Media RED via AP)

The pandemic sent global hunger soaring, but now the war in Ukraine is making the problem far worse. Since Russia and Ukraine together supply 30% of global wheat exports, a big chunk of the world is losing access to food.

Now one of the nation’s biggest foundations is trying to deal with some of these challenges with a $105 million plan to improve food access, make nutritious and healthy food more widely available, and advance production of food in ways that does not harm the planet.

Rajiv Shah, president of the Rockefeller Foundation, said the commitment is the biggest nutrition effort in Rockefeller’s history. Over the next three years, the Good Food Strategy aims to ensure that 40 million people around the world have better access to healthy and sustainable food.

“Because of climate change, food prices were already the highest in a decade, even before Russia’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine further decimated global food supplies. Now the world is on the precipice of a global humanitarian crisis,” Shah said in a statement.

The foundation and other experts say the way the world produces and consumes food is failing people and the planet. So it came up with a new strategy it hopes will shift the focus from increasing the quantity of food to improving its quality.

Rockefeller aims not just to increase access to affordable and healthy food but also to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions in the food system and expand opportunities for small food-production businesses to thrive.

The foundation has some innovative approaches to accomplishing those goals. For instance, it plans to:

— Encourage doctors to prescribe fruits and vegetables instead of drugs when appropriate since they can be both healthier and cheaper. Ten health insurance companies are working with Rockefeller to test the idea.

— Pay for healthy foods at schools, hospitals, prisons, and other state government facilities.

— Help farmers switch their production practices to approaches that reduce carbon from being released into the air after they plow the ground.

— Fund more small and medium-size food businesses to diversify the distributors and prevent supply-chain issues.

The announcement builds on one of philanthropy’s most successful efforts, the Green Revolution of the 1960s.

Rockefeller financed the technology that helped fuel production of food in a way that averted starvation in the world’s poorest countries. However, it lacked sustainability and equity. That’s what today’s effort is designed to tackle, foundation officials say.

Barron Segar, president of the World Food Program USA, agrees that something needs to be done now. Rockefeller gave the program $3.3 million in 2021 to supply nutritious food for school food programs in Africa.

“We’re facing the biggest crisis we’ve ever faced around food insecurity,” Segar said. “There are 811 million people today who don’t have access to quality food, and they don’t know where their next meal is coming from. We’re at a very pivotal moment in history where we have 45 million people that are marching toward starvation.”

Last year, Rockefeller published a report to evaluate all the ways food systems in the United States affect health, the environment, biodiversity, and livelihoods. It found that Americans paid an estimated $1.1 trillion of the cost of producing, processing, retailing, and wholesaling of food in 2019. But if other costs, like the food system’s impact on climate change were included, the cost would be $3.2 trillion a year.

One of Rockefeller’s grantees has been carrying out some of the ideas that are part of the Good Food Strategy.

FoodCorps, which received at least $500,000 from the foundation last year for its work to provide healthy food to kids in school, has already had some success in influencing food policy.

In California, FoodCorps advocated for passage of Free School Meals for All Act last year. And in Connecticut, the nonprofit helped the state achieve its first farm-to-school grant program, which will put more local foods in school meals, give educators more resources to teach students about nutrition, and sustain relationships with local farmers and producers.

Rockefeller is also working with Kaiser Permanente, a healthcare company, on its Food as Medicine program. A combined investment of more than $2 million will go toward three research studies that will evaluate healthy food-prescription programs for participants who suffer from or are at risk for diet-related diseases. Both groups are also building evidence to prove prescriptions of produce are healthier and cheaper in some cases than traditional drugs.

“Everyone needs and deserves access to healthy food they can afford,” said Pamela Schwartz, an executive director at Kaiser.

Another element of the Rockefeller plan is to focus on changing the mix of who produces food.

Roy Steiner, senior vice president of Rockefeller’s food grants work, said the pandemic has revealed how fragile supply chains are. And it doesn’t help that only a few large food distributors monopolize the industry, he says. Diversifying power and wealth in the food industry is healthier for the economy, he said, which is why part of the Good Food Strategy is to prioritize small and medium-size food businesses.

“It needs to be a diversity of crops that can be grown by a diversity of farmers,” Steiner said. “Therefore, when things break down, you have multiple players and multiple sources of supply.”

The pandemic isn’t the only crisis that has worsened hunger. Climate change and the conflicts in Ethiopia, Yemen, and Ukraine have also contributed, says Steiner.

“We would not be in such a crisis if we had more regenerative and distributed systems,” he said.

Segar, who visited the Ukraine-Poland border last weekend, said the World Food Program is pushing to feed 3.1 million people in Ukraine. Food and drinking water shortages are reported in Kyiv and in Kharkiv, two cities bearing the brunt of the war. However, the World Food Program’s resources are starting to dwindle.

Segar said the Rockefeller Foundation takes an original approach to improving food production, and it’s one that his organization is working to adopt. The foundation not only gives money, he said, but educates the public about food and uses data and research to make decisions. He referenced Rockefeller’s “True Cost of Food” report, which analyzes the impact food has on people and the planet. Segar also cites Rockefeller’s Periodic Table of Food, an effort to create a database that breaks down food composition.

Segar said his organization was able to use what it learned from Rockefeller and teach communities in Central America about healthy meals.

Segar said the World Food Program and Rockefeller both want to create a food system that everyone can afford and have access to.

“The right nutrition at the right time can save lives,” Segar said.

____

This article was provided to The Associated Press by the Chronicle of Philanthropy. Kristen Griffith is a staff writer at the Chronicle. Email: kristen.griffith@philanthropy.com. The AP and the Chronicle receive support from the Lilly Endowment for coverage of philanthropy and nonprofits. The AP and the Chronicle are solely responsible for all content.

UK

BEHIND THE SCENES
Who might buy Channel 4?
Broadcaster to go up for sale as senior conservatives criticise decision

THE WEEK STAFF
5 APR 2022

Channel 4’s headquarters in Horseferry Road, London
Jack Taylor/Getty Images

Channel 4 is to be sold by the government before the next general election after ministers decided privatisation was the best way to “sustain” the country’s public service broadcasting sector.

Culture Secretary Nadine Dorries said the privatisation of Channel 4 will give the broadcaster “the tools and freedom to flourish and thrive as a public service broadcaster long into the future”.

“Channel 4 rightly holds a cherished place in British life and I want that to remain the case,” she added. “I have come to the conclusion that government ownership is holding Channel 4 back from competing against streaming giants like Netflix and Amazon.”

The broadcaster described the funding shake-up as “disappointing”, having warned last year of a “real risk” to its programming when the government began a privatisation consultation. A spokesperson yesterday said that “significant public interest concerns” had not been formally recognised before the decision was made.
‘Very unconservative’

Channel 4 has been considered for privatisation by the governments of Margaret Thatcher, John Major and Tony Blair. And in 2016, it was reported that the future of the channel was again being looked into by the government.

As it stands, Channel 4 has been commercially funded since its creation in 1982, so unlike the BBC it gets no financial support from taxpayers. The privatisation of the network will result in ownership being transferred from the government to a private company or individuals.

Over 90% of the network’s income currently comes from “selling TV advertising in the shows it broadcasts”, The Guardian said. “The remaining 9% of income comes from operations including 4Studios, which creates digital content for advertisers, and new non-advertising partnership deals.”

It is not profitable, but its “remit has never been to make a profit”, the paper added. The money it makes is instead “reinvested in commissioning and buying programmes from mostly British TV production companies, helping to support a key national industry”.

The government said last year that the channel was “vulnerable to unstable advertising markets”, Reuters reported, arguing that “a move into private ownership with a changed remit could help safeguard its future”.

However, a raft of cultural figures have savaged the plans, with Armando Iannucci, the writer of the Alan Partridge character and the political sitcom The Thick of It, tweeting: “Our TV industry is a British success story. Channel 4 profits go back into the industry: selling it off will give them to American shareholders.”

The government is now “facing a backlash” from senior Conservatives over the “contentious decision”, said The Independent. Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee Tom Tugendhat told Times Radio: “I remain to be convinced that this is going to achieve the aim the government has set out”.

Former cabinet minister Damian Green also said the decision was “very unconservative” and the result of “politicians and civil servants thinking they know more about how to run a business than the people who run it”.

 
Runners and riders

When the consultation process began, Culture Minister John Whittingdale told Times Radio that he did not “by any means rule out” the station being bought by a company such as Netflix or Amazon. “We think that it is sensible to look at alternative ownership models, to make sure that Channel 4 is still able to invest in programme content, to compete with these other services,” he said.

Whittingdale also told the radio station that a consultation would set ground rules for potential buyers.

“There would be competition issues if a very strongly established broadcaster wanted to merge, and that’s something which automatically is a matter of competition, but I don’t by any means rule out existing streaming services or indeed anybody else,” he said.

Discover is “the industry player most likely to buy Channel 4, with the least regulatory hurdles”, said The Guardian. The company “expressed interest” in the broadcaster in 2016 and “continues to be highly active in the UK market”.

But ITV has been “lobbying Whitehall about the possibility of a ‘national champion’ takeover, designed to take the political fallout of yet another buyout of a UK ‘crown jewel’ by a foreign owner”, the paper continued. The move would “help to safeguard” ITV’s own future “by giving it a much bigger scale,” said The Telegraph.

The paper also listed Sky and Amazon as potential bidders who already have commercial deals in place with the broadcaster. Paramount has also been “held up as an example by ministers as the kind of ‘deep pocketed’ backer that could take control”.

There will be “significant interest” from private equity buyers too, The Guardian added.
A done deal?

Channel 4’s chief executive Alex Mahon responded to the news of the sale by stating that there will be a “long process ahead”.

The broadcaster’s privatisation is “not yet” a done deal, said The Times. Ministers will need to pass legislation before a sale can happen, “setting the state for a showdown in the Commons”.

And “until the sale is made, it is unclear exactly what a privatised Channel 4 could look like”, said Metro. The broadcaster’s said yesterday that it remains “legally committed to its unique public-service remit”.

“The focus for the organisation will be on how we can ensure we deliver the remit to both our viewers and the British creative economy across the whole of the UK,” the added.

Neanderthals Went Extinct in Iberia, and Were Replaced – by Other Neanderthals

Armed with advanced tools, Neanderthals may have been able to reconquer territory they had abandoned 1,500 years earlier – but not for long


Excavating the open-air late Neanderthal site, Aranbaltza II

.Credit: Joseba Rios


Ruth Schuster
Apr. 5, 2022 

When did the Neanderthals die out once and for all? Some argue they never did because our ancestors mixed with that subspecies, so bits of their genome live on. The fact remains that you can’t meet a Neanderthal because they are gone, forever more. But one question is the manner of their passing. Now, a new paper posits that the different stone tool technologies at a site in northern Spain indicate migration by Neanderthals, and population replacement of Neanderthals – by other Neanderthals.

For whatever reason – and we shall get to that – by about 45,000 years ago Neanderthals using Middle Paleolithic stone technology seem to have disappeared from Cantabria, including from the open-air Northern Iberian Peninsula site called Aranbaltza II, write Joseba Rios-Garaizar of the Archaeology Museum of Bilbao and colleagues in PLOS One.

There is a “sterile” period, a gap, in the archaeological record there. And then, 1,500 to 1,000 years later, more Neanderthals arrived and replaced them.

These new Neanderthals were armed with more advanced, finer tools known as the Châtelperronian technology, the team posits. Châtelperronian flint tools have a distinctive single cutting edge and a curved back.

A map showing Neanderthals in Iberia.Credit: PLOS ONE

The archaeological layers – Middle Paleolithic; nothing; Châtelperronian – are distinct, the archaeologists write. Moreover, this is far from the only hominin site in the region where Middle Paleolithic and Châtelperronian layers are distinct, showing no continuity.

Neanderthals at work

The Neanderthals-replacing-Neanderthals theory is based on stone tool discoveries at Aranbaltza II, an open-air site (an area clearly used by hominins that is not in a cave or rock shelter). A huge number of tools was found there: in fact, the archaeologists suspect that Aranbaltza II was a Neanderthal stone-working factory, partly because it’s close to a flint outcrop.

In short, this isn’t where the Neanderthals lived, they suggest: it was their industrial zone. Separately, archaeologists have reported on Neanderthal-era hunting camps and cave dwellings in the region.

Unfortunately, no bones have been found at Aranbaltza II that could have shed a more categorical light on the human species involved, because the soil of Cantabria is too acid for preservation, Rios-Garaizar explains.

Much of this remains controversial, including the contention that Neanderthals were the inventors, the authors, the manufacturers of Châtelperronian-type tools, which so far have been found in France and northern Spain dating to a range of about 44,000 to 40,000 years ago. Not everybody even agrees that there is such as thing as a distinct Châtelperronian industry. And among those who accept its uniqueness, some suspect sapiens involvement, influence, or actual authorship of these tools.


Studying tools from Aranbaltza II in the lab.Credit: Joseba Rios

(The name “Châtelperronian” derives from the site where it was first identified as a distinct industry: Châtelperron in central France, where it was preceded by the Mousterian industry.)

We are pretty sure that anatomically modern humans, we Homo sapiens lot, had reached Bulgaria by 45,000 years ago – the remains uncovered at Bacho Kiro leave little room for doubt. So if sapiens had reached Spain too by that time, could they plausibly be responsible for the Châtelperronian tools found at Aranbaltza?

We do not know but, Rios-Garaizar says, the thinking is they got to western Europe “a little bit” later, definitely by 42,000 years ago. So he remains confident that the Châtelperronian assembly found in northern Spain is of Neanderthal origin.

To shore up that argument, previous work – including paleo-protein analysis – at the site of Arcy-sur-Cure in north-central France indicates Neanderthal authorship of the Châtelperronian techniques, Rios-Garaizar points out.

So for the purposes of this article, let us assume that the occupants of Aranbaltza were Neanderthals, whether post-hybridization with sapiens or not; and that Neanderthals were indeed the party responsible for bringing Châtelperronian technology to the world.


A Chatelperronian flake from Aranbaltza.Credit: Joseba Rios

If so, what happened at this open-air site in Spain tens of thousands of years ago?

Howling storms

If we assume that all the personalities involved in this story of prehistoric Aranbaltza are Neanderthals, then the presence of Mousterian stone technology, replaced a millennium later by Châtelperronian, suggests that the first group of Neanderthals went extinct. Other Neanderthals, late Neanderthals, arrived 1,500 to 1,000 years later, likely migrating from Aquitaine, southwestern France, the team suggests.

Does the cultural change – in stone technology – necessarily translate into Neanderthal migration? Not in the mind of Israeli anthropologist Prof. Israel Hershkovitz, an expert on that era: it’s an interesting speculation but there’s no evidence for it at this point, he argues.

That said, there is no argument that hominin species had wanderlust; various types were leaving Africa as much as 2 million years ago and quite speedily reached the farthest edges of continental Asia. Also, in 2020, separate work published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences shows Neanderthal migration from Bavaria to southern Siberia. That thesis is based on similarity in tools at specific sites in the two regions, and on DNA analyses of Neanderthal bones and sediments from the Siberian cave Chagyrskaya – which show the Neanderthals there were significantly different from other Neanderthals in Siberia living in Denisova Cave.


Sample of the many tools found at Aranbaltza.Credit: PLOS ONE

Apropos of which, Denisovans – the cousins of Neanderthals – are also believed, based on genetic evidence, to have dispersed widely in central and eastern Asia, even if proven bone evidence for them is extremely scanty: only in Siberia and Tibet. The extraordinarily high component of Denisovan DNA in indigenous Filipinos today is otherwise hard to explain.

So it seems Neanderthals would and did get about, and if Rios-Garaizar and his colleagues are right about the cascade of events at Aranbaltza, localized extinctions and replacements may have played a role in the ultimate total extinction of their species, which would be pretty soon after Châtelperronian technology appeared.

There is no consensus for the timing of the Neanderthals’ extinction, but most agree they “barely” crossed the 40,000-year boundary, possibly surviving until about 37,000 years ago in some places, Rios-Garaizar says. Châtelperronian was one of the last technological and cultural expressions of Neanderthals.

No, their work cannot indicate which of the postulated causes – endogenous, climate change, we nice folk moving into the neighborhood – were responsible. But if Neanderthals went extinct in Cantabria for a thousand-plus years and then came back, we can suspect the howling vagaries of climate at the time were involved.

In any case, by this time in their story, the Neanderthals were in decline, their small groups under stress – various reports show evidence of pathologies suggesting they were procreating through incest in the absence of more appealing options; that at least some were stricken by kuru after eating the brains of their own dead; that sapiens appeared with its mega-kicky brain – not as big as a Neanderthal’s, but somehow qualitatively improved in a way that led us to create figurative art while they did not; or simply that we sneezed on them and infected them with germs to which they had no natural immunity.


A Chatelperronian flake from Aranbaltza.Credit: Joseba Rios

And while everybody is speculating, Rios-Garaizar suggests a wonderful theory.

By 45,000 years ago, Neanderthals were clearly under stress. They vanished from Cantabria, possibly because of resource stress. This was a time of intense climatic variability, with very rapid, dramatic changes and, likely, howling storms. There may have been drastic environmental changes in northern Spain, leading to change in the fauna and, therefore, in those who hunt the fauna. Perhaps they needed to go farther to obtain the food they needed and, whether they died out or just left, Cantabria would remain free of Neanderthals until the next set came along armed with Châtelperronian technology.

Possibly these Neanderthals armed with Châtelperronian blades were so successful that they could be fruitful and multiply (hopefully beyond the nuclear family), and occupy new territories, Rios-Garaizar suggests. But not for long. They too disappeared, and fast.

Why? We do not know. Theories continue to compete but plausibly, at some point in Africa we the sapiens sapiens species crossed some sort of barrier, threshold, in brain evolution that rendered us intellectually superior to the Neanderthals. We gained abilities they may not have had, and after thousands upon thousands of years of “trying” (not that there was a declared aspiration), we made it past the Neanderthals and left Africa and spread madly throughout the world.

They, meanwhile, had been suffering from vagaries of climate and armed with Châtelperronian technology or not, we outcompeted them, and perhaps dealt better somehow with the environmental stressors, possibly due to better sociability. They grew more and more stressed; we may have coexisted cheek by jowl in some areas, especially in the Middle East, for thousands of years – but the upshot is that here we are today, while they are not.

And we may never know just how culturally advanced they were. We may never know whether they really could swim like fish. We may never be sure they really did have digging sticks, whether they had religion or just wanted to emulate big birds; whether they could cook soup, or whether it really was a custom, as has been postulated in one case of late Neanderthals in Iraq, that they buried their dead with flowers. The only thing for sure is that they're extinct.

 

Ex-Hasidic trans activist photographed by Annie Leibovitz

Abby Stein, an activist for LGBTQ+ inclusion in Jewish communities and beyond, is one of dozens of subjects in a new library to showcase the diversity of people.

By JTAApril 5, 2022, 

• 
  

Abby Chava Stein, an American transgender author, activist, blogger, model, speaker and rabbi, relaxes on the 

Resort Deck of Celebrity Apex. (Annie Leibovitz for Celebrity Cruises' All Inclusive Photo Project)

Abby Stein remembers two things well about her first-ever editorial photo shoot after coming out as an ex-Orthodox trans woman.

The first was that the shoot, in her bedroom for Vogue magazine in 2018, was the first time Stein had posed in a bra, and she wasn’t totally comfortable with the experience.

The second was that someone asked her who her dream photographer would be.

The name that popped into her mind was “one that I knew was never going to happen,” she recalled last week — Annie Leibovitz.

“She’s definitely done a lot of work to elevate LGBTQ voices and portraits,” Stein told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency last week about why she was drawn to Leibovitz, the award-winning portraitist. “And she is obviously Jewish.”

Four years later, that dream has come true: Leibovitz has photographed Stein in a setting that couldn’t be more different from her New York City apartment — on the deck of a cruise liner.

Stein, an activist for LGBTQ+ inclusion in Jewish communities and beyond, is one of dozens of subjects of photographs in a new library created by Celebrity Cruises to showcase the diversity of people who love to travel. The images — which also include #MeToo movement founder Tarana Burke, disability activist and model Jillian Mercado, and the Jewish director with alopecia Rachel Fleit, among others — will be made available for anyone to use, in an effort to change the public face of the cruise industry.

“What Annie, indeed all of the artists involved in this project have captured so beautifully, is that for vacations to really live up to the marketing moniker ‘all-inclusive,’ then they should start by using images that are inclusive of all, not just a few,” Celebrity Cruises President and CEO Lisa Lutoff-Perlo said in a statement.

“I am keenly aware of the privilege to be asked to participate,” Stein wrote on Twitter. “I don’t think this is about me — this is about representation in the LGBTQ, and especially trans, community. It’s about bodies that are different than the mainstream ‘cis-straight-normative’ expectations.”

Stein was careful to note that though she did post about her experience on social media, promoting the company was not part of her contract for the photoshoot. But she said knowing that the CEO of Celebrity was the first woman to lead a Royal Caribbean Group cruise line brand and that the company was the first to have a woman captain a “mega” cruise ship gave her confidence that the company’s inclusion efforts were genuine.

Behind the scenes of the Annie Leibovitz shoot, Abby Stein, center right, poses with her cousin. (Courtesy of Abby Stein)

“While I don’t understand corporate intentions, the people I worked with from Celebrity were all really, really amazing and they really mean it,” she said. “I think they’ve done a lot of amazing stuff towards being more inclusive and I’m a big fan of inclusivity. Specifically, actual actions.”

Working with Leibovitz gave Stein “a lot of courage,” Stein said. She added, “It was legitimately such a diverse crowd. People with different abilities, people with different looks, different ages, different body types and everything. So it was a very, I would say empowering moment.”

For the shoot, Stein got to pick from a few 1950s-style options, ultimately choosing a white one-piece with black polka dots and posing on a chaise on the deck of a Celebrity Cruise liner where she and other models spent a full week.

Stein’s Jewish identity became a recurring theme through her seven nights on the cruise. Leibovitz — who vaulted to her first staff job, at Rolling Stone, on the strength of photographs she took in Israel in the 1970s — revered Stein’s background as a rabbi, Stein recalled.

And when word circulated that Stein celebrates Shabbat every week, Celebrity CMO Michael Scheiner, who is also Jewish, asked if she would like to lead Friday night services on the boat.

“That wasn’t part of any contract or any deal,” Stein said. “I wasn’t paid for that or anything. But literally within a day they added it to the cruise schedule.”

Dozens of cruise guests attended. Stein led the service and gave a short sermon. Manischewitz grape juice and fresh-baked challah were served.

“It was really nice and sweet,” she said.

Calgary researchers say there may be a link between fracking and premature births

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Email

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

Preterm infants at higher risk of developing

neurodevelopmental difficulties, physical disabilities

Bill Graveland · The Canadian Press · Posted: Apr 05, 2022 

In this 2013 file photo, workers tend to a well head during a hydraulic fracturing operation outside Rifle, in western Colorado. (Brennan Linsley/Associated Press)

A University of Calgary study says there may be a link between the density of certain oil and gas operations and increased health risks for nearby pregnant women and their babies.

"There is very little research about fracking as it relates to the health of pregnant people and children living near these sites," said Amy Metcalfe, a co-principal investigator and associate professor in obstetrics and gynecology at the university's Cumming School of Medicine.

"Our study found the rate of spontaneous preterm deliveries — birth before 37 weeks — increased significantly relative to the number of fracturing sites within 10 kilometres of their home."

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, involves directional drilling and injecting large amounts of fluid into wells to extract oil and natural gas.

Dr. Amy Metcalfe is shown in a handout photo. (Supplied by the University of Calgary)

Over a five-year period, researchers reviewed health data of pregnant women, specifically those living in rural areas whose homes were near fracking sites.

Metcalfe said the women living near between one to 24 well sites had a 7.4 per cent risk of early delivery and the risk increased to 11.4 per cent for those near 100 or more fracking operations. She said premature births present a health risk.

"Preterm infants are at higher risk of developing neurodevelopmental difficulties, physical disabilities and behaviour problems, including autism, cerebral palsy and epilepsy," Metcalfe said.

Results from the report are published in JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) Pediatrics.

Metcalfe said they received the grant in 2017 and used health data from 2013 to 2018.

2nd study into child development coming 

Metcalfe said despite the data, she can't definitively say that fracking is causing premature births.

"We can't say from this work that fracking causes adverse birth effects. We can say they are more likely to occur in proximity to that, but there's really more research that needs to be done to look at causal mechanisms why this would happen," she said.

"It would be a weird coincidence if it wasn't that, but it's not something we're able to assess from this particular study."

The research will continue. Carly McMorris, the other co-principal investigator and associate professor at the university's Werklund School of Education, is recruiting participants for a study to determine if hydraulic fracturing affects child development.

She said it will assess thinking skills, academic abilities and social-emotional functioning in children in grades one through three living in communities both close to and far from fracking operations.

The communities selected are Grande Prairie, which has the most fracking activity in Alberta, and Lethbridge, which has virtually none. The children will also wear a device that will test air pollution around them for one week.

• 'Nation-building' investments in electricity grid needed to reach net-zero: experts

• Fracking to blame for earthquakes, seismic 'clusters' in central Alberta

McMorris said the results from the studies will provide evidence that could help inform decisions and practices related to fracking.

Metcalfe realizes there might be some blowback from the public about the results of the research.

"Fracking is politically controversial, right? There's groups on both sides that have very strong opinions and, inevitably by doing work in this area, someone's going to be (ticked) off."

‘Green steel’ heating up in Sweden’s frozen north

By JAMES BROOKS

Susanne Rostmark, research leader, LKAB, holds a piece of hot briquetted iron ore made using the HYBRIT process nearby the venture’s pilot plant in Lulea, Sweden on Feb. 17, 2022. The steel-making industry is coming under increasing pressure to curb its environmental impact and contribute to the Paris climate accord, which aims to cap global warming at 1.5 degrees Celsius (James Brooks via AP)


LULEA, Sweden (AP) — For hundreds of years, raging blast furnaces — fed with coking coal — have forged steel used in cars, railways, bridges and skyscrapers.

But the puffs of coal-fired smoke are a big source of carbon dioxide, the heat-trapping gas that’s driving climate change.

According to the World Steel Association, every metric ton of steel produced in 2020 emitted almost twice that much carbon dioxide (1.8 tons) into the atmosphere. Total direct emissions from making steel were about 2.6 billion tons in 2020, representing around 7% of global CO2 emissions.

In Sweden, a single company, steel giant SSAB, accounts for about 10% of the country’s emissions due to the furnaces it operates at mills like the one in the northern town of Lulea.

But not far away, a high-tech pilot plant is seeking to significantly reduce the carbon emissions involved in steel production by switching some of that process away from burning coking coal to burning hydrogen that itself was produced with renewable energy.




HYBRIT — or Hydrogen Breakthrough Ironmaking Technology — is a joint venture between SSAB, mining company LKAB and Swedish state-owned power firm Vattenfall launched in 2016.

“The cost of renewable energy, fossil-free energy, had come down dramatically and at the same time, you had a rising awareness and the Paris Agreement” in 2015 to reduce global emissions, said Mikael Nordlander, Vattenfall’s head of industry decarbonization.

“We realized that we might have a chance now to outcompete the direct use of fossil fuels in industry with this electricity coming from fossil-free sources,” he added.

Last year, the plant made its first commercial delivery. European carmakers that have committed to dramatically reducing their emissions need cleaner steel. Chinese-owned Volvo Group became the first carmaker to partner with HYBRIT. Head of procurement Kerstin Enochsson said steel is a “major contributor” to their cars’ carbon footprint, between 20 and 35%.

“Tackling only the tailpipe emissions by being an electric company is not enough. We need to focus on the car itself, as well,” she said.

Demand from other companies, including Volkswagen, is also sending a signal that there is demand for green steel. Steelmakers in Europe have announced plans to scale up production of steel made without coal.

The HYBRIT process aims to replace the coking coal that’s traditionally used for ore-based steel making with hydrogen and renewable electricity.

It begins with brown-tinged iron ore pellets that react with the hydrogen gas and are reduced to ball-shaped “sponge iron,” which takes it name due to pores left behind following the removal of oxygen. This is then melted in an electric furnace.

If the hydrogen is made using renewable energy, too, the process produces no CO2.

“We get iron, and then we get water vapor instead,” said SSAB’s chief technology officer Martin Pei. “Water vapor can be condensed, recirculated, reused in the process.

“We really solve the root cause of carbon dioxide emissions from steel making,” he said.

Steel is a recyclable material, but demand for the alloy is expected to grow in the coming years, amid a push to transform society and build wind turbines, solar plants, power transmission lines and new electric vehicles.

“Steel is a superb construction material. It is also possible to recycle steel again and again,” said Pei. “You can reuse steel as many times as possible.

“The only problem today is the current way of making steel from iron ore emits too much CO2,” he said.

By the end of this decade, the European Union is attempting to cut overall CO2 emissions in the 27-nation bloc by 55% compared to 1990 levels. Part of that effort includes making companies pay for their C02 emissions and encourage the switch to low-carbon alternatives.

Sweden’s steel industry has set out plans to achieve “fossil-free” operations by 2045. SSAB in January brought forward its own plans to largely eliminate carbon dioxide emissions in its steel-making processes by the end of the decade.

“The companies are well aware of their possibilities and limitations in the current processes and that they have to do something about it,” said Helen Axelsson, director of energy and environment at Jernkontoret, the Swedish steel producers’ association.

But according to the World Steel Association, over 70% of global steel production takes place in Asia, where steel producers don’t have access to the same quantities of old scrap steel as countries that have been industrialized for a longer time. That’s another reason why average emissions per ton of steel are higher in the global south.

Filip Johnsson, a professor in energy technology at Gothenburg’s Chalmers University, said the vast amounts of renewable electricity necessary to make hydrogen and cleaner steel could make rolling out the HYBRIT process difficult in other parts of the world.

“I would say that the major challenge is to get loads of electricity and also to provide it sort of constantly,” he said.

The small Lulea pilot plant is still a research facility, and has so far produced just a couple of hundred tons. There are plans to construct a larger demonstration plant and begin commercial deliveries by 2026.

___

Follow all AP stories on climate change issues at https://apnews.com/hub/climate.

___

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

UN warns Earth ‘firmly on track toward an unlivable world’

“Limiting warming to 1.5C requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest and be reduced by 43% by 2030”

By FRANK JORDANS and SETH BORENSTEIN

1 of 10

Wind turbines stand in front of the rising sun in Frankfurt, Germany, Friday, March 11, 2022. A United Nation-backed panel plans to release a highly anticipated scientific report on Monday, April 4, 2022, on international efforts to curb climate change before global temperatures reach dangerous levels.

 (AP Photo/Michael Probst, File)

BERLIN (AP) — Temperatures on Earth will shoot past a key danger point unless greenhouse gas emissions fall faster than countries have committed, the world’s top body of climate scientists said Monday, warning of the consequences of inaction but also noting hopeful signs of progress.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change revealed “a litany of broken climate promises” by governments and corporations, accusing them of stoking global warming by clinging to harmful fossil fuels.

“It is a file of shame, cataloguing the empty pledges that put us firmly on track toward an unlivable world,” he said.

Governments agreed in the 2015 Paris accord to keep global warming well below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) this century, ideally no more than 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit). Yet temperatures have already increased by over 1.1C (2F) since pre-industrial times, resulting in measurable increases in disasters such flash floods, extreme heat, more intense hurricanes and longer-burning wildfires, putting human lives in danger and costing governments hundreds of billions of dollars to confront.

“Projected global emissions from (national pledges) place limiting global warming to 1.5C beyond reach and make it harder after 2030 to limit warming to 2C,” the panel said.

In other words, the report’s co-chair, James Skea of Imperial College London, told The Associated Press: “If we continue acting as we are now, we’re not even going to limit warming to 2 degrees, never mind 1.5 degrees.”

Ongoing investments in fossil fuel infrastructure and clearing large swaths of forest for agriculture undermine the massive curbs in emissions needed to meet the Paris goal, the report found.

Emissions in 2019 were about 12% higher than they were in 2010 and 54% higher than in 1990, said Skea.

The rate of growth has slowed from 2.1% per year in the early part of this century to 1.3% per year between 2010 and 2019, the report’s authors said. But they voiced “high confidence” that unless countries step up their efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions, the planet will on average be 2.4C to 3.5C (4.3 to 6.3F) warmer by the end of the century — a level experts say is sure to cause severe impacts for much of the world’s population.

“Limiting warming to 1.5C requires global greenhouse gas emissions to peak before 2025 at the latest and be reduced by 43% by 2030,” he said.

Such cuts would be hard to achieve without without drastic, economy-wide measures, the panel acknowledged. It’s more likely that the world will pass 1.5C and efforts will then need to be made to bring temperatures back down again, including by removing vast amounts of carbon dioxide — the main greenhouse gas — from the atmosphere.

Many experts say this is unfeasible with current technologies, and even if it could be done it would be far costlier than preventing the emissions in the first place.

The report, numbering thousands of pages, doesn’t single out individual countries for blame. But the figures show much of the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere was released by rich countries that were the first to burn coal, oil and gas beginning with the industrial revolution.

The U.N. panel said 40% of emissions since then came from Europe and North America. Just over 12% can be attributed to East Asia, which includes China. But China took over the position as world’s top emissions polluter from the United States in the mid-2000s.

Many countries and companies have used recent climate meetings to paint rosy pictures of their emissions-cutting efforts, while continuing to invest in fossil fuels and other polluting activities, Guterres charged.

“Some government and business leaders are saying one thing but doing another,” he said. “Simply put, they are lying. And the results will be catastrophic.”

A Karbi tribal woman whose agriculture land had been transfered to build a solar power plant grazes her cow near the plant in Mikir Bamuni village, Nagaon district, northeastern Assam state, India, Feb. 18, 2022. A United Nation-backed panel plans to release a highly anticipated scientific report on Monday, April 4, 2022, on international efforts to curb climate change before global temperatures reach dangerous levels. (AP Photo/Anupam Nath)

The report isn’t without some hope, however.

Its authors highlight myriad ways in which the world can be brought back on track to 2C or even, with great effort, return to 1.5C after that threshold has been passed. This could require measures such as the removal of CO2 from the atmosphere with natural or artificial means, but also potentially risky technologies such as pumping aerosols into the sky to reflect sunlight.

Among the solutions recommended are a rapid shift away from fossil fuels toward renewable energy such as increasingly cheap solar and wind power, the electrification of transport, less meat consumption, more efficient use of resources and massive financial support for poor countries unable to pay for such measures without help.

The situation is as if humanity has “gone to the doctor in a very unhealthy condition,” and the doctor is saying “you need to change, it’s a radical change. If you don’t you’re in trouble,” said report co-author Pete Smith, a professor of soils and global change at the University Aberdeen.

“It’s not like a diet,” Smith said. “It is a fundamental lifestyle change. It’s changing what you eat, how much you eat and get on a more active lifestyle.”

One move often described as “low-hanging fruit” by scientists is to plug methane leaks from mines, wells and landfills that release the potent but short-lived greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. A pact forged between the United States and China at last year’s U.N. climate conference in Glasgow aims to do just that.

“The big message we’ve got (is that) human activities got us into this problem and human agency can actually get us out of it again,” said Skea, the panel’s co-chair.

The panel’s reports have become increasingly blunt since the first one was published in 1990, and the latest may be the last before the planet passes 1.5C of warming, Skea told the AP.

Last August, it said climate change caused by humans was “an established fact” and warned that some effects of global warming are already inevitable. In late February, the panel published a report that outlined how further temperature increases will multiply the risk of floods, storms, drought and heat waves worldwide.

Still, the British government’s former chief science adviser David King, who wasn’t involved in writing the report, said there are too optimistic assumptions about how much CO2 the world can afford to emit.

“We don’t actually have a remaining carbon budget to burn,” said King, who now chairs the Climate Crisis Advisory Group.

“It’s just the reverse. We’ve already done too much in the way of putting greenhouse gases up there,” he said, arguing that the IPCC’s calculation omits new risks and potentially self-reinforcing effects already happening, such as the increased absorption of heat into the oceans from sea ice loss and the release of methane as permafrost melts.

Such warnings were echoed by U.N. chief Guterres, citing scientists’ warnings that the planet is moving “perilously close to tipping points that could lead to cascading and irreversible climate impacts.”

“But high-emitting governments and corporations are not just turning a blind eye; they are adding fuel to the flames,” he said, calling for an end to further coal, oil and gas extraction. “Investing in new fossil fuels infrastructure is moral and economic madness.”

Vulnerable nations said the report showed big polluters have to step up their efforts before the next U.N. climate summit in Egypt this fall.

“We are looking to the G-20, to the world’s biggest emitters, to set ambitious targets ahead of COP27, and to reach those targets – by investing in renewables, cutting out coal and fossil fuel subsidies,” said Tina Stege, climate envoy for the Marshall Islands. “It’s long past time to deliver on promises made.”

___

Borenstein reported from Washington.

___

Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate

___

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

No obituary for Earth: Scientists fight climate doom talk

By SETH BORENSTEIN

1 of 7

Christiana Figueres poses for a photo after an interview with the Associated Press prior to a news conference of "The Unite Behind The Science" campaign ahead of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Jan. 20, 2020. Scientists say climate change is bad, getting worse, but it is not game over for planet Earth or humanity. “It’s not that they’re saying you are condemned to a future of destruction and increasing misery,” said Figueres, the former U.N. climate secretary who helped forge the 2015 Paris climate agreement and now runs an organization called Global Optimism.

(AP Photo/Markus Schreiber, File)


It’s not the end of the world. It only seems that way.

Climate change is going to get worse, but as gloomy as the latest scientific reports are, including today’s from the United Nations, scientist after scientist stresses that curbing global warming is not hopeless. The science says it is not game over for planet Earth or humanity. Action can prevent some of the worst if done soon, they say.

After decades of trying to get the public’s attention, spur action by governments and fight against organized movements denying the science, climate researchers say they have a new fight on their hands: doomism. It’s the feeling that nothing can be done, so why bother. It’s young people publicly swearing off having children because of climate change.

University of Maine climate scientist Jacquelyn Gill noticed in 2018 fewer people telling her climate change isn’t real and more “people that we now call doomers that you know believe that nothing can be done.” Gill says it is just not true.

“I refuse to write off or write an obituary for something that’s still alive,” Gill told The Associated Press, referring to the Earth. “We are not through a threshold or past the threshold. There’s no such thing as pass-fail when it comes to the climate crisis.”

“It’s really, really, really hard to walk people back from that ledge,” Gill said.

Doomism “is definitely a thing,” said Wooster College psychology professor Susan Clayton, who studies climate change anxiety and spoke at a conference in Norway last week that addressed the issue. “It’s a way of saying ‘I don’t have to go to the effort of making changes because there’s nothing I can do anyway.’”

Gill and six other scientists who talked with The Associated Press about doomism aren’t sugarcoating the escalating harm to the climate from accumulating emissions. But that doesn’t make it hopeless, they said.

“Everybody knows it’s going to get worse,” said Woodwell Climate Research Center scientist Jennifer Francis. “We can do a lot to make it less bad than the worst case scenario.”

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just issued its third report in six months. The first two were on how bad warming is and how it will hurt people and ecosystems, with today’s report focusing on how the extent of disruption depends on how much fossil fuels are burned. It shows the world is still heading in the wrong direction in its fight to curb climate change, with new investments in fossil fuel infrastructure and forests falling to make way for agriculture.

“It’s not that they’re saying you are condemned to a future of destruction and increasing misery,” said Christiana Figueres, the former U.N. climate secretary who helped forge the 2015 Paris climate agreement and now runs an organization called Global Optimism. “What they’re saying is ’the business-as-usual path ... is an atlas of misery ’ or a future of increasing destruction. But we don’t have to choose that. And that’s the piece, the second piece, that sort of always gets dropped out of the conversation.”

United Nations Environment Program Director Inger Andersen said with reports like these, officials are walking a tightrope. They are trying to spur the world to action because scientists are calling this a crisis. But they also don’t want to send people spiraling into paralysis because it is too gloomy.

“We are not doomed, but rapid action is absolutely essential,” Andersen said. “With every month or year that we delay action, climate change becomes more complex, expensive and difficult to overcome.”

“The big message we’ve got (is that) human activities got us into this problem and human agency can actually get us out of it again,” James Skea, co-chair of Monday’s report, said. “It’s not all lost. We really have the chance to do something.”

Monday’s report details that it is unlikely, without immediate and drastic carbon pollution cuts, that the world will limit warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times, which is the world’s agreed upon goal. The world has already warmed 1.1 degrees Celsius (2 degrees Fahrenheit). And earlier IPCC reports have shown that after 1.5 degrees, more people die, more ecosystems are in trouble and climate change worsens rapidly.

“We don’t fall over the cliff at 1.5 degrees,” Skea said, “Even if we were to go beyond 1.5 it doesn’t mean we throw up our hands in despair.”

 Michael Mann, professor of atmospheric science at Penn State, arrives at the "Before the Flood" premiere on day 2 of the Toronto International Film Festival at the Princess of Wales Theatre on Sept. 9, 2016, in Toronto. Mann said scientists used to think Earth would be committed to decades of future warming even after people stopped pumping more carbon dioxide into the air than nature takes out. But newer analysis in recent years show it will only take a few years after net zero emissions for carbon levels in the air to start to go down because of carbon being sucked up by the oceans and forests. (Photo by Evan Agostini/Invision/AP, File)



Rutgers University Climate Scientist Jennifer Francis poses for a portrait during an interview in Washington, June 7, 2013. Climate change is going to get worse, but as gloomy as the latest scientific reports are, including today’s from the United Nations, scientist after scientist stress that curbing global warming is not hopeless. “Everybody knows it's going to get worse,” said Woodwell Climate Research Center scientist Francis. “We can do a lot to make it less bad than the worst case scenario.” 

(AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)


United Nations Under-Secretary-General and Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme Inger Andersen, right, accompanied by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, left, speaks during an oceans plastics event at the United Nations Environment Programme headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya, Nov. 18, 2021. Scientists say climate change is bad, getting worse, but it is not game over for planet Earth or humanity. “We are not doomed, but rapid action is absolutely essential,” Andersen said. 

(AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, Pool, File)

IPCC reports showed that depending on how much coal, oil, and natural gas is burned, warming by 2100 could be anywhere from 1.4 to 4.4 degrees Celsius (2.5 to 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial times, which can mean large differences in sickness, death and weather disasters.

While he sees the increase in doom talk as inevitable, NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt said he knows first-hand that people are wrong when they say nothing can be done: “I work with people and I’m watching other people and I’m seeing the administration. And people are doing things and they’re doing the right things for the most part as best they can. So I’m seeing people do things.”

Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann said scientists used to think Earth would be committed to decades of future warming even after people stopped pumping more carbon dioxide into the air than nature takes out. But newer analyses in recent years show it will only take a few years after net zero emissions for carbon levels in the air to start to go down because of carbon being sucked up by the oceans and forests, Mann said.

Scientists’ legitimate worries get repeated and amplified like in the kids game of telephone and “by the time you’re done, it’s ‘we’re doomed’ when what the scientist actually said was we need to reduce or carbon emissions 50% within this decade to avoid 1.5 (degrees of) warming, which would be really bad. Two degrees of warming would be far worse than 1.5 warming, but not the end of civilization,” Mann said.

Mann said doomism has become far more of a threat than denialism and he believes that some of the same people, trade associations and companies that denied climate change are encouraging people who say it is too late. Mann is battling publicly with a retired University of Arizona ecologist, Guy McPherson, an intellectual leader of the doom movement.

McPherson said he’s not part of the monetary system, hasn’t had a paycheck in 13 years, doesn’t vote and lived off the grid for a decade. He said all species go extinct and humans are no exception. He publicly predicted humanity will go extinct in 2026, but in an interview with The Associated Press said, “I’m not nearly as stuck on 2026,” and mentioned 2030 and changes to human habitat from the loss of Arctic summer sea ice.

Woodwell’s Francis, a pioneer in the study of Arctic sea ice who McPherson said he admires, said while the Arctic will be ice free by the summer by 2050, McPherson exaggerates the bad effects. Local Arctic residents will be hit hard, “the rest of us will experience accelerated warming and sea-level rise, disrupted weather patterns and more frequent extreme weather. Most communities will adapt to varying degrees,” Francis said. “There’s no way in hell humans will go extinct by 2026.”

Humans probably can no longer prevent Arctic sea ice from disappearing in the summer, but with new technology and emissions cuts, Francis said, “we stand a real chance of preventing those (other) catastrophic scenarios out there.”

Psychology professor Clayton said “no matter how bad things are, they can always be worse. You can make a difference between bad and worse... That’s very powerful, very self-affirming.”

___

Associated Press writer Frank Jordans contributed from Berlin.

___

Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate

___

Follow Seth Borenstein on Twitter at @borenbears

___

Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.