Climate change is causing the Arctic to become GREENER as warmer temperatures cause trees and plants to flourish in the frozen world

Scientists are using drones and satellites to track levels of Arctic greenery 

The Arctic is normally a vast and barren expanse of frozen land with little foliage 

But recent analysis has found trees and plants are thriving in the Arctic

By JOE PINKSTONE FOR MAILONLINE 31 January 2020 

Ecologists are on 'red alert' as warmer temperatures caused by climate change causes the Arctic to become greener.

The Arctic is normally a vast and barren expanse of frozen land but higher temperatures are now allowing foliage to thrive.

Trees and plants are being found in areas that were once perennially frozen, according to a new study.
                                                         
The worrying phenomenon - branded 'Arctic greening' - is being studied by researchers using drones and satellites to study the change of Arctic permafrost (pictured)

The worrying phenomenon - branded 'Arctic greening' - is being studied by researchers using drones and satellites.

A group of 40 scientists from 36 institutions, led by two National Geographic Explorers, are behind the huge project.

As Arctic summer temperatures warm, snow is melting earlier and plants are coming into leaf sooner in spring.

Tundra vegetation is spreading into new areas and in the areas where plants have always survived, they are now flourishing.

Study lead author Dr Isla Myers-Smith, of the University of Edinburgh's School of GeoSciences, said: 'New technologies including sensors on drones, planes and satellites, are enabling scientists to track emerging patterns of greening found within satellite pixels that cover the size of football fields.'

Changes in vegetation alter how carbon is captured and released into the atmosphere.

The Arctic is normally a vast and barren expanse of frozen land (pictured) but higher temperatures are allowing foliage to thrive

Small changes to this balance could significantly impact efforts to keep warming below 1.5°C – a key target of the Paris Agreement.

But researchers in Europe and North America also found Arctic greening, which can be seen from space, is caused by various factors.

Ground warming is important, researchers found, but so are changes to the timing of snow melt and the wetness of landscapes.

The new study was published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

The team behind it say it is vital for understanding global climate change because tundra plants act as a barrier between the warming atmosphere and huge stocks of carbon stored in frozen ground.

Co-lead author Dr Jeffrey Kerby, who was a Neukom Fellow at Dartmouth College while conducting the research, said: 'Besides collecting new imagery, advances in how we process and analyse these data - even imagery that is decades old - are revolutionising how we understand the past, present, and future of the Arctic.'

Alex Moen, Vice President of Explorer Programmes at the National Geographic Society, added: 'We look forward to the impact that this work will have on our collective understanding of the Arctic for generations to come.'

WHAT DO EXPERTS PREDICT FOR THE FATE OF THE PLANET'S PLANTS AND ANIMALS?

Nature is in more trouble now than at any time in human history with extinction looming over one million species of plants and animals, experts say.

That's the key finding of the United Nations' (UN) first comprehensive report on biodiversity - the variety of plant and animal life in the world or in a particular habitat.

The report - published on May 6, 2019 - says species are being lost at a rate tens or hundreds of times faster than in the past.

Many of the worst effects can be prevented by changing the way we grow food, produce energy, deal with climate change and dispose of waste, the report said.

The report's 39-page summary highlighted five ways people are reducing biodiversity:

- Turning forests, grasslands and other areas into farms, cities and other developments. The habitat loss leaves plants and animals homeless. About three-quarters of Earth's land, two-thirds of its oceans and 85% of crucial wetlands have been severely altered or lost, making it harder for species to survive, the report said.

- Overfishing the world's oceans. A third of the world's fish stocks are overfished.

- Permitting climate change from the burning of fossil fuels to make it too hot, wet or dry for some species to survive. Almost half of the world's land mammals - not including bats - and nearly a quarter of the birds have already had their habitats hit hard by global warming.

- Polluting land and water. Every year, 300 to 400 million tons of heavy metals, solvents and toxic sludge are dumped into the world's waters.

- Allowing invasive species to crowd out native plants and animals. The number of invasive alien species per country has risen 70 per cent since 1970, with one species of bacteria threatening nearly 400 amphibian species.

RIP Spitzer: NASA bids an emotional farewell to its infrared space telescope that has been capturing stunning images of the Milky Way and cradles of newborn stars for over 16 years

After more than 16 years studying the universe in infrared light since its launch in 2003, NASA has switched off the Spitzer Space Telescope (main image), bringing its mission to an end. Since its launch, Spitzer studied comets and asteroids in our own solar system, detailed the seven rocky exoplanets in the TRAPPIST-1 star system and found a previously unidentified ring around Saturn (bottom right). The infrared telescope also captured stunning images of the Cat's Paw nebula (bottom left) and Helix nebula (top left) and composed an extensive map of our Milky Way galaxy (top right)

how global climate crisis inaction will lead to an explosion of civil unrest

Related video: Sir David Attenborough warns short governments could hinder climate action

As Asia’s youngest cabinet minister, this is how global climate crisis inaction will lead to an explosion of civil unrest

I am terrified for the future of young people. Instead of pointing fingers at each other, industrialised and developing countries need to go further

Syed Saddiq

To borrow from Greta Thunberg's powerful reminder at the World Economic Forum last week, it is our youth – those who will inherit the planet – who will be most affected by the decisions we make today.

As Malaysia’s youth minister – and Asia’s youngest cabinet minister – her stark words resonate with me deeply. I have seen first hand how young people across the region and the wider Muslim world are disillusioned with the business-as-usual approach to the planet.


Thunberg represents a new generation of young people across rich and poor countries who are demanding urgent reform. They won’t be silenced. Their anger is not just about the climate emergency, but about everything: corruption, economic inequalities, hunger.

In the Muslim world, this wave of unrest extends the same outbreak of rage we saw in 2011. The food, climate and economic drivers of that unrest are now worse than ever.

A decade ago, unemployment in Muslim nations was the highest in the world. Since then, it has grown more than anywhere else. Now nearly a third of young people across the Middle East and North Africa are unemployed – over double the international average.

Climate change: Decade's defining issue in pictures
Show all 20





Across the region, economic growth is sluggish; economies are dependent on diminished revenues from oil exports; public services are languishing and science spending is less than 0.5 per cent of GDP. Meanwhile, Muslim-majority nations are among the most corrupt in the entire world.

But the biggest threat of all is the climate crisis. The region has faced almost continuous regional drought since 1998; floods in Saudi Arabia; heat waves in Kuwait; and rising sea levels in the Egyptian coastal city of Alexandria. Within 30 years, large areas of the Middle East and north Africa could become “uninhabitable”.

As a government minister representing the issues that young people face, I am terrified of what's in store for our youth in this region.

South Asia could face extreme drought and food insecurity as early as the 2030s. Bangladesh could experience a sea-level rise on a scale that could force tens of millions from the homes. Progress on poverty alleviation by Malaysia and Indonesia could be reversed due to climate-induced economic losses being bigger than anywhere else. The impact of the climate on agriculture, tourism and fishing, for example, could shave off a tenth of the region’s GDP, and as much as 50 per cent of rice yields.

Neither the east nor west can tackle these challenges alone. Western nations are right to point out how developing nations resort to environmentally-destructive practices. But they are responsible for creating a highly unequal global system dependent on fossil fuels, the legacy of empire.

One area where we desperately need co-responsibility is global deforestation – the world’s second-largest source of carbon emissions from human activities.

Undoubtedly, oil palm plantations have been among the main drivers of deforestation in southeast Asia. But shortly after winning landslide elections overthrowing decades of corruption, my government was the first to declare a moratorium on oil palm expansion to conserve forest cover at no less than 50 per cent, while introducing mandatory standards to make oil palm production 100 per cent sustainable.

Yet within months, the European Union snubbed these efforts and declared a ban on palm oil for biodiesel. My country did not have a chance.

I’m not convinced that this was about deforestation. The EU sought a trade deal with Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay last year, although this would see European beef imports escalate. Yet beef consumption is the single biggest driver of climate-linked deforestation.

I don’t believe we can simply ban our way to a more sustainable and inclusive world – there’s a real risk of displacing rising demand onto to other commodities.

Numerous scientific studies by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, Oxford University, and York University among others show that replacing palm oil with soy, rapeseed or corn would drive great levels of deforestation. They are less efficient and use more land, fertiliser and pesticides.

Similarly, killing off livestock industries would degrade soils irreparably under continuous crop production. In contrast, sustainable approaches like "mob-grazing" cattle can help reverse climate change by increasing soil’s capacity to store carbon.

Malaysia’s efforts to transition to sustainable palm oil are not perfect and there remains much work to be done. Yet instead of working with us, the EU has simply ignored our efforts while fuelling greater causes of deforestation elsewhere.
Read more

Will planting a trillion trees actually solve the climate crisis?

Instead of pointing fingers at each other, industrialised and developing countries must work together to support more sustainable production practices. In the Amazon, that means rearing cattle in ways which protect and nurture the rainforest. In Malaysia, that means cultivating sustainable palm oil in a way which allows precious species like the Orangutan to not just survive, but thrive – as we are trying to do.

Across the east and west, we must find ways to support each other. If we don’t, civil unrest will not only become a perfect storm, it will be the new normal. That means co-responsibility and collaborative approaches not just on problems like deforestation, but on the urgent task of building new kinds of societies where governments and businesses provide for citizens within planetary boundaries.

This is the only future where the next generation has a chance, not just of surviving but thriving. If we political leaders do not work towards that, we can expect to be removed from power: the next generation will make sure of it.​

Syed Saddiq is Malaysia’s minister for youth and sports, and Asia’s youngest ever cabinet minister. He is also youth chief of the Malaysian United Indigenous Party in the ruling Pakatan Harapan coalition

Japan planning to release over a million tonnes of radioactive water into sea from Fukushima power plant

Coolant contains toxic element which cannot be removed

Harry Cockburn
Friday 31 January 2020 20:03

Tanks containing contaminated water at the Fukushima nuclear plant ( AP )

Massive amounts of radioactive water being stored at Japan’s Fukushima power plant could be released into the sea under plans provisionally accepted by the country’s government.

Tokyo Electric has collected nearly 1.2 million tonnes of contaminated water from cooling pipes used to keep fuel cores from melting since the plant was devastated by the earthquake and tsunami which hit eastern Japan in 2011.

The water, containing 62 radioactive elements, is stored in huge tanks on the site of the now disabled power plant, but Tokyo Electric has said it will run out of room to store the water by 2022.

The water has been treated and Tokyo Electric said it is able to remove all radioactive particles from the water to levels not harmful to humans, except tritium, an isotope of hydrogen which is more difficult to separate from water.

A panel of experts working for Japan’s economy and industry ministry concluded that letting the water run into the sea was the best option after looking at other proposals. The only other viable option considered was to let the water evaporate.
Inside the twisted remains of Fukushima nuclear plant

Tokyo Electric Power Company officials and journalists 

and journalists visited the site yesterday

In Friday’s proposal, the ministry said the controlled release to the sea is superior because its route is predictable and easier to sample and monitor.

“Compared to evaporation, ocean release can be done more securely,” the committee said, pointing to common practice around the world where nuclear power stations operating under normal conditions routinely release water containing tritium into the sea.

But the decision will alarm neighbouring countries and comes ahead of Japan’s hosting of the 2020 Olympic Games, with some events due to be held less than 60km away from the Fukushima site.

Fishermen and residents also fear health effects from releasing the radioactive water as well as harm to the region’s image and farm industries.

Neighbouring South Korea has retained a ban on imports of seafood from Japan’s Fukushima region imposed after the nuclear disaster and summoned a senior Japanese embassy official last year to explain how the Fukushima water would be dealt with, Reuters reported.

South Korean athletes are planning to bring their own radiation detectors and food to the Games.

Experts say there is no established method to fully separate tritium from water, but it is not a problem in small amounts. Government officials also say tritium is routinely released from existing nuclear power plants around the world.

The report acknowledges the water releases would harm industries that still face reluctant consumers despite safety checks. It promised to reinforce monitoring of tritium levels and food safety checks to address safety concerns.

Additional reporting by agencies

Read more

Fukushima executives cleared over nuclear disaster
Why Fukushima is Japan’s most underrated hidden gem
California wine made after Fukushima is more radioactive, study finds
Lethal levels of radiation detected at Fukushima nuclear plant leak

Front-line protesters Wing and Tony, two 18-year-olds who began dating after attending many Hong Kong protests together, pose for a portrait. Normally quiet and reserved, the two have joined thousands of local teenagers in clashes with riot police, in a pro-democracy movement that has upended the city for seven months.

 Picture taken December 9, 2019. REUTERS/Leah Millis  

Reuters / Tuesday, January 28, 2020

TRUMP'S WHITE TRASH

Photos of the week
Reuters / Wednesday, January 29, 2020
Folding chairs and trash remain at the Wildwood convention center parking lot after the end of President Donald Trump's campaign rally in Wildwood, New Jersey, January 28, 2020. New Jersey supporters of Trump welcomed his first campaign rally in the state the same way they celebrate heroes from the New York Jets football team to native son Bruce Springsteen - with a tailgate party. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon

MY MEME

TRUMP'S PEACE PLAN A SHOE IN PALESTINE

Reuters / Tuesday, January 28, 2020
A Palestinian man places a shoe on a television screen broadcasting the announcement of U.S. President Donald Trump's Middle East peace plan, in a coffee shop in Hebron in the Israeli-occupied West Bank January 28, 2020. Trump proposed creating a Palestinian state as part of the plan, drawing Palestinian condemnation for imposing strict conditions and agreeing to let Israel maintain control of long-contested West Bank settlements. It includes what Trump called a four-year freeze by Israel on new settlement activity. REUTERS/Mussa Qawasma

MY MEME

How your clothes become microfibre pollution in the sea

AFP/File / ODD ANDERSENA major source of marine pollution -- microscopic bits of polyester, nylon and acrylic -- has up to now gone largely unnoticed

From the polar ice cap to the Mariana Trench 10 kilometres below the waves, synthetic microfibres spat out by household washing machines are polluting oceans everywhere.

The world has woken up over the last year to the scourge of single-use plastics, from bottles and straws to ear swabs and throw-away bags, resulting in legislation to restrict or ban their use in dozens of countries.

A lot of this visible debris winds up in the sea, where it gathers in huge floating islands called gyres, entangles wildlife from turtles to terns, and hangs suspended in water like dead jellyfish.

But a major source of marine pollution -- microscopic bits of polyester, nylon and acrylic -- has up to now gone largely unnoticed, experts say.

Most people don't realise it, but "the majority of our clothes are made from plastic," said Imogen Napper, a researcher at the University of Plymouth.

"We wash our clothes regularly, and hundreds of thousands of fibres come off per wash," she told AFP, "This could be one of the main sources of the plastic pollution into the environment."

"How do we remove something that is so small?", she added.

A 2015 report from the Ellen McArthur foundation estimated that half-a-million tonnes of microfibres leached into waterways every year, with 53 million tonnes of new textiles produced annually.

The average family in the United States and Canada unleashes more than 500 million microfibres into the environment each year, according to the Ocean Wise organisation.

- Buy less clothing -

The vast majority of those minuscule bits of textile -- whether synthetic or not -- are intercepted during water treatment, but nearly 900 tonnes winds up in the ocean all the same.

In less developed countries, however, far more of those particles will not get intercepted, adding to the flood of plastic streaming into the sea.

Microplastics, say marine biologists, are almost certainly as harmful to microscopic ocean creatures as flimsy shopping sacs are to sea turtles.

But forensic clues are hard to come by, explains Peter Ross, co-author of the Ocean Wise report.

"The evidence disappears quickly, with weak or dead micro-organisms eaten by other species," he explained.

AFP/File / Gillian HANDYSIDERecent research has focused on how to reduce the volume of micro-pollution shed when we wash clothes


Recent research has focused on how to reduce the volume of micro-pollution shed when we wash clothes -- besides the obvious step of simply washing them less often.

"When you do the laundry, you can reduce the impact by lowering the temperature -- above 30 degrees Celsius textiles break down more easily," said Laura Diaz Sanchez, a campaigner for NGO Plastic Soup Foundation.

"Liquid detergent is better than powder, which has a scrubbing effect," she added. "Also, don't use a dryer."

Buying less clothing is likewise important: studies have shown first-time washings release by far the most microfibres.

"This is something we can stop," insisted Mojca Zupan, founder of the Slovenian-based startup PlanetCare.

"Your car has filters, your washing machine should have them too," she said, explaining how the ones she makes -- endorsed by the Plastic Soup Foundation -- are self-installing. "Every machine made from now on should be neutral to the environment."

- 'Fast fashion' culture -

There are other laundry gadgets that make environmental claims, some of them contested.

Spiky laundry balls -- themselves made of plastic -- and mesh bags to contain a load are also promoted as eco-friendly accessories for use in dryers.

"It may be useful to stop big entanglements but it doesn't do anything for tiny fibres," said Francesca de Falco, a researcher at the Institute for Polymers, Composites and Biomaterials in Italy.

Bottom line? There are no miracle solutions. "The only one would be to not wear any clothes at all," said Sanchez.

AFP/File / Manan VATSYAYANABuying less clothes also decreases microfibre pollution because first-time washings release by far the most microfibres

The best approach to tackle the problem is with separate solutions tailored to each step of the process -- clothing manufacture, washing, and treatment plants, said de Falco.

Each synthetic material has properties, such as the way in which it is woven, that may have an impact.

In an effort to do better, some brands work with scientists to test clothes particularly prone to shedding microplastics, such as down jackets and stretch T-shirts.

Are natural fibres the answer? Not so simple, experts say. Cotton, for example, requires huge quantities of water and pesticide when grown.

"Switching to natural alternatives is not really the answer because it can be very expensive and they have their own environmental problems," said Napper.

"We live in a 'fast fashion' culture -- when you consider how much we actually buy, it is quite scary."

Bayer considers new tactic in Roundup settlement talks

(Reuters) - As Bayer AG (BAYGn.DE) tries to settle U.S. lawsuits claiming that its weedkiller Roundup causes cancer, the company is considering a proposal that would bar plaintiffs’ lawyers involved in the litigation from advertising for new clients, according to a person familiar with the matter.

Bayer has said it is engaged in mediation to resolve the litigation, which has hit its share price since it acquired Roundup as part of its $63 billion takeover of Monsanto in 2018.

The company has denied claims that Roundup or its active ingredient glyphosate causes cancer, saying decades of independent studies have shown the product is safe for human use.

The person said that Bayer believes an agreement with plaintiffs’ attorneys to ban advertising would limit the company’s future legal exposure since the “vast majority” of U.S. law firms that would bring such claims would be bound by the agreement.

Bayer declined to comment.

German newspaper Handelsblatt reported on Thursday that Bayer was considering stopping retail sales of glyphosate while continuing to serve farmers, because the bulk of plaintiffs are private users. Bayer did not comment to Reuters on this report.

The company has ruled out putting a cancer warning on the weedkiller because market regulators such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have deemed it save to use, but that means lawsuits could keeping piling in.

In October, Bayer largely blamed law firms’ TV ad campaigns for the more than doubling of U.S. plaintiffs seeking damages to 42,700 within just three months.

A provision such as the one the company is considering could result in “dramatically fewer claims” so that the litigation is no longer a “big drag on Bayer’s balance sheet,” said David Noll, a professor at Rutgers Law School and expert in mass torts, who is not involved in the litigation.

In January, court-appointed mediator Ken Feinberg put the number of Roundup cancer claimants at more than 75,000, which includes those that have not been filed. Bayer said the claims it has been served with in court were below 50,000.

While such a provision is unusual, there is precedent.

As part of a 2013 settlement between Merck & Co and plaintiffs claiming the company’s Fosamax osteoporosis drug caused jaw injury, lawyers pledged that they did not intend to “solicit claims” that arose after the settlement.

Perry Weitz of Weitz & Luxenberg, one of the leading plaintiffs’ firms involved in the Roundup litigation, criticized an idea to bar firms from advertising for future clients.

“A company cannot ask a lawyer to enter an agreement to restrict his practice in the future,” he said.

He said there had not been “serious discussions about future cases,” but declined to elaborate.

Michael Miller of The Miller Firm, another major party in the talks, said that “it is possible, if done correctly, to manage the exposure to future claims.” He declined to elaborate. Three other plaintiffs firms who have brought the bulk of the claims - Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman; Andrus Wagstaff PC; Holland Law Firm - declined to comment. Moore Law Group PLLC did not respond to requests for comment.

Bayer’s shares have lost about 20% of their value since August 2018 when a California jury in the first lawsuit over Roundup found Monsanto should have warned of the alleged cancer risks. Bayer has lost two more jury verdicts and is appealing all three rulings.

Factbox: Bayer faces lengthy Roundup appeals and settlement talks continue



(Reuters) - Bayer AG’s (BAYGn.DE) shares have taken a hit since three consecutive U.S. juries awarded more than $2 billion in damages to cancer patients alleging that the company’s glyphosate-based weed killer, Roundup, caused their disease.

Bayer, which acquired Roundup maker Monsanto for $63 billion in 2018, denies the allegations, saying decades of studies and regulatory approvals have shown glyphosate and Roundup to be safe for human use.

But the company faces similar U.S. lawsuits by more than 42,700 plaintiffs and shareholders have rebuked Bayer’s top management over its handling of the Monsanto acquisition and the litigation it inherited.

The company’s shares have lost about 20% of their value since the first adverse jury verdict in August 2018.

Bayer has appealed or vowed to appeal all verdicts against it, but said the litigation will take some time to conclude as no case has been subject to appellate review to assess key legal rulings in the trials.

Here is a summary of pending appeals in the U.S. glyphosate litigation:

- The first Roundup jury verdict, a $289 million award in San Francisco state court in August 2018, later reduced to $78 million, is currently on appeal before California’s Court of Appeals, First Appellate District. Bayer in late April 2019 asked the appeals court to throw out the judgment, saying there was “no evidence” glyphosate could cause cancer.

Plaintiffs and Bayer have submitted all their briefs to the court, but no date for oral arguments has yet been scheduled.

- Bayer is also appealing the March 2019 verdict that awarded $80 million to a California man, later reduced to $25 million. The company in December filed its appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Justice Department have supported Bayer in that appeal, in a filing urging the court to reverse the verdict as regulatory reviews have found glyphosate to be safe and noncarcinogenic.

But just like California’s state court system, the 9th Circuit also is overwhelmed by a massive case load, hearing more cases than any other federal appeals court in the country. Legal experts said the court was unlikely to schedule arguments before the end of 2020.

- Bayer has said it would also appeal a massive $2 billion verdict issued by a California jury to a couple in May 2019. The judgment was later reduced to $86.7 million. As of Friday, Bayer has not yet filed an appeals brief in the case and any opening brief in the case is due by Feb 7.

What are the obstacles to Bayer settling Roundup lawsuits?

Tina Bellon

(Reuters) - Bayer AG (BAYGn.DE) is in mediation to potentially settle thousands of U.S. lawsuits claiming that the company’s Roundup weed killer causes cancer, but some legal experts said the cases raises novel questions that may prevent an easy settlement.

More than 42,700 plaintiffs claim Roundup causes a type of cancer called non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Bayer to date has lost three U.S. jury trials in the Roundup litigation. The company is appealing or has vowed to appeal the decisions, saying Roundup and its active ingredient glyphosate are not carcinogenic and safe for human use.

Legal experts outlined several obstacles the parties may face on the path towards settlement.

WHY IS THE ROUNDUP LITIGATION DIFFERENT FROM OTHER PRODUCT CASES?

Settlements involving drugs, medical devices or consumer goods often result in the addition of a warning label, a recall or the outright discontinuance of a product. Those steps generally close the door to future lawsuits, making settlement costs and risks predictable.

Bayer has never publicly considered pulling Roundup off the market. The company in June announced a $5.6 billion investment to research and develop a glyphosate alternative.

Bayer unit Monsanto began selling Roundup in 1974 and while the formulation is no longer patent-protected, Roundup remains widely available today. Bayer has repeatedly said Roundup is safe and important to farmers who use the herbicide in combination with the company’s genetically modified seeds

Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma on average can take up to 10 years to emerge, increasing the likelihood of claims being filed after the litigation has settled. Product liability settlements generally include a cut-off date for future claimants and need to be properly funded for a court to approve the agreement.

As long as the product continues to be sold without changes to the label, plaintiffs may continue to file lawsuits, said Elizabeth Burch, a law professor at the University of Georgia.

COULD BAYER ADD A CANCER WARNING?

Plaintiffs lawyers, who claim the company manipulated the science, told Reuters they would insist on a cancer warning label as part of any Roundup settlement.

Such a warning has been rejected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates pesticides and repeatedly has found glyphosate to be safe.

The agency said it has finished a regulatory review that found glyphosate is not a carcinogen.

In a filing to a federal appeals court, which hears one of the appeals to a jury verdict, the EPA and the U.S. Justice Department backed Bayer and said it was unlawful for manufacturers to make label claims that differ from EPA approval.

David Noll, a professor at Rutgers Law School, said adding a cancer warning over a regulator’s explicit opposition presented unchartered legal territory.

HOW COULD BAYER SETTLE THE ROUNDUP LITIGATION?

To settle product liability litigation, companies generally set up a fund and the parties define criteria that current and future claimants must fulfill to receive compensation.

In the Roundup litigation, claimants could be divided into different groups depending on the frequency of their Roundup use and disease severity and length.

But Adam Zimmerman, a law professor at Loyola Law School, said defining those groups is complicated by the lack of a signature disease associated with Roundup, making it difficult to predict Bayer’s liability.

For example, in asbestos litigation, mesothelioma, a rare tissue cancer, was recognized as a signature disease caused by exposure to asbestos fibers.

Doctors recognize several risk factors leading to non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, but the disease is largely considered to have no known cause. Around 74,000 people in the United States are expected to be diagnosed with the disease in 2019, according to the American Cancer Society.

Settling claims might not preclude future lawsuits if the fund runs out of money. In the Agent Orange litigation, Vietnam War veterans were allowed to sue chemical companies decades after a settlement was reached because the compensation fund was depleted by the time they developed their diseases.

Cold and humiliated, Syrians displaced yet again by new Assad campaign

IDLIB, Syria (Reuters) - Khaled Sabri and his family huddle in the makeshift shelter in northern Idlib, still shell-shocked after fleeing the sudden bombardment of their rebel-held town earlier this week.

They are part of an exodus that has shaken northwest Syria, the last rebel redoubt in the country’s nine-year civil war, as hundreds of thousands push toward Turkey to escape a sudden and fast-moving advance by government forces.

Backed by heavy Russian airstrikes, President Bashar al-Assad’s forces have recaptured dozens of towns since last Friday in a major campaign that has stoked tensions between Ankara and Moscow and raised the specter of a new refugee crisis.

“We fled with just the clothes we were wearing because of the heavy bombing,” said 55-year-old Sabri. His city Maarat al-Numan, the second biggest in Idlib, was re-captured on Tuesday in a major milestone for Assad’s stated goal of reclaiming all of Syria.

At the camp outside Maarat Misrin, a northern Idlib town about 20 km (12 miles) south of the Turkish frontier, dozens of families sheltered in plastic white tents, many unsure of where they would wind up.

Jennah, 10, said it was the second time her family had been displaced. Like many others, they had sought refuge in Idlib after being ousted from other areas earlier in the war.

“I was forcibly displaced from eastern Ghouta, and then we went to Maarat al-Numan and the Syrian regime launched a military campaign on Maarat al-Numan, so we came here.”

A United Nations report on Thursday estimated that 390,000 people have fled northwest Syria from Dec. 1-Jan. 27, 80% of them women and children.

Moscow and Damascus say they are fighting jihadist militants who have stepped up attacks on civilians in Aleppo in northern Syria, but rights groups and rescue workers say air strikes and shelling have demolished hospitals, schools and homes.

Turkey, which fears a fresh wave of migrants piling into it territory, adding to the more than 3.6 million Syrians already there, said on Friday it would not tolerate new threats near its border and would act militarily if needed.

Trucks crowded with civilians’ furniture, mattresses and rugs were seen on Friday hauling out of towns across much of Idlib and western Aleppo, another area of northern Syria hit hard over the past week.

“Today we are homeless, humiliated, oppressed and cold. We want to be returned to our homes and towns,” said a woman who called herself Um Abdallah, or Abdullah’s mother, 30, from Maarat al-Numan.Cold and humiliated, Syrians displaced yet again by new Assad campaign

---30---