DO SEAT BELT LAWS WORK
Study: Mandates get more people vaccinated than recommendations
By Denise Mann, HealthDay News

While COVID-19 vaccine mandates have motivated some protests, such as the Boeing workers pictured on Wednesday in St. Louis protesting the company's rule, but researchers say they are more effective at getting people vaccinated than recommendations. 

Photo by Bill Greenblatt/UPI | License Photo


Requiring COVID-19 shots for work, school or travel will boost vaccination rates without the backlash and mass walkouts that many have predicted, new research predicts.

The findings come as growing numbers of U.S. states, cities and private companies start to enforce COVID-19 vaccine mandates. High-profile refusers like Brooklyn Nets' guard Kyrie Irving and Washington State University football coach Nick Rolovich have incurred serious consequences for their defiance.

"Our studies present experimental evidence that mandates lead to stronger vaccination intentions than leaving vaccination entirely up to people who can choose whether to vaccinate," said study author Dolores Albarracín, director of the Social Action Lab at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication.

"The requirement condition works better across the board, for different racial and ethnic groups and even among people who dislike feeling and being controlled by others," Albarracín said.

With more than 700,000 U.S. coronavirus deaths, most public health experts agree that getting more people immunized is the best way to buck these trends.

Based on her research, Albarracín expects an uptick in vaccination rates now that more mandates are in place and being enforced across the United States.

Her team asked 299 adults whether they would get the COVID-19 shot if they were required to do so for work, travel or school, and 86% said they would.

Then, researchers conducted a series of experiments.

They asked 1,322 people if they would be more likely to get the shot if their employer required it, preferred it, or emphasized the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination. Once again, the majority said they were most likely to get vaccinated if they were required to do so.

The participants also completed a psychological questionnaire to assess their feelings about such regulations. Those who said they didn't like being told what to do were also more likely to take the jab if required to do so -- even if they didn't see the benefits of the vaccine, the study found.

"The mandate makes vaccination appear more advantageous [access to more, greater social acceptance] than does leaving the decision up to individuals," Albarracín said.

A mandate also signals that the vaccine is less risky, she said.

The findings were published online Thursday in the journal Scientific Reports.

The study comes as Irving and Rolovich face stiff penalties for refusing to get vaccinated. Irving has been barred from practice and play with his team, and on Monday, Rolovich and four vaccine-refusing assistants were fired. Rolovich has announced his intent to sue.

Despite these headline-grabbing cases of vaccine refusal, medical ethicist Arthur Caplan said the takeaway from the new study was evident: Vaccine mandates work.

Requiring health care workers and nursing home staffers to get flu shots bumped up vaccination rates, and mandates will also work for COVID-19 vaccines, he said.

"We tried persuasion and tried to incentivize people with a day off or a free meal if they got the flu shot, but nothing short of mandates really worked," said Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU Grossman School of Medicine in New York City.

"This idea that we can persuade people to get the COVID-19 vaccine is less likely to work given the fact that the whole issue has become political," Caplan said.

The big fear is that mandates will trigger a massive backlash, but this study didn't find that to be a likely outcome, he said.

"Many people have a strong belief that they are free to make their own choices about medical issues, but that isn't true in a pandemic," Caplan said, stressing that the pandemic isn't over.

Vaccinated people are less likely to spread COVID-19, he pointed out.

"People who are vulnerable need to be protected from COVID-19," Caplan said, "And there is still a danger that new variants can spread more easily if we don't get more people vaccinated."

More information

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has the facts about the COVID-19 vaccine.

Copyright © 2021 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

COP26 SUPERSPREADER EVENT

‘The UK really is in trouble’: Doctors warn of a dire Covid crisis as officials reject restrictions

PUBLISHED FRI, OCT 22 20211

Holly Ellyatt@HOLLYELLYATT

KEY POINTS

The U.K. is seeing rampant Covid infections and a slowly increasing number of hospitalizations and deaths.

The warnings come just as government officials have insisted that more restrictions on public life are not yet necessary.

Making matters potentially worse, the U.K. is also monitoring a mutation of the delta variant.


Firefighter Matt Smither is seen working alongside critical care nurses in the Intensive Care Unit at Queen Alexandra Hospital in Portsmouth, southern England.
ADRIAN DENNIS | AFP | Getty Images

LONDON — An increasing number of doctors in the U.K. are warning that the country, and its health service, are facing a renewed health crisis due to rampant Covid-19 infections and a rising number of hospitalizations and deaths.

The warnings, from several big British medical bodies over the last couple of days, come as government officials have insisted that more restrictions on public life are not yet necessary, despite Health Secretary Sajid Javid warning Wednesday that Covid cases could reach 100,000 a day as we enter the winter period.

Making matters potentially even worse, U.K. experts are now monitoring a mutation of the delta variant that could be making the virus even more transmissible.

‘Incredibly concerning’

The British Medical Association slammed the government’s sanguine perspective on the situation, stating Wednesday that it was “incredibly concerning” that Javid was not, as the association viewed it, “willing to take immediate action to save lives and to protect the NHS.”

“Especially as we head into winter, when the NHS is in the grips of tackling the largest backlog of care, with an already depleted and exhausted workforce,” it added in a statement, echoing numerous reports of exhausted frontline health staff.

Read more: UK doctors call for urgent return of Covid restrictions as experts monitor new mutation

The BMA backed calls, made earlier this week by the NHS Confederation (which represents organizations across the U.K. health care sector) for the government to trigger its “Plan B,” which it had said last month that it would do if Covid cases threatened to severely impact the health care service’s ability to function.

“The reality today is an unacceptable rate of infections, hospitalisations and deaths, unheard of in similar European nations. In comparison to France, we have more than 10 times the number of cases and almost four times as many deaths per million,” the BMA said.

The U.K. has been recording between 40,000 to 50,000 new daily infections in the last week. While the number of daily deaths and hospitalizations remain far below earlier peaks in the pandemic thanks to Covid vaccines, data shows these numbers are climbing too.

On Thursday, the U.K. reported 52,009 new cases and 115 deaths within 28 days of a positive Covid test. In addition, another 959 people were admitted to hospital, official data shows.

The government has rebuffed concerns over whether the health service can cope. Health Minister Edward Argar told the BBC Thursday that the NHS is not under “unsustainable pressure,” noting that there were about 95,000 beds in NHS hospitals, with 7,000 occupied by Covid patients and 6,000 currently empty.

“We know how those numbers can rise swiftly, which is why we’re looking at that day-by-day, hour-by-hour. But at the moment we do have the ability to manage,” he said.

Other experts beg to differ and say the data could be worse than it appears.
‘The UK really is in trouble’

The U.K.’s Zoe Covid Study, which collects and analyses Covid data with help from King’s College London, estimated Thursday that the number of daily positive tests in the country is much higher than government data suggests. The data suggested there were 81,823 new daily symptomatic cases, on average, based on PCR and LFT (lateral flow test) test data from up to five days ago. That’s an increase of 17% from 69,993 new daily cases last week.

Dr. Tim Spector, a professor of genetic epidemiology at King’s College London who runs the study, commented that “with over 80,000 new cases a day the U.K. really is in trouble.”

“This hasn’t happened overnight, but frustratingly our calls for a more cautious approach to Covid management have gone unheeded, despite the upward trends we’ve reported now for several weeks ... The U.K. needs to act now to prevent the situation from escalating out of control ahead of winter,” he said.

WATCH NOW
VIDEO02:16
Covid cases surge in the U.K. as medical professionals urge government to reinstate restrictions

Experts agree that the U.K. finds itself in this troubling predicament for a variety of reasons, ranging from low usage of masks in crowded spaces (masks are no longer mandatory in the U.K. apart from on public transport) and large gatherings in enclosed spaces, as well as other factors including waning immunity following Covid vaccination (immunity is known to decline after around six months).

Read more: The UK has one of the highest Covid infection rates in the world right now: Here’s why

There are also growing concerns about a descendent of the delta Covid variant, known now as AY.4.2, that is being identified in an increasing number of U.K. Covid cases. There is a possibility that this mutation could be a possible factor in rising case numbers, although it’s too early to say for sure.

Stalling vaccinations

Medical experts also agree that the U.K.’s vaccination program, which got off to a flying start back in Dec. 2020, has stalled. Official data shows 79% of the population aged 12 and over is fully vaccinated.

“There are a number of developments that lie behind the dramatic rise in U.K. infections. Adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as mask wearing has declined; the favorable summer seasonal is fading; and a new sub-lineage of the Delta variant, known as AY.4.2, is increasing modestly,” JPMorgan Chief European Economist David Mackie said in a note Thursday.

“But, in our view, the main issue is the combination of a stalled main vaccination programme, fading vaccine protection and an only modest start to the booster programme.”

The number of fully vaccinated individuals in the U.K. reached 45 million at the start of October, Mackie noted but by Oct.19, 45.4 million people had been fully vaccinated, “representing an average daily pace over the past few weeks of only 27,600. The main vaccination programme has effectively stalled,” he said.

Spector agreed that “the two main reasons we’re seeing cases back at January peaks are the U.K.’s flagging vaccine programme ... and lifting most restrictions too early.”

He said the government needed to encourage the unvaccinated to take up shots, and to reintroduce “simple measures, such as wearing masks on public transport and in crowded, poorly-ventilated places, avoiding large indoor gatherings and working from home where possible.”

“Doing nothing now will just make it worse. This pandemic is far from over, and whilst it seems some would rather bury their heads in the sand, Covid-19 and its new variants have other plans.”

Analysis: 99.9% of climate studies agree that humans are causing climate change


A new analysis of studies suggests that virtually all climate scientists agree that climate change has been caused and accelerated by human actions. File Photo by Free-Photos/Pixabay

Oct. 19 (UPI) -- Virtually all scientific analyses agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, a survey of more than 88,000 studies published Tuesday by Environmental Research Letters found.

More than 99.9% of the 88,125 climate-related studies published between 2012 and November of last year concluded that warming temperatures, increased frequency of extreme weather events and polar ice melting, among other climate challenges, can be linked with humans, the data showed.

A similar analysis published in 2013 found that 97% of studies conducted between 1991 and 2012 supported the theory that human activities are altering Earth's climate.

"We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now," co-author of the current study, Mark Lynas, said in a press release

"It's pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change," said Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University.

Despite these and other findings, public opinion polls, as well as opinions of politicians and public representatives, on the issue remain divided.

In 2016, for example, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of adults in the United States agreed with the statement that "almost all" scientists believe that climate change is due to human activity.

Similarly, a 2021 Gallup poll pointed to a deepening partisan divide in U.S. politics on whether the rising global temperatures observed since the Industrial Revolution were primarily caused by humans.

For this study, Lynas and his colleagues examined a random sample of 3,000 studies out of the 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020.

Of these 3,000 studies, they found only four that were skeptical of human-caused climate change.

RELATED International Energy Agency: Global carbon-cutting efforts fall 60% short of goal

Next, co-author Simon Perry, a Britain-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as "solar," "cosmic rays" and "natural cycles," the researchers said.

"To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it," Lynas said.

"That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere," he said.

The algorithm was applied to all 88,125 papers, and the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical of human activity being the cause of climate change, according to the researchers.

"It's critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions," co-author Benjamin Houlton said in a press release.

"We are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy," said Houlton, dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell.

Maine's North Woods offers glimpse of future fights for 'green energy'

Maine voters next month will vote on whether to allow construction of a transmission line to carry electricity generated by dams in Canada, part of which will cross the state's North Woods, which is where the pictured Gold Brook and its source, Rock Pond, are located. 

Photo by Sam Steele/Natural Resources Council of Maine

BANGOR, Maine, Oct. 22 (UPI) -- A proposed energy project in Maine's North Woods has made for strange bedfellows and turned old friends into enemies over whether shipping electricity from Canada to New England is good for the environment.

To deliver hydroelectric power from Canadian mega dams to ratepayers in Massachusetts, the New England Clean Energy Connect project would carve a 53-mile corridor through undeveloped forest in Maine's North Woods

Maine voters will decide on its fate Nov. 2.

"The project will impact 263 wetlands and cross 200 different rivers and streams, the best brook trout habitat remaining in North America," said Pete Didisheim, senior director of advocacy at the National Resource Council of Maine, a group that opposes the corridor.

RELATED Two-thirds of the world's longest rivers are no longer free-flowing

"It is a high-environmental impact project that was designed to maximize profits for CMP," Central Maine Power Co., Didisheim told UPI.

To complete the CMP Corridor, an existing path carved for operating transmission lines would be widened from to 225 feet from 150 feet. In total, the corridor would stretch 145 miles.

The project, which proponents say would diminish the region's reliance on fossil fuels and bring jobs to Maine, has pitted retired foresters against registered fishing guides and forced environmental activists and oil and gas companies into awkward alliances.

Mainers, who are being barraged by televised political ads for and against the project, are to decide the corridor's fate Nov. 2, when they cast a vote on referendum Question 1.

A "yes" vote on Question 1 would halt the construction of New England Clean Energy Connect and require a two-thirds vote of each state legislative chamber to approve future "high-impact" transmission line projects.

Previewing the future

While the controversy surrounding the referendum comes to a head next month, the political drama may be a prelude to future fights.

In Maine, New England and elsewhere, the race to decarbonize the economy is becoming more urgent and new energy developments are sold as essential to fight climate change.

For the ecologists, forest managers, economists and environmental advocates who say they care deeply about the planet and the threat of climate change but find themselves on opposite sides of the debate over the CMP Corridor, the project's green energy benefits remain the primary point of contention.

The disagreement extends all the way to the source of the power promised to Massachusetts -- the dozens of mega dams owned and operated by HydroQuebec.

Though environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the NRC may occasionally support small-scale hydropower operations, provided they accommodate migratory fish, they strongly oppose mega dams.

"These giant reservoirs are really incredibly impactful environmentally," Becky Bartovics, a volunteer leader with Sierra Club Maine, told UPI. "The scale of these is beyond comprehension."

The massive amount of water being held back in the forest will destroy its ability to sequester carbon, she said, adding "that's not green to do that."

Downsides of hydroelectricity

When forests are flooded, the decaying plant matter releases methane, which continues bubbling up for several years.

"The impacts of methane are becoming more and more of a concern, and that's important, as it is the most potent greenhouse gas," Matt Cannon, campaign and policy associate director at Sierra Club Maine, said.

Other problems exist with mega dams, Bartovics and Cannon say.

Decaying plants also release methyl-mercury in the water, a harmful neurotoxin that can accumulate in fish. What's more, mega dams and the massive reservoirs often displace thousands of people.

In Quebec, hundreds of Indigenous people, members of several First Nation tribes, have been displaced by HydroQuebec. Land they hunted and fished for millennia is now permanently flooded.

"In a location where people were once able to fish, they've been told by the power company that they're no longer able to fish there because it is too toxic," Bartovics said.

A coalition of Quebec's First Nation tribes are suing HydroQuebec to prevent completion of the CMP Corridor, arguing that its construction will require HydroQuebec to increase production capacity at its reservoirs, further stressing ecosystems.

No new infrastructure

Lloyd Irland, a professional forester and former Maine state economist who has publicly backed the corridor, said he might feel differently if HydroQuebec were proposing to build additional mega dams.

But, he told UPI that the infrastructure already is built and the power is waiting to be brought to New England.

Irland points to studies suggesting that hydropower, especially hydropower in northern climates in which plant decomposition is minimized, produce considerably cleaner energy than oil and gas facilities.

Irland and supporters of the project say unused capacity at HydroQuebec's reservoirs will ensure it leads to long-term greenhouse gas emissions reductions, but opponents insist the project will create no new clean energy.

They add that once hydropower is redirected to Massachusetts, it would force HydroQuebec's other customers, including those in New York and Quebec, to replace lost supply with dirtier forms of power.

"This project is not about the climate. It's simply about moving energy around to capture the highest rate of return," Didisheim said. "There are not additional climate benefits from this project."

HydroQubec, for its part, has mostly opted to highlight the reliability and affordability of its power.

"So, the question about whether this [NECEC] will make a difference in climate change. CMP has no doubt that it will -- [but] we can't guarantee it," CMP spokesman John Carroll told attendees of a meeting in 2019. "That's not our job, that's not our business."

Let regulations regulate

Opponents argue that fewer question marks around the project's impacts on regional power production would exist had an independent study of its emissions impacts garnered the required two-thirds support in Maine's state Legislature.

"CMP spent hundreds of thousands in 2019 to lobby against verifying their proposal's cleanliness independently," Maine state Rep. Seth Berry, an opponent of the CMP Corridor, told UPI in an email. "If that bipartisan bill had survived the veto, we might know how 'clean' their line actually is."

But Irland, dismayed by the polarization and politicization of the CMP Corridor, said there is no need for additional accounting, as several state agencies have weighed the corridor's pros and cons.

"We invented regulatory agencies to take these questions out of politics. That system basically works," Irland told UPI. "But when powerful groups object to the answers, politics and PR campaigns get involved."

"For the Clean Energy Corridor, we now have opponents who ignore the results of five regulatory determinations that it is a sound project," he said. "They fill editorial pages and mailboxes with claims that have been rejected by multiple regulators as technically and scientifically unwarranted."

If professed climate advocates can't agree on what counts as "clean energy" and a solution to climate change, what chance do average voters have?

"It can be difficult for the public to evaluate the pros and cons of a specific energy project, because every project is unique, and they all have environmental, economic and social dimensions that need to be considered," Warren Leon, executive director of the Clean Energy States Alliance, told UPI in an email.

"The standard should not be zero negative impacts, because anything built in the real world will have some negative impact on someone. Instead, the standard should be whether the overall benefits outweigh the overall negative impacts," Leon said.

Regional solutions to global problem

While regulatory agencies may help depoliticize the assessment of energy projects, they're not typically required to look very far beyond their state's borders. That's a problem, said Berry, a businessman and former educator.

Maine's Public Utilities Commission "sidestepped the global climate impact, focusing instead on the regional," he said.

HydroQuebec did not testify during the commission's review process.

"If redirecting electrons from Canada causes more coal or tar sands to be burned, regionally, that's Canada's problem, but globally, it's everyone's," Berry said.

That's why Berry would like to see governments and regulatory agencies change the way they track and tally emissions.

"We need to shift from production-based to consumption-based carbon accounting," he said. "Otherwise, the shell games are all too easy. For now, both Maine and most nations and states use the former."

That means most states and countries are only accounting for a portion of their carbon footprint.

It's not that the global nature of climate change precludes small-scale solutions -- Berry said he is an advocate for consumer-owned utilities. He wants to see more and more Mainers get their power from local solar and wind production.

But when assessing energy projects, it's vital to think globally, Berry argues, to ensure states and municipalities aren't simply exporting their carbon footprint.

Biden Just Threw a Bone to Big Almond
As yet another drought parches California’s 

nut-dominated San Joaquin Valley.



TOM PHILPOTT

Reporter Bio | Follow
FOOD

SEPTEMBER 15, 2021




butenkow/iStock/Getty Images Plus

To fill the post of chief agricultural negotiator at the United States Trade Representative’s office, the Biden administration dipped into California’s hot, dusty, drought-plagued San Joaquin Valley and plucked out an almond-industry lobbyist. According to the job’s official description, the negotiator’s main function is to “conduct trade negotiations and enforce trade agreements relating to United States agricultural interests and products.”

Tapping Elaine Trevino, president of the Almond Alliance of California, doesn’t mark a break from past administrations in terms of placing this particular post in the hands of a powerful, export-dependent agriculture sector. President George W. Bush gave the job first to an Iowa soybean flack, then to a GMO seed exec. President Barack Obama turned to a lobbyist for the seed/pesticide industry; while President Donald Trump bestowed the position to a guy who had served as chief economist for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The current drought is yet again exposing the folly of devoting so much land to such water-sucking crops in what is essentially a desert.

But Biden is favoring the $6 billion almond industry at a particularly fraught time in its history. The ever-expanding groves of California’s Central Valley churn out nearly 80 percent of the globe’s almonds. The industry’s dramatic expansion over the past 30 years means that to stay profitable, almond farmers and processors require a fast-growing market for the delicious nut.

That’s where foreign markets come in. “As California almond growers consistently produce yields at record or near-record levels year after year, it is important that those nuts find a home,” the California Almond Board recently stated. “Increasingly, that means expanding existing export markets and continuing to grow demand in those regions, while always keeping an eye on new opportunities globally.” About two-thirds of US-grown almonds flow out of the country, and if that trend slows down, the industry will face a glut, which would bring prices down and wipe out profitability.

This chart, tracing annual US almond output moving to domestic and export markets, tells the story of an industry heavily reliant on exactly what Trevino is tasked with doing in her new job: finding a foreign home for lots and lots of almonds.  

Almond Board of California

For decades, the situation has worked out splendidly. People in Europe and Asia happily buy up US almonds, keeping their price up; and farmers keep taking advantage of the rising demand by planting more almond groves. Similar dynamics hold for pistachios and walnuts, and those nut crops have taken over the valley, pushing pretty much everything else to the margins, as this chart by UC Davis researchers shows. Note how the expansion continued during “dry or critically dry” years, i.e., droughts.





The problem, as I showed in this 2015 feature article and in my 2020 book Perilous Bounty, is that the industry has expanded beyond the limits of the region’s climate-change-haunted water resources. The current drought, the second historically severe one to grip the region in the past decade alone, is yet again exposing the folly of devoting so much land to such water-sucking crops in what is essentially a desert. The San Joaquin Valley’s 4 million residents are already seeing wells go dry as nut farmers dig ever deeper wells to capture water from ever-sinking aquifers.

Rather than empowering an almond flack to peddle more product overseas under the seal of the US government, the Biden administration should be helping California figure out how to rein the industry in—before all the water’s gone.

 THE WEAPONIZATION OF AI

NATO releases first-ever strategy for Artificial Intelligence

• 22 Oct. 2021 -
• |
• 
  

On Thursday (21 October 2021), NATO Defence Ministers agreed to NATO’s first-ever strategy for Artificial Intelligence (AI).

Copyright: IoT Business News

A summary of the strategy is available here.

The strategy outlines how AI can be applied to defence and security in a protected and ethical way. As such, it sets standards of responsible use of AI technologies, in accordance with international law and NATO’s values. It also addresses the threats posed by the use of AI by adversaries and how to establish trusted cooperation with the innovation community on AI.

Artificial Intelligence is one of the seven technological areas which NATO Allies have prioritized for their relevance to defence and security. These include  quantum-enabled technologies, data and computing, autonomy, biotechnology and human enhancements, hypersonic technologies, and space. Of all these dual-use technologies, Artificial Intelligence is known to be the most pervasive, especially when combined with others like big data, autonomy, or biotechnology. To address this complex challenge, NATO Defence Ministers also approved NATO’s first policy on data exploitation.

Individual strategies will be developed for all priority areas, following the same ethical approach as that adopted for Artificial Intelligence.

Summary of the NATO Artificial Intelligence Strategy

• 22 Oct. 2021 -
• |
• Last updated: 22 Oct. 2021 13:43

1. Artificial Intelligence (AI) is changing the global defence and security environment. It offers an unprecedented opportunity to strengthen our technological edge but will also escalate the speed of the threats we face. This foundational technology will likely affect the full spectrum of activities undertaken by the Alliance in support of its three core tasks; collective defence, crisis management, and cooperative security.
2. In order to maintain NATO’s technological edge, we commit to collaboration and cooperation among Allies on any matters relating to AI for transatlantic defence and security. NATO and Allies can help accelerate these efforts by building on the existing adoption efforts of several NATO and Allied bodies.
3. The aim of this Strategy is fourfold:

• To provide a foundation for NATO and Allies to lead by example and encourage the development and use of AI in a responsible manner for Allied defence and security purposes;
• To accelerate and mainstream AI adoption in capability development and delivery, enhancing interoperability within the Alliance, including through proposals for AI Use Cases, new structures, and new programmes;
• To protect and monitor our AI technologies and ability to innovate, addressing security policy considerations such as the operationalisation of our Principles of Responsible Use; and
• To identify and safeguard against the threats from malicious use of AI by state and non-state actors.

4. In the future, the NATO Alliance aims to integrate AI in an interoperable way to support its three core tasks. Such use will be conducted in a recognised, responsible fashion across the enterprise, mission support and operational levels in accordance with international law. Recognising the leading role of the civil private sector and academia in AI development, this Strategy will be underpinned by: significant cooperation between NATO, the private sector1 and academia; a capable workforce of NATO technical and policy-based AI talent; a robust, relevant, secure data infrastructure; and appropriate cyber defences.
5. Under the forthcoming Defence Innovation Accelerator for the North Atlantic (DIANA), national AI test centres could support NATO’s AI ambition. NATO and Allies will also conduct regular high-level dialogues, engaging technology companies at a strategic political level to be informed and help shape the development of AI-fielded technologies, creating a common understanding of the opportunities and risks arising from AI.
6. Furthermore, NATO will remain the transatlantic forum for AI in defence and security, leveraging the potential of AI while safeguarding against its (AI) malicious use by state and non-state actors.

PRINCIPLES OF RESPONSIBLE USE

7. At the forefront of this Strategy lie the NATO Principles of Responsible Use for AI in Defence, which will help steer our transatlantic efforts in accordance with our values, norms, and international law. The NATO Principles of Responsible Use (the Principles) are based on existing and widely accepted ethical, legal, and policy commitments under which NATO has historically operated and will continue to operate under. These Principles do not affect or supersede existing obligations and commitments, both national and international.
8. The Principles below were developed based on Allied approaches and relevant work in applicable international fora. These Principles apply across all types of AI applications. They are aimed at providing coherence for both NATO and Allies to enable interoperability. The Principles will be foundational to the discussion and adoption of more detailed AI best practices and should be considered a baseline for Allies as they use AI in the context of defence and security, noting that some Allies already have national principles of responsible use.

NATO Principles of Responsible Use of Artificial Intelligence in Defence

9. Allies and NATO commit to ensuring that the AI applications they develop and consider for deployment will be – at the various stages of their lifecycles – in accordance with the following six principles:

A. Lawfulness: AI applications will be developed and used in accordance with national and international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights law, as applicable.
B. Responsibility and Accountability: AI applications will be developed and used with appropriate levels of judgment and care; clear human responsibility shall apply in order to ensure accountability.
C. Explainability and Traceability: AI applications will be appropriately understandable and transparent, including through the use of review methodologies, sources, and procedures. This includes verification, assessment and validation mechanisms at either a NATO and/or national level.
D. Reliability: AI applications will have explicit, well-defined use cases. The safety, security, and robustness of such capabilities will be subject to testing and assurance within those use cases across their entire life cycle, including through established NATO and/or national certification procedures.
E. Governability: AI applications will be developed and used according to their intended functions and will allow for: appropriate human-machine interaction; the ability to detect and avoid unintended consequences; and the ability to take steps, such as disengagement or deactivation of systems, when such systems demonstrate unintended behaviour.
F. Bias Mitigation: Proactive steps will be taken to minimise any unintended bias in the development and use of AI applications and in data sets.

Ensuring the Safe and Responsible Use of Allied AI

10. To ensure the safe and responsible use of Allied AI, NATO will operationalise its Principles of Responsible Use. These Principles will apply across the lifecycle of an AI capability. Allies and NATO will therefore operationalise these principles across all lines of development.
11. To further inform this work, the NATO AI Test Centre(s) will develop best practices for Allies, which will include assisting overall interoperability and information security efforts.
12. Underpinning the safe and responsible use of AI, NATO and Allies will consciously put Bias Mitigation efforts into practice. This will seek to minimise those biases against individual traits, such as gender, ethnicity or personal attributes.
13. NATO will conduct appropriate risk and/or impact assessments prior to deploying AI capabilities.

Minimising Interference in Allied AI

14. Some state and non-state actors will likely seek to exploit defects or limitations within our AI technologies. Allies and NATO must strive to protect the use of AI from such interference, manipulation, or sabotage, in line with the Reliability Principle of Responsible Use, also leveraging AI-enabled Cyber Defence applications.
15. Allies and NATO should develop adequate security certification requirements for AI, such as specific threat analysis frameworks and tailored security audits for purposes of ‘stress-testing’.
16. AI can impact critical infrastructure, capabilities and civil preparedness—including those covered by NATO’s seven resilience Baseline Requirements—creating potential vulnerabilities, such as cyberspace, that could be exploited by certain state and non-state actors.
17. Some state and non-state actors may also leverage disinformation opportunities within Allied societies by creating public distrust of the military use of AI. Allies will seek to prevent and counter any such efforts within the context of the Principles of Responsible Use and utilise strategic communications, where appropriate. NATO will support Allies as required.

Standards

18. NATO will further work with relevant international AI standards setting bodies to help foster military-civil standards coherence with regards to AI standards.

Big bomb cyclone is set to wallop the NORTH AMERICAN West Coast

By Alex Sosnowski, Accuweather.com

A beast of a bomb cyclone will take shape just off the coast of the northwestern United States and western Canada later this week, and AccuWeather forecasters say it will rival, in some aspects, the intensity of strong hurricanes from the Atlantic this season.

The powerful storm will bring dangerous and damaging impacts up and down the West Coast, but the precipitation it will deliver to parts of California, Oregon and Washington is greatly needed.

The storm will have some tropical origins. Energy from former Severe Tropical Storm Namtheun, which churned over the western Pacific, will join forces with a non-tropical system sitting over the northern Pacific on Wednesday, according to AccuWeather meteorologist Randy Adkins. Rapid strengthening will result. As the storm comes together a few hundred miles off the coasts of Washington and British Columbia, its intensification could easily surpass the criteria for bombogenesis.

Meteorologists define a bomb cyclone as a rapidly strengthening storm with a central pressure that plummets by 0.71 of an inch of mercury (24 millibars) or more within 24 hours. The process is referred to as bombogenesis. As the pressure drops rapidly in the center of the storm, air rushes in to replace the vacuum created in the atmosphere and can produce damaging winds.

The central pressure of the storm is forecast to dip to about 28 inches of mercury (948 millibars), putting the bomb cyclone at or even below the intensity level of Hurricane Larry, which was a long-lived and intense cyclone that churned across the Atlantic in early September. At peak strength, Larry was a major Category 3 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 125 mph and higher gusts. Its central pressure dropped as low as 28.20 inches of mercury (955 millibars).

Future radar shows the bomb cyclone off the coast of western Canada on Friday evening. Image courtesy of AccuWeather

It will not, however, come close to the strength of Hurricane Ida, which, at its peak, was a strong Category 4 storm with a minimum central pressure of 27.43 inches of mercury (929 millibars).

Damaging winds are possible from the northwestern tip of Vancouver Island, British Columbia, and the Haida Gwaii archipelago in British Columbia as the storm rapidly intensifies at midweek. In this area, wind gusts of 40-60 mph are expected as the storm's associated cold front charges eastward, Adkins explained.

RELATED Shifting pattern to dump mountain snow, raise flood threat across the West this week 

The monster storm will act as an anchor or axle for other storms with plenty of moisture and wind energy to whip around like spokes on a giant wheel and the Pacific coast of the United States and Canada will be the targets. Each storm will have its own level of strengthening but not likely to the same intensity of the offshore bomb cyclone.

As the circulation of the bomb cyclone ramps up, winds and wave action will increase over the coastal Northwest into Thursday.

"Strong wind gusts of 40-50 mph can also be expected for coastal sections of Washington and Oregon from Wednesday to Thursday, but with the center of the bomb cyclone forecast to remain offshore, wind damage will be relatively minor and will certainly pale in comparison to the bomb cyclone from Thanksgiving week in 2019," Adkins added.

Conditions are likely to remain stormy in the coastal Northwest into next week and are likely to expand southward through the coast of Southern California into next week.

As the pattern evolves and more storms spin southeastward across the Pacific, the rounds of rain and mountain snow will ramp up significantly. Through later next week, when the pattern will finally ease up, some west-facing slopes of the Coast Ranges and lower slopes of the Cascades and the Sierra Nevada are expected to pick up a general 6-12 inches of rain with locally higher amounts.

Snow will fall at varying elevations over the course of several days as each storm blows through. By the middle of next week, several yards of snow could pile up across the high country of the Sierra Nevada, Cascades and the Olympics.

The snow that accumulates in the mountains may provide bonus runoff into streams this fall or next spring, should snowpack remain in place through the winter. Significant drought caused several of California's critical reservoirs to reach historic lows this year.

AccuWeather meteorologist Alex DeSilva said the storm has the potential to "be a tremendous shot in the arm due to the long-term drought in the region." As of Oct. 12, 46% of California was in exceptional drought, the highest level of drought severity, according to data from the U.S. Drought Monitor.

The unfolding stormy pattern will knock temperatures down and may also effectively shut down the wildfire season in much of California, just as other storms earlier this autumn and late this summer have done in the coastal Northwest, DeSilva added.

While all of the storms will have their benefits, one, in particular, may be especially problematic.



The biggest storm in the bunch, in terms of rain and mountain snow, is forecast to roll ashore from Sunday to Tuesday and is likely to target California in general and bring soaking rain as far south as coastal areas in Southern California and spotty showers to some of the deserts.

"Storms prior to the 'big one' early next week will prime the landscape and set the stage for quick runoff with the big storm carrying the potential for enough rain to cause widespread flash flooding and mudslides, especially in, but not limited to the burn scar areas in Northern California, Oregon and Washington," AccuWeather senior meteorologist Joe Lundberg said.

More than half of all of the rain in the week-long pattern and the majority of the high-country snow in California may fall during that single storm early next week.

People with homes built along the hillsides in recent burn scar locations will need to be extra vigilant with the stormy pattern unfolding into early next week. As the rounds of rain soak the ground, the topsoil can become progressively unstable.

Forecasters also warn motorists never to attempt to drive through flooded roads. The reasons include, but are not limited to, the risk that the water may be deeper than it appears, water may still be rising and road surfaces can wash away beneath floodwaters.

Large waves are likely to sweep southward along the coast of Southern California later this week to next week and are likely to be a boon to surfers, but large breakers and strong rip currents will pose dangers to bathers.



The stormy pattern will bring rain and hazards to some communities along the West Coast, particularly in California, and it could be a bellwether of what's to come this winter.

"The pattern unfolding this week to next week may be one of the biggest series of storms for the rainy season for California, but there is still potential for a couple of bigger storms over the winter," AccuWeather lead long-range forecaster Paul Pastelok said.

A precursor to the stormy pattern will bring a batch of rain and high-country snow from British Columbia to part of Northern California and northern Idaho into Wednesday evening.

This mild-mannered storm, in comparison to the coming storms, is slated to bring a general 0.50 of an inch to 2 inches of rain in the western portions of Washington, Oregon and Northern California with a few inches of snow above pass level in the Cascades and over the peaks in the Olympics.

What near-term climate impacts should worry us most?

Supporting the most exposed and vulnerable societies to reduce regional and global climate risks

CHATHAM HOUSE

RESEARCH PAPER

19 OCTOBER 2021

ISBN: 978 1 78413 499 0


Show authors

This research paper – drawing on insights from 200 experts – highlights that, within the current decade, climate hazards are expected to have increasingly serious disruptive impacts. While many hazards may now be inevitable, action on adaptation has the potential to limit the worst expected climate impacts, at regional and global levels.

The 10 hazard-impact pathways of greatest near-term concern all relate to regions of Africa and Asia. The impacts of greatest concern – food security and migration and displacement of people – may arise from hazards such as drought, changing rainfall patterns or heatwaves. Impacts will be greatest where communities are already most vulnerable, but will also set off interacting, compounding cascades of secondary impacts that cross borders and continents.

That ‘no one is safe until everyone is safe’, often repeated during the COVID-19 pandemic, is just as critical in relation to climate hazards. Between now and 2030, support for adaptation measures to address socio-economic vulnerabilities in the most at-risk regions will be vital. Without such support, it will be impossible to avert systemic climate impact cascades that translate local hazards into impacts felt across the globe.
Image — People rest at the Oregon Convention Center cooling station in Portland, Oregon, on 28 June 2021, as a heatwave moves over much of the US. Photo: Copyright © Kathryn Elsesser/AFP/Getty Images

Topics
AGRICULTURE AND FOOD
CIVIL SOCIETY
CLIMATE POLICY
G7 AND G20
GENDER AND EQUALITY
HUMAN RIGHTS AND SECURITY
MANAGING NATURAL RESOURCES
REFUGEES AND MIGRATION
UNITED NATIONS (UN)

Departments

ENVIRONMENT AND SOCIETY PROGRAMME Download PDF

What near-term climate impacts should worry us most?

Summary
01 Introduction
02 Approach and methodology
03 Results and discussion
04 Conclusion and recommendations
About the authors
Acknowledgments




This short video explainer outlines how, within the current decade, climate hazards are expected to have increasingly serious disruptive impacts.

This research paper draws on the findings of a structured, multi-round expert elicitation exercise, involving 200 climate scientists and specialists in other relevant disciplines, to assess which near-term climate hazards and impacts should most concern decision-makers in the coming decade.

Findings and conclusions
Between now and 2030, climate hazards will have increasingly significant, disruptive impacts.
The 10 direct hazard-impact pathways of greatest near-term concern all relate to Africa or Asia.
Many socio-economic vulnerabilities to climate hazards have been identified in these regions. If left unaddressed, such vulnerabilities have the potential to initiate complex chains of impacts that are likely to have a destabilizing effect on national and international security in the near term.
Decisive action is urgently needed to address socio-economic vulnerabilities to climate hazards in these regions. Such action can help prevent devastating local and regional impacts, and forestall cascading and compounding global climate impacts within the next decade.

The near-term impacts of greatest concern are:

Cascading impacts on food security, migration and global supply chains, originating in the most vulnerable countries and affecting regional country groups and the wider global community.

Food security impacts in South and Southeast Asia, and Australasia.

Global food security impacts arising from multiple climate hazards, including extreme heat, drought, storm damage, flooding and multiple breadbasket failure.

Migration and displacement impacts in East Africa, South, Southeast and East Asia, the Caribbean and Central America.

Cyclones and typhoons in Southeast and South Asia causing significant infrastructure loss and damage, with global cascading impacts on international supply chains.

Drought and crop failure driving displacement and migration of people from East Africa and the Sahel into Southern Europe.

Drought directly creating conditions for conflict in Africa, with particular vulnerability in East Africa.

Changing rainfall patterns and drought impacting livelihoods and income in Africa.

Recommendations

Adaptation measures are urgently needed. In the near term, global adaptation efforts must focus on addressing socio-economic vulnerabilities in the most threatened regions. Already, 33 concrete food security measures have been identified by 21 African countries. These provide a starting point for action.

Urgent adaptation action in vulnerable countries and regions should be financed and supported by richer countries. Such action is in the interests of all nations, to prevent cascading food insecurity, migration and conflict across the world. That ‘no one is safe until everyone is safe’, repeated so often during the COVID-19 pandemic, is just as critical in relation to climate hazards.

Adaptation measures should, at a minimum, not increase the risk of conflict, and should where possible enhance peacebuilding, given that many socio-economic vulnerabilities are interlinked with domestic and regional tensions. Efforts to combine adaptation and peacebuilding require improved governance, security and economic growth, and – crucially – the buy-in of affected communities.

A comprehensive and up-to-date climate risk register is needed, incorporating near-term climate impacts (including cascading impacts), socio-economic vulnerabilities and associated adaptations. This should complement the outputs of climate impact models to enable more targeted action from the private sector and governments. Many experts recommend that a UN body such as the Security Council should hold this risk register.
Mitigation of climate change is fundamental. In the absence of more ambitious NDCs and sector initiatives leading to drastic emissions reductions in the very near term, by 2030 the world may well be locked into impacts so severe they go beyond the limits of what nations can adapt to.

Repeating this exercise, with modifications and improvements, would be valuable while more comprehensive systems for tracking emerging and near-term climate risks are established.

FROM THE CHEEKY RIGHT, 

STEERPIKE

Shock, horror! COP26 has an electric car problem

22 October 2021,

If absurdity were a source of renewable energy, the COP26 climate change summit might achieve its aim of saving the planet. Yesterday Mr S brought news that local lawyers are set to join rail engineers, transport operators, catering staff and refuse collectors in timing industrial action to coincide with next week’s eco-jamboree. Now Steerpike learns of a fresh crisis afflicting the UN conference: there’s not enough places to power the luxury electric cars needed to ferry delegates around the city.

Some 240 Jaguar Land Rover vehicles including its I-PACE SUVs will be laid on by the UK government to move the 120 visiting heads of state and their entourages between their hotels and the SEC venue. Unfortunately a lack of charging points means the fleet now has to be re-charged by cooking oil-powered generators. A COP26 spokesperson has confirmed that the substitute generators may have to run on hydrogenated vegetable oil – recycled cooking oil – derived from waste products.

Compounding the problem is the lack of hotel capacity in the city which means longer energy-zapping journeys to get to the conference centre. The numbers of temporary generators provided and their locations have yet to be finalised, but there is speculation sites could include the Gleneagles Hotel, 47 miles from Glasgow.

Between 20,000 to 25,000 satraps, apparatchiks and flunkies will descend on the city for COP26. There are just not enough beds to accommodate them all. Wily Glaswegians, bless them, are cashing in: the Charing Cross Hotel is charging £3,818 for the first three nights of COP.

Entrepreneurial home owners, meanwhile, are renting out their properties for between roughly £400 and £600 a night for a two bedroom house. Mr S hears that even UK ministers are struggling to get rooms anywhere near the city, such is the demand. If the organisers can’t even foresee a hotel shortage, how can they be expected to achieve Net Zero?

And it’s not just officials. Steerpike understands that BBC staff going to COP have been told they can only ride in electric taxis rather than petrol-powered vehicles. To add insult to injury, the Beeb’s finest have been told that if their hotel doesn't have recycling facilities, they must dispose their waste into the correct recycling bins themselves.

Given Glasgow council is currently embroiled in a stand off with its bin-men, will anyone even be there to empty them?

WRITTEN BY Steerpike

Steerpike is The Spectator's gossip columnist, serving up the latest tittle tattle from Westminster and beyond. Email tips to steerpike@spectator.co.uk or message @MrSteerpike

Gunpowder factory catches fire, explodes in Russia; at least 16 dead
By UPI Staff

Firefighters work at the site of an explosion at a gunpowder workshop at a plant near Ryazan, Russia, on Friday. Photo by Russian Emergencies Ministry/EPA-EFE

Oct. 22 (UPI) -- More than a dozen people were killed on Friday when a gunpowder factory in Russia caught fire and exploded, authorities said.

At least 16 people were killed in the accident at the Elastik factory in the Ryazan region of Russia, located about 170 miles southeast of Moscow, the Emergencies Ministry said.

One person was seriously hurt and was taken to a hospital.

"He sustained burns of 80% of his skin's surface," health ministry aide Alexei Kuznetsov said, according to Interfax.

Officials said the fire and explosion were likely caused by violations in the plant's technological processes.

Sveral people at the factory were reported missing.