Is the US government ready for the rise of artificial intelligence?

Robert Reich
Tue, 7 March 2023 



We’re at a Frankenstein moment.

An artificial intelligence boom is taking over Silicon Valley, with high-tech firms racing to develop everything from self-driving cars to chatbots capable of writing poetry.

Yet AI could also spread conspiracy theories and lies even more quickly than the internet already does – fueling political polarization, hate, violence and mental illness in young people. It could undermine national security with deepfakes.

In recent weeks, members of Congress have sounded the alarm over the dangers of AI but no bill has been proposed to protect individuals or stop the development of AI’s most threatening aspects.

Most lawmakers don’t even know what AI is, according to Representative Jay Obernolte, the only member of Congress with a master’s degree in artificial intelligence.

What to do?

Many tech executives claim they can simultaneously look out for their company’s interests and for society’s. Rubbish. Why should we assume that their profit motives align perfectly with the public’s needs?

Sam Altman – the CEO of OpenAI, the company responsible for some of the most mind-blowing recent advances in AI – believes no company, including his, should be trusted to solve these problems. The boundaries of AI should be decided, he says, not by “Microsoft or OpenAI, but society, governments, something like that”.

But does anyone trust the government to do this? If not, how can “society” manage it? Where can we look for a model of how to protect ourselves from the downsides of an emerging technology with such extraordinary upsides, without stifling it?

One place to look is Herbert Hoover. Seriously. Not when Hoover was president and notoriously failed to do anything about the Great Depression, but when he was US secretary of commerce between 1921 to 1929.

One of Hoover’s great achievements a century ago, largely unrecognized and unremembered today, was managing the development of a new and crucial technology in the public interest.

That new technology was electricity. Thomas Edison and other entrepreneurs and the corporations they spawned were busily promoting all manner of electric gadgets.

Those gadgets had the potential to make life easier for millions of people. But they could also pose grave dangers. They could destroy buildings, and injure or kill people.

Hoover set out to ensure that the infrastructure for electricity – wires, plugs, connectors, fuses, voltage and all else – was safe and reliable. And that it conformed to uniform standards so products were compatible with one another.

He created these standards for safety, reliability, and compatibility by convening groups of engineers, scientists, academics, experts and sometimes even journalists and philosophers – and asking them to balance public and private interests. He then worked with the producers of electric gadgets to implement those standards.

Importantly, the standards were non-proprietary. No one could own them. No one could charge for their use. They were, to use the parlance of today, “open source.”

Much of today’s internet is based on open-source standards. We take them for granted. Computers could not communicate without shared models, such as HTTP, FTP, and TCP/IP.

Although digital standards haven’t protected the public from disinformation and hate speech, they have encouraged the creation of services such as Wikipedia, which are neither privately owned nor driven by profits.

In fact, you could view our entire system of intellectual property – copyrights, patents, and trade names – as premised on eventual open-source usage. After a certain length of time, all creations lose their intellectual property protections and move into the public domain where anyone is free to use them. (Not incidentally, when he was secretary of commerce, Hoover advanced and streamlined the intellectual property system.)

So what would Hoover have done about AI?

He wouldn’t wait for the producers of AI to set its limits. Nor would he trust civil servants to do it. Instead, he’d convene large and wide-ranging panels to identify AI’s potential problems and dangers, come up with ideas for containing them, and float the ideas with the public.

If the proposed standards stood the test, he’d make them voluntary for the industry – with the understanding that the standards could be modified if they proved impracticable or unnecessarily hobbled innovation. But once in place, if corporations chose not to adapt the standards, their AI products would lose intellectual property protections or be prohibited.

Hoover would also create incentives for the creation of open-source AI products that would be free to the public.

In other words, Hoover wouldn’t rely solely on business or on government, but on society to gauge the common good.

AI has the potential for huge societal benefits, but it could also become a monster. To guide the way, we need the leadership and understanding of someone like Herbert Hoover when he was secretary of commerce.

Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com

SEE LA REVUE GAUCHE - Left Comment: Search results for HERBERT HOOVER 

'Total embarrassment': Denmark slams climate fund failure



Tue, 7 March 2023 at 5:01


Denmark, an active foreign aid donor, on Tuesday slammed as a "total embarrassment" the fact rich nations have failed to raise a promised $100 billion a year to help poor countries battle climate change.

Dan Jorgensen, Denmark's development minister, told the UN Least Developed Countries summit that "trillions" would be needed in coming decades to control the fallout from rising temperatures.

The impact of a heating planet on the world's 46 poorest nations has been a key topic at the summit in Doha that ends Thursday.

Least developed countries account for four percent of polluting emissions but suffer more than two thirds of deaths from floods, storms and other climate related disasters, according to Simon Stiell, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

"It is a total embarrassment that the developed world has not yet delivered on the $100 billion that was promised in 2009," Jorgensen said.

Rich nations promised at a climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009 that the sum would be given annually by 2020 but have so far only reached about $83 billion.

Denmark is one of a handful of Scandinavian-dominated countries that have passed a UN target to give 0.7 percent of gross national income in foreign aid.

Some developed nations have cut aid budgets because of the coronavirus pandemic while some European countries, including Denmark, have diverted foreign aid money to support refugees from the Ukraine war and other international crises.

Denmark is "delivering more than our share," said Jorgensen.

At a global level "we need to step up that financing," he added, arguing that "we need trillions, so 100 billion really should not be a problem".

France's minister of state for development Chrysoula Zacharopoulou said that her country wanted to step up negotiations on aid financing at a summit in Paris on June 22-23.

Stiell said that the COP28 climate conference to be held in the United Arab Emirates this year would be key for setting "milestones" and "targets" for future years.

He said his office was ready to help all LDC countries set up national action plans on climate change before the conference in November.

tw/ho/fz

Michael Moore calls for Walgreens boycott after pharmacy chain refuses to sell abortion pills in 21 states


Isobel Lewis
Tue, 7 March 2023 



Michael Moore has called for a boycott of US pharmacy chain Walgreens over the company’s refusal to sell abortion pills in 21 states.

Last week, the retailer announced that it would no longer be selling mifepristone, the first of two medications necessary for a medication abortion, in 20 US states. The news follows the overturning of Roe v Wade in the US in June 2022.

Medication abortion is the most common kind of abortion in the US and is currently legal in 37 states – including states where the retailer will no longer offer the medication.

On Monday (6 March), Bowling for Columbine director Moore shared a blog post on his Substack titled: “Boycott Walgreens, a Pharmacy that Stands with Anti-Abortion Extremists Against the Rights of Women.”

In the post, the filmmaker accused the pharmacy chain of “caving in to threats from the extremist anti-abortion/Forced Birth movement”.

“This decision by Walgreens to further cement women’s status as second-class citizens must be met forcefully by each and every one of us,” he wrote. “Every day of our silence since last Thursday is another day of you and I enabling this bigotry and misogyny.

“Please join with me and others in a NATIONWIDE BOYCOTT OF WALGREENS. They must reverse their decision immediately. They must acknowledge that nearly 70 per cent of all Americans believe this legal prescription [should] be made easily available to all women — and that the vast majority of Americans still support Roe v Wade.”

Moore called for a boycott on his blog (Getty Images)

He continued: “I ask you to please make your voice heard. Contact your local reproductive rights group, women’s group, or connect nationally… Let Walgreens know you have stopped shopping there. Let the other pharmaceutical chains know you’ll do the same to them if they follow Walgreens’ lead.

“Picket your local Walgreens. Tell the White House to stand strong, and let your members of Congress know this is one of your top issues in deciding how you will vote next year. WE are the Majority.”

The Independent has contacted Walgreens for comment.

On Monday (6 March), governor of California Gavin Newsom said that the state was “done” with Walgreens following their decision.



“California won’t be doing business with @walgreens – or any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women’s lives at risk,” he tweeted. “We’re done.”

In February, Republican attorney generals of 20 states signed a letter to Walgreens threatening the company over its distribution of mifepristone. These are the same 20 states the retailer will no longer sell the drug in.

Businesses have faced pressure from anti-abortion groups who are seeking to fully cut off abortion access following last June’s Supreme Court ruling.

Walgreens' mixed messaging on abortion pills landed it in the political crossfire, and its clarifications may not be enough to avoid a boycott

Rebecca Cohen
Tue, March 7, 2023 

BIZ-SCOTUS-ABORTION-WALGREENS-TBChicago Tribune / Getty Images

Walgreens says it will sell abortion ills in states where it is "legally permissible to do so."

The drugstore had assured Kansas' attorney general that it wouldn't provide Mifepristone in the state.

The mixed messaging sparked fury from abortion rights groups and calls for boycotts.

Following nationwide calls to boycott Walgreens, the drugstore chain clarified its decision on selling abortion pills, saying it will distribute Mifepristone — the drug approved by the FDA to abort a pregnancy — "in any jurisdiction where it is legally permissible to do so."

But the new statement may not be enough to quell outrage as the pharmacy lands square in the middle of the country's contentious abortion debate.

The move comes after over a month of back-and-forth between Walgreens and 20 Attorneys General, who, on February 1, wrote to the chain — and several other pharmacies including CVS, Walmart, and Costco — telling them it would be illegal to distribute abortion pills through the mail.

Later that week, Kansas' Attorney General followed up with the healthcare giant, emphasizing that the state "will not hesitate to enforce the law."

On February 17, Danielle Gray, Executive Vice President and Global Chief Legal Officer at Walgreens' holding company, responded to Kansas AG Kris Kobach. She said Walgreens "does not intend" to sell Mifepristone at any of its locations in the state.

A spokesperson for Walgreens told Insider on Friday that it responded to the initial inquiry from the 20 AGs and assured them that it would not sell Mifepristone in any of their states, though it could not confirm the states in which the medication would be legally sold.

But that group includes Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and Montana, where the procedure and medications for abortions are largely still legal, Politico first reported.

The spokesperson added that Walgreens still intends to become an FDA-certified seller of the pills, and will distribute the pills "only in those jurisdictions where it is legal and operationally feasible."

The move sparked a backlash from abortion rights supporters, specifically in states where abortion is still legal, with California Gov. Gavin Newsom vowing the state will boycott Walgreens.

"California won't be doing business with @walgreens — or any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women's lives at risk. We're done," Newsom tweeted on Monday.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker sent a message on Thursday to all of the other pharmacy chains in light of this news: "We'll stand with you so you can provide this lifesaving care," adding that Walgreens should "rethink their policy."

Ron Klain, President Joe Biden's former Chief of Staff, also chimed in.

"Their slogan is "Trusted since 1901" -- but if @Walgreens won't fill prescriptions for lawful, needed medicines, where is the "trust" in that?"

By Monday, Walgreens had put out a new statement that assured customers it would sell Mifepristone at locations in states where it was legal.

"We want to be very clear about what our position has always been: Walgreens plans to dispense Mifepristone in any jurisdiction where it is legally permissible to do so," a statement from Walgreens said, reversing its initial messaging that it would sell Mifepristone where it is "legal and operationally feasible."

"Once we are certified by the FDA, we will dispense this medication consistent with federal and state laws. Providing legally approved medications to patients is what pharmacies do, and is rooted in our commitment to the communities in which we operate," the statement concluded.



Walgreens still has not released any information on which states it plans to distribute Mifepristone.

Walgreens did not respond to questions asking in which states it would sell Mifepristone. Kansas AG Kris Kobach's office also did not respond to Insider's request for comment.

Walgreens internal memo says it is following the law on abortion pill distribution

Anjalee Khemlani
·Senior Reporter
Tue, 7 March 2023 

Walgreens (WBA) is facing significant backlash after responding to a letter from more than 20 Attorneys General, telling them that it does not intend to dispense abortion pills in states via mail order where it is illegal. Meanwhile, in a memo to employees obtained by Yahoo Finance, CEO Roz Brewer tried to assure them that the company would, as it has done all along, consider selling mifepristone in states where it is legal.

In a separate, but similar, controversial letter to Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, Walgreens said it "does not intend to dispense mifepristone within your state and does not intend to ship Mifepristone into your state from any of our pharmacies. If this approach changes, we will be sure to notify you."

But the response, similarly sent to the 20 other AGs in Republican-lead states, according to a report by Politico, has spurred criticism ranging from calls to withdraw its decision from U.S. lawmakers and an all out boycott of the drug chain giant on social media.

Various reports have erroneously said that Walgreens will stop dispensing the drug. In reality, it has not begun that process. Furthermore, it would not be legally allowed to sell the drug in states with abortion bans in place.

"What we're talking about hasn't even happened. This is more about how will this affect access in the future," said Alina Salganicoff, a senior vice president and the director of Women's Health Policy at Kaiser Family Foundation.

The FDA decision in January to allow retail pharmacies to apply for approval to dispense the pill, known generically as mifepristone — a process which could take several months— is the reason behind the backlash. During the pandemic, the Biden administration temporarily waived restrictions on mail order for the pill, and in January made the change permanent.

In the internal memo, Brewer expressed an understanding of the sensitive issue.

"I understand that our team members, patients and customers have deeply-held beliefs on this issue, and we must be very respectful of those beliefs," Brewer said, adding that other retailers like CVS (CVS) and Rite Aid (RAD) are also applying to distribute the pill.

"I want to be very clear about what our position has been all along: Walgreens plans to dispense mifepristone where it is legal, and not to dispense mifepristone where it is illegal," Brewer, a former executive of Walmart and Starbucks, said.

The FDA decision follows the overturning of Roe v. Wade in the U.S. Supreme Court last year. Mifepristone is one of two pills used for early-stage abortion, up to 10 weeks, which blocks a hormone that would allow the pregnancy to continue. It is considered an oral contraceptive but has been highly regulated by the FDA, requiring a doctor's consultation to use. The second pill is misoprostol, which is commonly used to prevent stomach ulcers, but also helps relax the uterus, and is already available at any pharmacy.

Legal issues ahead

The exchange with Kansas is a preview of what other pharmacies are set to contend with as a slew of court cases and legislation could impact their potential market share — and whether or not they end up dispensing it all.

This includes a case in Texas that threatens the use of mifepristone. The lawsuit alleges the FDA did not conduct proper testing of its use, and is one KFF and clinics like Planned Parenthood are monitoring closely.

While Kansas does allow the use of mifepristone for abortions, it has strict access rules. The state is currently in the process of banning tele-health abortion visits — which would take mail order off the table.

"At this time, we are working through the certification process, which includes the evaluation of our pharmacy network to determine where we will dispense Mifepristone and training protocols and updates for our pharmacists," the company said in its response to Kansas.

"Walgreens has not made any representations about using our mail order pharmacy business to dispense this drug," it added.

A hasty decision on mifepristone? A Walgreens store in Chicago. REUTERS/Eileen T. Meslar

Of the 20 states which signed on the separate letter, abortion is still legal in a few — but some of those could face legal challenges or are at various stages of restricting access to abortion.

The 20 include Missouri, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.

Florida, where abortion is legal, just introduced legislation Tuesday that would ban abortions after six weeks of pregnancy. This legislation mimics Texas's prior law, which was the strictest in the country short of a full ban, because it left women with an unreasonably tight window to find out they are pregnant and schedule the abortion. One study, for example, showed at least 33% of women find out they are pregnant after six weeks.

All told the situation remains dynamic, and any pharmacy, whether retail or online, is contending with the same uncertainty.

DiRx, an online pharmacy dealing in generics that is licensed in all 50 states and Washington, D.C., is doing the same thing Walgreens intends to do.

"This came up even earlier when the Roe v. Wade overturning was happening. We do ship oral contraceptives to states where it is legally OK to do so, without getting into the politics of it. Wherever there are question marks, we always make sure we check on the compliance aspects," said DiRx CEO Satish Srinivasan.

Walgreens is doing no different.

"Once we are certified by the FDA, we will dispense this medication consistent with federal and state laws. Providing legally approved medications to patients is what pharmacies do, and is rooted in our commitment to the communities in which we operate," the company said Monday.
Backlash

Despite the nuance involved, the response from Walgreens to the Attorneys General has caused significant backlash, with top U.S. lawmakers calling for a reversal of the decision as well as a boycott of the pharmacy. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is threatening to not do business with Walgreens.

California has been working on creating a generic drug manufacturing strategy for its residents, and the clash with Walgreens means it could be cut out of the distribution process if Newsom holds to the threat.

In addition, Walgreens is currently doing business with the state through its Medicaid and other government-run health services. It is not clear if Newsom's threat extends to the Medicaid program.

But the situation has still caught the attention of U.S. lawmakers and advocacy groups alike.

“This is the exact result anti-abortion actors want from their intimidation tactics. When politicians have the ability to interfere in the patient-provider relationship — in defiance of well-established science and medical evidence — people seeking access to timely, essential health care suffer," said Danika Wynn, vice president of abortion access at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, in a statement.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), meanwhile, expressed similar outrage on social media.

"It’s outrageous for MAGA extremists to intimidate pharmacies into refusing to dispense a medication that FDA deemed safe & effective over two decades ago," she said in a tweet, adding that all pharmacies should not be intimidated, including Walgreens, CVS and Rite Aid.

Follow Anjalee on Twitter @AnjKhem

California to not do business with Walgreens over abortion pills issue- Governor

Mon, March 6, 2023 

March 6 (Reuters) - California would not do business with Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc, state Governor Gavin Newsom said in a tweet on Monday, days after the pharmacy chain said it will not dispense abortion pills in some Republican states.

The state refuses to do business with Walgreens or "any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women's lives at risk," Democrat governor Newsom said.

Walgreens did not immediately respond to a Reuters request for comment.

The company said last week it will steer clear from 20 states, including states where abortion remains legal, where the Republican attorneys general have warned it of risking breaking the law if it distributed abortion pills.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in January allowed retail pharmacies to sell abortion pill mifepristone, including by mail, provided they were certified under special safety rules for the drug.

(Reporting by Raghav Mahobe in Bengaluru; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli

‘Dangerous and unacceptable’: White House condemns efforts to stop pharmacies from dispensing abortion pills

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Fri, March 3, 2023 

The Biden administration Friday called Republican efforts to dissuade pharmacies from distributing abortion pills “dangerous and just unacceptable.”

The statement follows Walgreen’s decision, first reported by POLITICO, to not dispense the pills in nearly two-dozen states where GOP attorneys general have threatened them with legal action under the 19th century Comstock Act.

“This is all a part of a continued effort by anti-abortion extremists who want to use this arcane law to impose a backdoor ban on abortion,” White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre told reporters at the White House daily briefing, adding that the drug in question, mifepristone, “has been on the market for more than two decades, and is regularly used for both miscarriage management and abortion and is used in more than 60 countries.”

Jean-Pierre said that President Joe Biden will “continue to support access to this critical medication within the limits of the law,” but declined to specify what steps the administration would take or whether it has spoken to Walgreens or other pharmacy chains about abortion pill access.

Abortion pills are the most common way to end a pregnancy in the United States and have become a focus for anti-abortion groups and Republican officials seeking to block access in their states.

A group of doctors and conservative medical groups is suing to overturn the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and a federal judge could rule to cut off access to the medication nationwide at any time. The Biden administration has pledged to swiftly appeal any ruling that blocks people from obtaining the pills.

Jean-Pierre also noted Friday that the Justice Department released a memo earlier this year disputing arguments GOP attorneys general have made that the more-than-a-century-old Comstock Act, related to the distribution of “vice,” prohibits mailing abortion pills.

Mary Ziegler, a professor at the UC Davis School of Law who specializes in abortion rights, noted that Walgreens and the other pharmacies remain legally vulnerable despite the support of the Biden administration, given the conservative tilt of the federal judiciary that’s now weighing whether and how the pills can be dispensed — and the possibility that a future president could reverse course.

“Do I think there’s reason for Walgreens to worry? Sure. The DOJ’s non-enforcement stance is dependent on who is in the White House,” she said. “But the degree of caution is surprising. No suits have yet been filed. And the state officials’ threat is based on a very broad interpretation of a statute that hasn’t been enforced for over 100 years. So this is risk-aversion to the extreme.”

Walgreens confirmed to POLITICO on Thursday that the company told the 20-plus state attorneys general who pressed them not to become certified distributors of mifepristone that they will not do so in their states — including some states that don’t currently ban abortion or the use of the pills, such as Alaska, Iowa, Kansas and Montana.

Other pharmacies that Republican state attorneys general have pressured to not dispense abortion pills, including Albertsons, Costco, CVS, Kroger, Rite Aid, and Walmart, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

While courts in Texas, New Mexico and elsewhere weigh arguments about whether the Comstock Act bars mail delivery of abortion pills, Republican attorneys general and anti-abortion groups are exploring other legal strategies to block access to the drugs.

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, a Republican, told POLITICO he’s ready to sue pharmacies under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act if they move forward with becoming certified to dispense abortion pills.

“Evidently, Walgreens understood that my office was serious about this,” Kobach said.

Kansans voted overwhelmingly last summer to reject a constitutional amendment clearing the way for the passage of an abortion ban, and a court has blocked the state’s requirement that the pills only be obtained in person from a physician.

Zachary Kester, the general counsel for Students for Life, said his organization and other abortion opponents are also looking into using state and federal consumer protection laws, including the Deceptive Trade Practices Act some states have, to sue pharmacies that agree to fill prescriptions for the pills.

“The ban in Kansas is enjoined,” he argued. “But that doesn’t matter if a provider or pharmacist is making a false statement about an unsafe drug and failing to disclose the risks. If a woman is harmed, she or her husband or boyfriend could bring a claim.”

The FDA has repeatedly pointed to the pills’ safety record and low rate of complication — lower than many over-the-counter medications — as the agency has eased restrictions on the drug over the past few years.

Calls to boycott Walgreens grow as pharmacy confirms it will not sell abortion pills in 20 states, including some where it remains legal

Aaron McDade
Fri, March 3, 2023 

Walgreens pharmacy.Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Last month, 20 Republican attorneys general told Walgreens it could face legal action if it sold abortion pills in some states.


Walgreens told Politico it will not sell the pills in those states, which includes some where abortion is legal.


"Walgreens" and "#BoycottWalgreens" were trending on Twitter Thursday and Friday as users reacted to the policy.

Walgreens confirmed Thursday that it will not carry abortion pills in several states, including some in which the pills are still legal.

The phrases "Walgreens" and "#BoycottWalgreens" each trended on Twitter Thursday night into Friday morning as discussion ensued and some users vowed to stop supporting the chain.

The decision, first reported by Politico on Thursday, comes after 20 Republican attorneys general last month wrote to Walgreens and several other pharmacies including CVS, Walmart, and Costco to point out laws that could be violated if the companies provided abortion pills through the mail.

A Walgreens spokesperson told Insider in a statement that it has responded to the states represented by the 20 AGs, and confirmed it will not distribute the abortion pill Mifepristone in any of those states. That group includes Alaska, Iowa, Kansas, and Montana, where the procedure and medications for abortions are largely still legal, Politico reported.

The FDA announced in January that retail pharmacies would be allowed to distribute the pills to those with a prescription; the pills previously were only accessible through doctors or mail-order pharmacies. At the time, Walgreens told Insider that it was working to become FDA-certified to sell abortion pills in the states where they are legal.

A spokesperson told Insider Friday via email that Walgreens still intends to become an FDA-certified seller of the pills, and will distribute the pills "only in those jurisdictions where it is legal and operationally feasible."

While the company wrote to the 20 attorneys general that it would not dispense the pills in their states, it has still not publicly confirmed which states the pills may be available in or whether that list is affected by the policy confirmed Thursday.

Some Twitter users voiced their support of the decision from Walgreens, but several high-profile commentators and Democrats voiced their displeasure with the policy.

"Women across the nation will be denied their right to access healthcare they are legally entitled to because of this awful corporate decision," Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, the highest level elected official in the state where Walgreens is headquartered, tweeted. "@Walgreens must rethink this policy. To all the other pharmacy providers, we'll stand with you so you can provide this lifesaving care."

Ron Klain, a longtime aide to President Joe Biden who left his White House role as Biden's chief of staff earlier this year, cited Walgreen's slogan in his response: "Their slogan is 'Trusted since 1901' -- but if @Walgreens won't fill prescriptions for lawful, needed medicines, where is the "trust" in that?"

"Absolutely awful. This willful corporate choice will prevent so many women from choosing the healthcare they need and have a legal right to," Sen. Tammy Duckworth, Illinois, tweeted. "@Walgreens should reverse course—immediately."

Responses to Politico's Alice Miranda Ollstein's original tweet announcing the news are also filled with hundreds of users saying they will "no longer be spending any money at Walgreens" or "never step foot in a Walgreens again."

Mifepristone is currently the subject of multiple lawsuits, with a Texas judge expected to deliver a ruling in the coming weeks on a challenge from Republican attorneys general looking to overturn the FDA's decades-old approval of the pill. Several Democratic attorneys general filed an argument in the case last month that said banning the pill would lead to an "unprecedented spike" in maternal mortality.

Walgreens Pulls Abortion Pills in Most Red States After Legal Threats



Michelle Fay Cortez
Fri, March 3, 2023 

(Bloomberg) -- Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. won’t sell abortion pills in 20 states after warnings by Republican attorneys general of legal action, a decision that limits the medication’s availability in many places where access to the procedure is already restricted.

A joint letter from a group of 20 Republican attorneys general warned executives at Walgreens and CVS Health Corp. that the companies could face legal consequences if they mail and distribute abortion medication in their states. The company won’t dispense mifepristone in those states, Fraser Engerman, a company spokesman, said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg News.

“I can confirm we have responded to each of the attorneys general who signed the letter dated Feb. 1 to Walgreens,” he said. “We will not dispense mifepristone in their states.”

State officials are taking steps to ensure access to medication abortion following the Walgreens decision. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul met with the global chief legal officer at Walgreens Friday about the availability of the mifepristone at Walgreens stores.

“I was assured that where Walgreens can legally and operationally dispense mifepristone, its pharmacies will continue to do so,” Raoul said in a statement. “Their commitment included the state of Illinois, where more than half of abortions are medication abortions.”

Walgreens shares rose 2% Friday at the US market close.

Meanwhile, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker was set to meet with Walgreens executives late Friday to express concerns about the company’s decision, a spokesperson for Pritzker confirmed in an email.

Not all of the states have a total ban on abortion or expressly prohibit distribution of the medicine through the mail, but many have laws restricting the pills — like requiring them to be dispensed at a doctor’s office or in person. While the letter written by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey was signed by most of his Republican counterparts, including those in Texas, Florida and West Virginia, others didn’t, including those from Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, Pennsylvania and Virginia.

Access to the medication has become a flash point in the partisan war over abortion since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year. The decision returned the issue to the states, where access to abortion was sharply limited or effectively barred in many of those led by Republicans.

Seeking Certification

The nation’s biggest pharmacy chains announced in January that they planned to seek US certification to sell the pills used in medication abortion, after the US Food and Drug Administration loosened restrictions on where the drugs could be dispensed. Previously, they could be distributed only in health care settings.

The attorneys general sent the letter Feb. 1, after the companies stated their intention. A rival missive was sent to executives at Walgreens and CVS by 23 Democratic state attorneys general two weeks later, urging them to ignore the legal threats from the GOP states. CVS didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Walgreens isn’t currently dispensing mifepristone and only plans to do so in jurisdictions where it’s legal, Engerman wrote. The company stills intend to become a certified pharmacy, he said, a process that requires individual pharmacies to get government approval and navigate myriad state laws.

The company’s decision was reported earlier by Politico.

--With assistance from Madlin Mekelburg, Madison Muller, Fiona Rutherford and Shruti Date Singh.

 Bloomberg Businessweek

The implications of Walgreens' decision on abortion pills



TOM MURPHY
Fri, March 3, 2023

Walgreens says it will not start selling an abortion pill in 20 states that had warned of legal consequences if it did so.

The drugstore chain’s announcement Thursday signals that access to mifepristone may not expand as broadly as federal regulators intended in January, when they finalized a rule change allowing more pharmacies to provide the pill.

Here’s a closer look at the issue.

ABOUT THE ABORTION PILL

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone in 2000 to end pregnancy, when used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol. The combination is approved for use up to the 10th week of pregnancy.

Mifepristone is taken first to dilate the cervix and block a hormone needed to sustain a pregnancy. Misoprostol is taken a day or two later, causing contractions to empty the uterus.

More than half of U.S. abortions are now done with pills rather than with a procedure, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. In rare cases, the drug combination can cause excess bleeding, requiring emergency care.

WIDENING ACCESS

For more than 20 years, the FDA limited dispensing of mifepristone to a subset of specialty offices and clinics due to safety concerns.

The agency has repeatedly eased restrictions and expanded access, increasing demand even as state laws make the pills harder to get for many women.

In late 2021, the agency eliminated an in-person requirement for getting the pill, saying a new scientific review showed no increase in safety complications if the drug is taken at home. That change also permitted the pill to be prescribed via telehealth and shipped by mail-order pharmacies.

Earlier this year, the FDA further loosened restrictions by allowing pharmacies like Walgreens to start dispensing the drug after they undergo certification. That includes meeting standards for shipping, tracking and confidentially storing prescribing information.

STATES STEP IN

Typically, the FDA’s authority to regulate prescription drug access has gone unchallenged. But more than a dozen states now have laws restricting abortion broadly — and the pills specifically — following last year’s Supreme Court decision overturning the federal right to abortion.

Last month, attorneys general in 20 conservative-led states warned CVS and Walgreens in a letter that they could face legal consequences if they sell abortion pills by mail in their states.

In addition to state laws, attorneys general from conservative states have argued that shipments of mifepristone run afoul of a 19th century law that prohibited sending items used in abortion through the mail.

WALGREENS' REACTION

A spokesman says the company told the attorneys general that it will not dispense mifepristone in their states and it doesn't plan to ship the drug to them as well.

But Walgreens is working to become eligible through the FDA’s certification process. It plans to dispense the pills where it can legally do so.

The company is not currently dispensing the pills anywhere.

OTHER DRUGSTORES

Rite Aid Corp. said it was “monitoring the latest federal, state, legal and regulatory developments” and would keep evaluating its policies. The Associated Press also sought comment from CVS Health Corp., retail giant Walmart and the grocery chain Kroger.

Some independent pharmacists would like to become certified to dispense the pills, said Andrea Pivarunas, a spokeswoman for the National Community Pharmacists Association. She added that this would be a “personal business decision," based partly on state laws. The association has no specifics on how many will do it.

OTHER LEGAL ISSUES

In November, an anti-abortion group filed a federal lawsuit in Texas seeking to revoke mifepristone's approval, claiming the FDA approved the drug 23 years ago without adequate evidence of safety.

A federal judge could rule soon. If he sides with abortion opponents, mifepristone could potentially be removed from the U.S. market.

In January, abortion rights supporters filed separate lawsuits challenging abortion pill restrictions imposed in North Carolina and West Virginia.

Legal experts foresee years of court battles over access to the pills.

___

AP Health Writer Matthew Perrone contributed to this story.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Flood damage in Britain would be reduced if world hits climate pledges, study suggests

Tue, 7 March 2023



Damage inflicted by flooding can be reduced if countries keep their internationally agreed promises on tackling climate change, according to a new study.

But the paper warned the UK is still facing some increase in damages even if the world limits warming to around 1.8C above pre-industrial levels, slightly warmer than the global target of 1.5C.

Current policies in place around the world put the planet on course for around 2.7°C of warming.

This is significant progress since the landmark Paris climate agreement, but the higher temperatures would still be expected to inflict harsh consequences for food production, glacier melt, drinking water and hot and humid cities.

Researchers from the University of Bristol and flood modelling firm Fathom assessed the UK's flood risk using the latest projections from the Met Office.

They found that damage levels could be curbed to just 5% above historical levels, but only if countries honour the pledges they made at the Cop26 climate conference in Glasgow and additional net zero by 2050 targets.

Professor Paul Bates, lead author of the study and chairman of Fathom, said: "For the first time this flood model gives us a more accurate and detailed picture of the impact of climate change on the risk of flooding in the future across the UK.

"The results are a timely warning to the country's political leaders and business sector that global commitments to significantly reduce carbon emissions must be taken very seriously, and ultimately take effect, in order to mitigate increased losses due to flooding."

Official flooding maps, which inform defence investment policy and long-term risk planning, lack transparency and are not peer-reviewed, the researchers warned.

They described them as "insufficiently validated", with the methods used to create them "clouded in secrecy" and unrepeatable.

Failing to open up assessments to peer review left Britons missing out on more accurate information about the risks, they said.

The paper is just the latest of many to warn the UK "is not well adapted to the flood risks it currently faces, let alone any further increases in risk due climate change".

Last year the government's own climate advisors, the CCC, warned the number of England's properties at risk of flooding from heavy rainfall was likely double in the next 30 years without dramatic action from government.

"Current expected annual damages of [around] £700m are a drain on the economy, but more importantly this represents a very considerable sum of misery for those who are affected," the authors of today's paper said.

Which parts of the UK are worst affected by flooding?

The data also showed regional differences in potential flood damage which hold true even if the average global temperature was limited to 1.8C above pre-industrial levels - slightly above the internationally agreed limit of 1.5C.

South-east England, South Wales, north-west England and central Scotland face the greatest risk, with densely populated cities such as London, Cardiff, Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh looking at possible damage increases of more than 25%.

North-east and central England as well as northern Scotland would face around the same level of flood damage as they do today.

Prof Bates added: "We found that flooding increases most in places where risk is already high now, so the best thing we can do to prepare for the impact of climate change is to strengthen flood management in currently at-risk areas, and this will bring immediate economic and social benefits as well."

Kamil Kluza, co-founder of risk analytics provider Climate X said it is important to measure future flooding risk in the UK, "but it's not the only risk to consider".

"Our data shows that by 2050, inland flooding will contribute to 50% of insurance losses - the other 50% will be caused by a combination of winds, subsidence and sea level rise."

The study also pointed out the quality of information produced by each of the UK's four countries varied, with Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland trailing behind England.

It was published in the journal Natural Hazards and Earth System Sciences and was based on actual river flow, rainfall and tide-surge observations as well as climate model projections that matched with data on flood losses from the Association of British Insurers.

OPINION
The Democrats botched the Ohio disaster response – and handed Trump a victory

Michael Massing

THE GUARDIAN
Tue, 7 March 2023 

Photograph: Rebecca Droke/AFP/Getty Images

“Where’s Pete Buttigieg?” someone shouted at a February 15 town hall meeting in East Palestine, Ohio. “I don’t know,” Mayor Trent Conaway replied.

Twelve days earlier, a Norfolk Southern train carrying hazardous chemicals had derailed near the town. Three days later, the company announced it was going to carry out a controlled burn of vinyl chloride that would send dangerous gasses into the air, forcing many of East Palestine’s 4,700 residents to evacuate. They returned after receiving assurances that the air and water were safe, but a strong chemical odor clung to the town, and many continued to complain of headaches, nausea, and burning throats. And so several hundred residents had crowded into a local school to demand answers. Conaway said that two weeks had passed before anyone at the White House had contacted him, and the US secretary of transportation still hadn’t materialized.

In Washington, Republicans made hay. “Secretary Buttigieg laughing about Chinese spy balloons, while ignoring the Ohio train derailment, shows you how out of touch Democrats are,” Ohio congressman Jim Jordan tweeted. Senator Marco Rubio called Buttigieg “an incompetent who is focused solely on his fantasies about his political future & needs to be fired”.

On Fox, Tucker Carlson mocked Buttigieg for commemorating “Transit Equity Day” while remaining silent about the majority-white, struggling East Palestine. If the disaster had happened in a rich Washington DC neighborhood like Georgetown, he said, the National Guard would have been called in, and the story would have led every news channel. “But it happened to the poor benighted town of East Palestine, Ohio, whose people are forgotten and in the view of people who lead this country, forgettable.”

But it wasn’t just the right who complained. Democratic congresswoman Ilhan Omar of Minnesota tweeted that “East Palestine railroad derailment will have a significant negative impact on the health and wellbeing of the residents for decades … We need Congressional inquiry and direct action from @PeteButtigieg to address this tragedy.” In a rare show of partisanship, Senator Ted Cruz said he “fully agreed” with her.

On 22 February, Donald Trump visited East Palestine. He distributed thousands of bottles of Trump-branded water, walked through the town with his son Donald Trump Jr and Ohio senator JD Vance, and visited a local McDonald’s to buy food for first responders. “You are not forgotten,” Trump said in a speech not far from the accident site. “In too many cases, your goodness and perseverance were met with indifference and betrayal.”

The next day, Buttigieg finally showed. Surveying the site of the derailment in a hard hat and safety vest, he acknowledged that he could have spoken out “sooner” about the accident. “I was taking pains to respect the role that I have, the role that I don’t have – but that should not have stopped me from weighing in about how I felt about what was happening.” He tweeted a photo of himself at the site along with the message that he was “amazed by the resilience and decency of the people of East Palestine”.

The Department of Transportation did not have the lead role in the accident response – that fell to the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Transportation Safety Board – but the failure of the nation’s top transportation official to appear at the disaster site for nearly three weeks inevitably recalled the incompetence and disengagement of Fema director Michael Brown during Hurricane Katrina. (President George W Bush famously claimed Brown was doing “a heck of a job”.) It also allowed Trump to present himself as the champion of blue-collar America.

How could so poised and polished a figure as Buttigieg so badly miscalculate? A glowing Washington Post profile in August 2021 described him as a skilled communicator and “nimble public speaker” who “rarely makes verbal miscues”.

President Joe Biden had made Buttigieg the lead spokesman for his massive infrastructure program, offering him an opportunity to meet with local officials around the country as he promoted roads, ports, bridges and tunnels. During the presidential campaign, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor had assumed the mantle of outsider, but, the Post observed, he had “quickly morphed into a quintessential Washington insider” – omnipresent on television, a fixture at dinners, a tireless networker seeking to advance both the president’s agenda and his own political prospects.

Buttigieg’s East Palestine no-show can help answer the question, What’s the matter with Ohio? Formerly considered a “battleground state”, it has in recent years become unshakably red. Columbiana county, where East Palestine is located, is a microcosm. In 2008, John McCain barely took the county with 52% of the vote. Donald Trump won 68% in 2016 and 71.5% in 2020 – a reflection of the perception that the Democrats had abandoned small-town America.

In January, Biden went to Covington, Kentucky, to publicize the awarding of $1.6bn in federal funds to reconstruct a bridge over the Ohio River to Cincinnati, a key regional artery. He was joined by Kentucky senator Mitch McConnell, Kentucky governor Andy Beshear, and Ohio governor Mike DeWine. The Democrats hope that such investments and ceremonies over the long term can help repair the damage done to the Democrats’ standing in the midwest by their longstanding embrace of free trade, globalization and the outsourcing of jobs to China and Mexico.

In the short term, however, Buttigieg’s no-show in East Palestine reinforces the perception that the Democrats really don’t care. It didn’t help that on February 20, as East Palestine was still dealing with the fallout from the derailment, Biden made his surprise visit to Kyiv. “The biggest slap in the face,” Mayor Conaway called it on Fox News, adding, “that tells you right now he doesn’t care about us. He can send every agency he wants to, but I found out this morning that he was in Ukraine giving millions of dollars away to people over there and not to us, and I’m furious.”

All the investment in bridges, roads, and factories will not translate into political gains if the party continues to be missing in action.

Heck of a job.

Michael Massing is the author most recently of Fatal Discord: Erasmus, Luther, and the Fight for the Western Mind

UK

Bucks university joins new project exploring Moon’s resources and nuclear power


Noora Mykkanen
Tue, 7 March 2023 


The UK Space Agency has announced new funding to support space exploration using the Moon’s resources and nuclear power.

The projects could revolutionise the ability to journey deeper into space – and even travel to Mars – safely and efficiently.

They aim to use remote technologies, and supplies found in space, to sustain astronauts and spacecraft.

One project is creating remote equipment scientists can use to run experiments on biological models in deep space from Earth.

This will allow them to better understand the impact of space on human health and begin designing medical treatments for astronauts.

Other ventures include testing improved systems for recycling breathing gases while in space, and enhanced methods for extracting valuable resources, such as oxygen and metals, from Moon rock.

While another one of the projects will look at new nuclear power processes for propulsion.

The agency announced £1.6 million funding for the eight projects through its Enabling Space Exploration fund on Mars Day.

CEO of the UK Space Agency Dr Paul Bate said: “The concept of exploring deeper into space – whether that means returning to the lunar surface through the Artemis programme, or working out how we could travel to, and survive on, Mars and beyond – is a global ambition that has been growing since humanity’s first forays into space in the 1950s.

“Supporting technologies that make that ambition a reality will help raise the international profile of UK space skills and expertise.

“Not only does this naturally unlock business opportunities all along the supply chain, but it helps inspire young people to consider the possibility of a career in space without having to leave the UK.

“This is an incredibly exciting time for the space exploration sector, and I look forward to seeing how far the results of these projects will reach.”

Minister of State with responsibility for Space at the Department of Science, Innovation and Technology, George Freeman, said: “Space is the ultimate frontier, laboratory and technology testbed.

“The UK’s long history of leadership in deep space science and exploration is key to both understanding our solar system and origins of life, and creating opportunities for our high growth SpaceTech sector.

“Today’s funding is part of the government’s strategy to use our £5 billion investment in space science and technology to grow our £16.5 billion commercial space sector to create the businesses, jobs and opportunities of tomorrow, and the space clusters from Cornwall to Scotland.”

At the European Space Agency Council of Ministers meeting in November, the Government pledged £1.84 billion for important space programmes, which includes a commitment to the UK-built Rosalind Franklin Mars Rover, set to launch to Mars in 2028.

The projects will be led by the University of Exeter, University of Southampton, Hampshire, Open University in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire, MAC SciTech, South Shields, Bangor University, Wales, and Thales Alenia Space, Oxfordshire.

AUSTRALIA

Coalition and Greens team up to force Labor to release emissions model

Paul Karp

 Guardian Australia
Tue, 7 March 2023 

Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images

Jim Chalmers has accused opponents of Labor’s renewable energy policies of spinning wheels in “ideological cul-de-sacs”, as the Coalition and Greens team up to force the government to release emissions modelling.

On Tuesday the Senate rejected the Albanese government’s public interest immunity claim, meaning it will be forced to release forecasts of how big industrial emitters would use carbon credits to meet obligations created by the proposed safeguard mechanism.

The motion, by Greens senator Sarah Hanson-Young, passed without a vote after the Greens said they had secured opposition support for the ambush.

The government now has until 4pm on Thursday to produce the modelling, a key input into negotiations between the Greens and Labor over the safeguards mechanism bill, which requires big emitters to reduce emissions intensity by 4.9% a year.

Related: Labor’s reform of safeguard mechanism will fail unless changed, say Greens

The two progressive parties remain deadlocked, with the Greens calling for a ban on new coal and gas projects while Labor insists it has a mandate for the safeguards mechanism without a condition that would reduce supply of gas as a transition fuel.

Chalmers, the treasurer, told the Australian Financial Review business summit on Tuesday that Australia had “immense potential when it comes to the climate and energy transition”.

“Cheap, clean renewable energy, new industries up and along the supply chains of the net zero economy, and new ways to maximise traditional strengths,” he said.

But in order to attract billions of dollars of clean energy capital by 2050, Australia must give “investors and companies clearer guardrails, and the clarity and confidence they need to invest”.

“It means moving up the value chain – a key focus of the national reconstruction fund.

“Thanks to the work you’ve done with us – on the safeguard mechanism, on climate risk disclosure, on sustainable finance – we’re well placed to make important strides here.”

The treasurer’s reference to two bills that the Greens are yet to commit to pass – the reconstruction fund and the safeguard mechanism – adds pressure to negotiations currently stuck on the question of limits on new coal and gas.

Chalmers warned that “we won’t build the modern economy we need by wasting time spinning our wheels in the cul-de-sacs at either end of the ideological spectrum”.

“We’re here to make a difference – not for a dose of comfortable complacency or for the performance and fakery and puffery of politics.”

Related: Safeguard mechanism: what is it, will it cut emissions and what role do carbon offsets play?

In a dissenting report in the Senate inquiry into the safeguards bill, the Greens warned that the safeguard mechanism will fail unless the Albanese government agrees to changes, despite having described the fossil fuel ban as an “offer, not an ultimatum”.

Hanson-Young told ABC TV that evidence to the inquiry suggested “if new coal and gas entrants are allowed into the system that will see pollution overall go up not down”.

“Our door is still open. The government’s door is still open. We are still talking … but [we’re] being very clear that this package needs to reduce pollution not make climate change worse.”

“This is why we are saying the legislation as it is and the draft regulations, if they remain in their current form we cannot support them.”

The climate change minister, Chris Bowen, told Radio National that the safeguards bill allowed parliament “either to seize the opportunity to reduce emissions by 205 million tonnes or to squander it”.

“Of course, when you’re doing a big complicated reform … the Liberals will say this is a disaster, the Greens will say it doesn’t go far enough.”

Bowen argued carbon credits were needed to provide firms “flexibility” with whether they reduce their own emissions or achieve a reduction in “net” terms.

He said no new coal and gas “is, frankly, a slogan, not a policy”, and gas would be required until it was replaced by green hydrogen.

Meat, dairy and rice: Which foods contribute the most to global warming?
Euronews
Tue, 7 March 2023 


Greenhouse gas emissions from the way humans produce and consume food could add nearly 1 degree of warming to the Earth’s climate by 2100, according to a new study.

Continuing the dietary patterns of today will push the planet past the 1.5 degrees Celsius limit of warming sought under the Paris climate agreement to avoid the worst effects of climate change.

According to the study published Monday in Nature Climate Change, it could cause us to approach the agreement's limit of 2 degrees Celsius.

Which food items cause the most greenhouse gas emissions?

The modelling study found that the majority of greenhouse gas emissions come from three major sources: meat from animals like cows, sheep and goats; dairy; and rice.

Those three sources account for at least 19 per cent each of food's contribution to a warming planet, according to the study, with meat contributing the most, at 33 per cent.

All emit large amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas with more than 80 times the warming power of carbon dioxide, in the way they are currently farmed. The researchers calculated that methane will account for 75 per cent of food's share of warming by 2030, with carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide accounting for most of the rest.

Greenhouse gas emissions from the way humans consume food could add nearly one degree of warming to the Earth’s climate by 2100. - AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee, File

“I think the biggest takeaway that I would want (policymakers) to have is the fact that methane emissions are really dominating the future warming associated with the food sector,” said Catherine C Ivanovich, a climate scientist at Columbia University and the study's lead author.

Ivanovich and colleagues from the University of Florida and Environmental Defense Fund calculated the three major gases produced by each type of food over its lifetime based on current consumption patterns. Then they scaled the annual emissions over time by gas based on five different population projections.

And then they used a climate model frequently used by the United Nations panel on climate change to model the effects of those emissions on surface air temperature change.

Food is critical to meeting climate goals

Stanford University climate scientist Chris Field, who wasn't involved in the study, said it used well-established methods and datasets “to produce a novel, sobering conclusion.”

“The study highlights that food is absolutely critical to hitting our Paris Agreement climate targets — failure to consider food is failure to meet our climate targets globally,” said Meredith Niles, a food systems scientist at the University of Vermont who was not involved in the study.

The study offered some ways to change global food production and consumption that could limit warming.

Many of these changes are already being called for or adopted. US President Joe Biden touted the climate benefits of planting cover crops that can draw down carbon from the atmosphere in an April 2021 address to Congress.

Multiple recent studies and reports have recommended eating less meat in order to reduce greenhouse gas creation by animals raised for consumption. And California started a mandatory food waste recycling program in 2021 to reduce the emissions created by decaying food.

But reducing methane may be the most important goal of all. Although methane is far more potent than carbon, it also is much shorter-lived — meaning cuts in methane emissions can have a quick benefit, Ivanovich said.

People sit, drinking and eating, outside cafes and pubs Soho, central London. - AP Photo/Alberto Pezzali, File

“So that’s going to help us stay under the dangerous warming target,” she said, “as well as give us some time to build up resilience and adaptation to climate change in the meantime.”

A major question that remains is whether food producers and consumers can change their behaviour in order to achieve the reductions in greenhouse gases laid out in the study. There's a roadmap, but will it be followed?

“Changing behaviour, especially when we are bombarded with constant media extolling the benefits of everything from Coke to french fries, from pizza to burgers, is pretty damned difficult,” Columbia University plant physiologist Lew Ziska in an email to the AP.

“So, overall, while we need to change, whether we can change is .... problematic.”