CA$HING IN

What is ‘new denial?’ An alarming wave of climate misinformation is spreading on YouTube, watchdog says

Rachel Ramirez, CNN
Tue, January 16, 2024 



If you’ve been on YouTube lately, you might have come across someone claiming wind and solar energy don’t work, that rising sea levels will help coral reefs flourish, or that climate scientists are corrupt and alarmist.

These are all false and misleading statements taken from a handful of thousands of YouTube videos analyzed by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which has identified a stark change in the tactics of climate deniers over the past few years.

Where once climate deniers would outright reject climate change as a hoax or scam, or claim that humans were not responsible for it, many are now shifting to a different approach, one which attempts to undermine climate science, cast doubt on climate solutions and even claim global warming will be beneficial at best, harmless at worst.


The past five years have seen a “startling” rise in this “new denial,” according to a CCDH analysis published Tuesday, which also suggests this shift in narrative could also be helping YouTube video creators circumvent the social media company’s ban on monetizing climate denial.

Researchers gathered transcripts from more than 12,000 videos posted between 2018 and 2023 across 96 YouTube channels that have promoted climate denial and misinformation. Transcripts were analyzed by artificial intelligence to categorize the climate denial narratives used as either “old denial” or “new denial.”

“New denial” content — attacks on solutions, the science and the climate movement — now makes up 70% of all climate denial claims posted on YouTube, according to the report, up from 35% in 2018.

Classic “old denial” claims that global warming isn’t happening declined from 48% of all denial claims in 2018 to 14% in 2023, the report found. Claims that climate solutions won’t work, however, soared from 9% to 30% over the same period.

Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer and founder of CCDH, said the report in some ways is a story of success.

“The climate movement has won the argument that climate change is real, and that it is hurting our planet’s ecosystems,” he told CNN. As the impacts of the climate crisis — from scorching heat waves to fierce storms — affect a broader swath of the global population, narratives that deny the existence of climate change are becoming less effective.

But, he added, it’s also a huge warning. “Now that the majority of people recognize old climate denial as counterfactual and discredited, climate deniers have cynically concluded that the only way to derail climate action is to tell people the solutions don’t work.”

“This new climate denial is no less insidious,” Ahmed said, “and it could hold enormous influence over public opinion on climate action for decades to come.”

It’s particularly worrying because of the young demographic attracted to YouTube, according to the CCDH. A December survey from Pew Research Center found YouTube to be the most widely used social media platform it analyzed among 13- to 17-year olds, used by roughly nine in 10 of them.

“Climate deniers now have access to vast global audiences through digital platforms,” Charlie Cray, senior strategist at Greenpeace, said in a statement. “Allowing them to steadily chip away at public support for climate action — especially among younger viewers — could have devastating consequences for the future of our planet.”

The shift in tactics to undermine climate action could also help creators get around YouTube’s policy banning them from making money on climate denial content, the report suggests. In 2021, the company prohibited advertising against content that “contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change.”

Yet YouTube is potentially making up to $13.4 million a year from ads on videos the report found to contain climate denial, according to the CCDH’s calculations, including ads from prominent sportswear companies, hotels and international nonprofits.

“There aren’t many companies that would be happy about seeing their advertising appear next to clear climate denial content,” Ahmed said. “And I imagine they will be furious to find out that they are inadvertently funding climate denial content.”

In a statement to CNN, a YouTube spokesperson said, “debate or discussions of climate change topics, including around public policy or research, is allowed.”

However, the spokesperson added, “when content crosses the line to climate change denial, we stop showing ads on those videos. We also display information panels under relevant videos to provide additional information on climate change and context from third parties.”

YouTube said its enforcement teams work quickly to review videos that may potentially violate policies, then act on them.

The company said that after reviewing the CCDH report, it found some of the videos included did violate existing climate change policies and has since removed ads from them. However, it also said the majority of the videos in the analysis did not breach their policies.

Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the narrative shift in climate denial, said the findings were “disturbing.”

“It is extremely unlikely that this is the result of organic social media activity,” Mann, who was not involved in the study, told CNN. “It suggests that bad actors have made a concerted effort to weaponize social media in a way that is especially targeted toward young people, recognizing that they are the greatest threat to the fossil fuel industry status quo, as evidenced by the tremendous impact of the youth climate movement.”

Ahmed called on Google to boost its policies to deal with “new denial” content. “We’re asking Google to extend their ban on monetization and amplification of ‘old denial’ content to include ‘new denial’ as well,” Ahmed said, adding that other social media companies should also take note of the report’s findings.

“We’re asking other platforms that claim to be green in one breath not to profit from, to revenue share, and therefore, reward or to amplify clear climate denial content that contradicts scientific consensus,” Ahmed added. “You can’t claim to be green but then be the world’s biggest megaphone for climate change-related disinformation.”

Climate denial is evolving on YouTube, report says, as third of UK teens think crisis is exaggerated

Lottie Limb
Tue, January 16, 2024 

Climate denial is evolving on YouTube, report says, as third of UK teens think crisis is exaggerated


Teenagers are being influenced by a new breed of climate denial content on YouTube, a campaign group has warned.

Almost a third of 13-17 year olds in the UK think that climate change is being “purposefully over-exaggerated”, according to a survey commissioned by the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH).

A new report from the big tech watchdog investigates how climate denial is shared on YouTube - teens’ favourite social media platform. It comes days after the World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report warning that misinformation and disinformation are the biggest short-term risks to global security.

“Platforms like YouTube have developed technology to monopolise young people's attention and shouldn’t direct that towards climate denial,” says Michael Khoo, Climate Disinformation Program Director at Friends of the Earth.

‘I am more worried than ever’: Scientists explain why record-shattering 2023 heat has them on edge

What are ‘new climate denial’ narratives?

Researchers from CCDH have seen a pronounced shift in what they term ‘new denial’ narratives around the climate crisis.

Old denial, the group says, was premised on two key false narratives: that global warming is not happening, or that humans are not causing it.

New denial moves along three prevalent lines which claim that: climate solutions won’t work; climate science and the climate movement are unreliable; and the impacts of global warming are beneficial or harmless.

“Scientists have won the battle to inform the public about climate change and its causes, which is why those opposed to climate action have cynically switched focus to undermining confidence in solutions and in science itself,” says CCDH chief executive Imran Ahmed.

CCDH says that these subsequent stories - championed by the likes of Canadian influencer Jordan Peterson - now make up 70 per cent of all climate denial on YouTube, compared to 35 per cent in 2018.

The researchers reached this figure by taking a dataset of text transcripts from more than 12,000 climate-related YouTube videos posted by 96 channels over almost six years, between January 2018 to September 2023. They then used an AI model to analyse the transcripts, categorising them into different forms of denial.
YouTube is ‘making millions’ from climate denial accounts

Google (YouTube’s owner) took a significant step towards disincentivising climate denial content back in October 2021, when it banned ads for - and the monetisation of - such videos.

This was prompted by concerns from advertisers, who naturally did not want their ads running alongside inaccurate claims about climate change.

But CCDH says it found ads for legacy brands like Hilton Hotels and Nike on videos containing climate denial, as well as paid ads by charities like Save the Children.

Its new report makes three big criticisms of YouTube. Firstly, that the social media platform is potentially making up to $13.4 million (around €12,000) a year in ad revenue from channels it studied that have posted climate denial content.

Secondly, YouTube's rules do not cover the new denial claims that are now being heavily pursued by bad faith actors. And thirdly that YouTube is failing to enforce its existing policy against the monetisation of videos promoting ‘old denial’.

“Our climate change policy prohibits ads from running on content that contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change,” a Youtube spokesperson tells Euronews Green in response.

“Debate or discussions of climate change topics, including around public policy or research, is allowed. However, when content crosses the line to climate change denial, we stop showing ads on those videos. We also display information panels under relevant videos to provide additional information on climate change and context from third parties.”

After looking into the content flagged by CCDH, YouTube acknowledges that some of the videos shared violated its climate change policy, and has removed ads from running on them. But, it says, the majority of examples given were policy compliant.

‘Climate deniers are victims not villains’: A psychologist’s guide to winning them over


Two thirds of Brits are struggling with climate anxiety. Here’s what you can do about it
Campaigners urge Google to take greater action as teens affected

As climate denial and delaysim continue to evolve, drawing the line in the right place is a mammoth task for tech giants like Google. But mis- and disinformation campaign groups urge tighter action to be taken.

Particularly concerning, they say, is the impact this kind of content is having on young people.

YouTube is the most widely used social media platform among 13- to 17-year-olds in the US, according to a survey by the Pew Research Center last month. 71 per cent of teens say they use the video-sharing platform daily, including 16 per cent who report being on the site almost constantly.

Polling conducted by Survation for the CCDH in March 2023, meanwhile, found that 31 per cent of UK respondents aged 13-17 agreed with the statement “Climate change and its effects are being purposefully over exaggerated”.

This rose to 37 per cent of teens who were ‘heavy users’ of social media, meaning they reported using any one platform for more than four hours a day. Just over 1,000 children were surveyed for the poll via online interviews.

“It is time for digital platforms to put their money where their mouth is. They should refuse to amplify or monetise cynical climate denial content that undermines faith in our collective capacity to solve humanity’s most pressing challenge,” says CCDH chief executive Ahmed.

“We've pressured Google to stop supporting climate denial in the past, but they've done little,” adds Friends of the Earth’s Khoo. “The New Climate Denial report shows a disturbing shift in the tactics used by bad actors to derail the action needed to avert further disaster."

YouTube making money off new breed of climate denial, monitoring group says

Reuters
Tue, January 16, 2024 

Illustration shows YouTube logo


(Reuters) - YouTube is making millions of dollars a year from advertising on channels that make false claims about climate change because content creators are using new tactics that evade the social media platform's policies to combat misinformation, according to a report published on Tuesday.

The Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) used artificial intelligence to review transcripts from 12,058 videos from the past six years on 96 of Alphabet Inc's YouTube channels. The channels promoted content that undermines the scientific consensus on climate change that human behavior is contributing to long-term shifts in temperature and weather patterns, the report said.

CCDH, a nonprofit that monitors online hate speech, said its analysis found that climate denial content has shifted away from false claims that global warming is not happening or that it is not caused by greenhouse gases produced from burning fossil fuels. Videos espousing such claims are explicitly banned from generating ad revenue on YouTube, according to Google's policy.

Instead, the report found that last year 70% of climate denial content on the channels analyzed focused on attacking climate solutions as unworkable, portraying global warming as harmless or beneficial, or casting climate science and the environmental movement as unreliable. That's up from 35% five years earlier.

"A new front has opened up in this battle," Imran Ahmed, chief executive of CCDH, said on a call with reporters. "The people that we've been looking at, they've gone from saying climate change isn't happening to now saying, 'Hey, climate change is happening but there is no hope. There are no solutions.'"

YouTube is making up to $13.4 million a year from ads on the channels that the report analyzed, CCDH said. The group said the AI model was crafted to be able to distinguish between reasonable skepticism and false information.

In a statement, YouTube did not comment directly on the report but defended its policies.

"Debate or discussions of climate change topics, including around public policy or research, is allowed," a YouTube spokesperson said. "However, when content crosses the line to climate change denial, we stop showing ads on those videos."

CCDH called on YouTube to update its policy on climate denial content and said the analysis could assist the environmental movement to combat false claims about global warming more broadly.

(Reporting by Nichola Groom; Editing by Leslie Adler)

PCB IN FLOURESCENT FIXTURES
Jury orders Monsanto to pay nearly $1 billion to schoolchildren and parents

Susan Elizabeth Turek
Tue, January 16, 2024 

A group of seven former students and parent volunteers are reportedly set to receive a payout of nearly $1 billion after they were reportedly exposed to and sickened by toxic chemicals leaking from light fixtures.

Reuters reported Dec. 18 that a Washington state jury found that Monsanto, a chemical firm owned by Bayer, was “liable” for selling a product that contained unsafe chemicals to the Sky Valley Education Center in Monroe.

The verdict also states that the company failed to issue the appropriate warnings about the chemicals, known as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The case resulted in a $857 million verdict.

While Monsanto intends to appeal the decision, arguing that the school failed to upgrade its light fixtures, it had already been ordered to pay millions in other verdicts related to PCBs at the center.

Some of the other suits against the company include claims of brain damage, as reported by the Seattle Times.

According to a study published in the National Library of Medicine, PCBs are “dangerous contaminants” that have been linked to thyroid and reproductive issues, as well as an increased risk of diabetes.

The chemicals have been banned in the United States since 1979 because of the risk of cancer, as noted by Reuters, but prior to that, they were used in a range of everyday equipment, from electrical fixtures to paint to floor finishes.

And similar to microplastics or weedkillers, PCBs can end up contaminating the soil and water, with the Environmental Protection Agency noting the PCBs can become even more toxic if they come in contact with fish or other animals because of a composition change.

While the verdict was reportedly an important step toward holding the corporation accountable, Henry Jones, one of the plaintiffs’ lawyers, pointed out why he felt the decision to award a significant payout was just.

“No one who heard this evidence would ever change places with any of these people in exchange for all the money the jury awarded,” Jones told the Daily Herald in Everett.

Why a Chinese court's landmark decision recognising the copyright for an AI-generated image benefits creators in this nascent field


South China Morning Post
Mon, January 15, 2024

A Chinese court's decision recognising the copyright of an image generated via artificial intelligence (AI) aims to encourage such creations and provide a boost to this nascent industry, according to the judge who made the landmark ruling.

In the first judgment of its kind in mainland China, the Beijing Internet Court last November ruled that a picture, generated via the text-to-image software Stable Diffusion, should be considered an artwork under the protection of copyright laws, because of the "originality" and intellectual input of its human creator.

Assigning generative AI content a legal status under certain conditions in this case is aimed at encouraging people to create with new tools, presiding judge Zhu Ge said last week at a lecture that was first reported on Monday by Chinese online news outlet The Paper.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

"If no content created with AI models can be considered artwork, this would deal a blow to the industry," Zhu was quoted as saying in the report.

The original artificial intelligence-generated image of an Asian lady, left, was at the centre of an intellectual property dispute adjudicated by the Beijing Internet Court on November 27, 2023. To the right of the picture are three images generated during the process of creating the final one that was the subject of infringement. Photo: Xiaohongshu/Stable Diffusion AI alt=The original artificial intelligence-generated image of an Asian lady, left, was at the centre of an intellectual property dispute adjudicated by the Beijing Internet Court on November 27, 2023. To the right of the picture are three images generated during the process of creating the final one that was the subject of infringement. Photo: Xiaohongshu/Stable Diffusion AI>

Although the ruling has added fuel to heated arguments on whether AI-generated content should be protected by copyright laws, the Beijing Internet Court has asserted that future disputes about an author's personal expression in images created with AI's help should be judged on a case-by-case basis.

The intellectual property infringement lawsuit was initiated in May last year by the plaintiff surnamed Li, who used the US start-up StabilityAI's Stable Diffusion program to create an image of a young Asian woman and posted it on Chinese social media platform Xiaohongshu.

Li sued a blogger surnamed Liu for allegedly using that image without permission in a post on Baijiahao, a Chinese content-sharing platform owned by Baidu.

The court subsequently ruled in favour of Li. It said Li's AI-generated image was an artwork, based on how he had continuously added prompts and repeatedly adjusted the parameters to come up with a picture that reflected his "aesthetic choice and personalised judgment".

The court ordered the defendant Liu to issue a public apology as well as pay the plaintiff 500 yuan (US$70.43) in damages and 50 yuan for court fees.

Zhu, the presiding judge, said in her lecture that the ruling was made with the potential implications for "emerging industries" in mind, according to The Paper's report. It said Zhu hoped her decision in the case could serve as a reference for future disputes.

The court's ruling has come as China's aspirations for generative AI continue to evolve amid wider use of the technology around the world. Advances in the use of AI are also expected to transform industries and improve people's daily lives.

China's generative AI industry is forecast to contribute 30 trillion yuan worth of economic value by 2035, accounting for a third of the industry's global value of 90 trillion yuan, according to a report by the CCID Group, a research unit affiliated with Ministry of Industry and Information Technology.

Many Chinese tech firms have also ramped up their efforts to grow their businesses using generative AI. Chinese delivery services giant Meituan, for example, recently launched Wow, a chatbot that purports to respond to user questions with a personal touch.

Alibaba Group Holding, owner of the South China Morning Post, featured an online shop for digital products based on Baidu's virtual assistant Duxiaoxiao during the e-commerce giant's Singles' Day campaign last year.

Copyright (c) 2024. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Speaker Johnson demands firing of federal workers reportedly staging pro-Palestinian walkout

TALK TO THEIR UNION ABOUT THAT

Elizabeth Elkind

FOX NEWS
Mon, January 15, 2024 


Speaker Mike Johnson called for the firing of government employees who walk out on the job in a pro-Gaza protest.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., is calling for the firing of federal workers who are reportedly planning to walk out on their jobs in protest of U.S. policy on Israel and Gaza.

He suggested the House of Representatives would help ensure that employees who protest on Tuesday are punished.

"Any government worker who walks off the job to protest U.S. support for our ally Israel is ignoring their responsibility and abusing the trust of taxpayers. They deserve to be fired," Johnson stated on X Sunday.

"Oversight Chairman Comer and I will be working together to ensure that each federal agency initiates appropriate disciplinary proceedings against any person who walks out on their job."

Fox News Digital reached out to the House Oversight Committee for further comment.

Johnson was responding to a report by Middle East-focused outlet Al-Monitor that said hundreds of federal employees from 22 government agencies pledged to participate in a walkout on Tuesday.

The group reportedly staging the protest, Feds United for Peace, is doing so in opposition to the Biden administration’s handling of the war between Israel and Hamas. It’s reportedly advertising the event as a "Day of Mourning" to mark 100 days since Israel’s invasion of Gaza began.

Pro-Palestinian demonstrators during the March on Washington for Gaza rally in front of the White House on Saturday, Jan. 13, 2024.

Fox News Digital found an Instagram account called "Feds United for Peace" advertising a "Day of Mourning" for Gaza on Jan. 16.

According to one post, they label themselves "a group of federal employees representing a range of federal agencies who believe it is our patriotic duty and moral imperative to urge our government to support calls for a ceasefire, and support humanitarian aid and access for Gaza."

The issue of Israel has been driving a wedge between establishment Democrats and hardline leftists since Hamas militants invaded the country on Oct. 7, killing more than 1,200 people. The Hamas-run health ministry in Gaza has said that more than 24,000 people have been killed so far in Israel’s response.



Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer will also be part of cracking down on the government worker walkout.

U.S. participation in the conflict escalated last week when it partnered with the U.K. to lead a coalition air attack on Houthi positions in Yemen.

Progressives like Reps. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., and Cori Bush, D-Mo., blasted the Biden administration for skirting Congress for the bombings.

Two planes collide in second Japan airport crash in weeks

ARE THE AIR CONTROLLERS TOO OLD

Athena Stavrou
Tue, January 16, 2024 

Two planes collided on a runway in Japan, in the second airport crash in the country within weeks.

A Korean Air Lines plane clipped a Cathay Pacific Airways aircraft at New Chitose Airport on Japan’s northern island of Hokkaido on Tuesday, a Korean Air official said.



A Korean Air Lines plane clipped a Cathay Pacific Airways aircraft at New Chitose Airport (NHK News)

According to Hokkaido Airports, which operates New Chitose Airport, they received a report at around 5:30pm local time.

The accident happened when the Korean Air plane was preparing for take-off, the airline official said.

While there were over 280 passengers and crew on board the Korean Air plane, there were no passengers on the Cathay Pacific plane after it arrived, NHK reported.

According to the fire department, there was no fire and no one has been reported as injured so far.

More than 46 flights have been cancelled today alone at the airport due to the snowy conditions in the region.

A statement from the airport before the crash read: “New Chitose Airport is experiencing flight delays and cancellations today due to heavy snow. Please check with your airline for details.”

An airport spokesperson was not immediately available for comment.

It comes just two weeks after a fatal plane collision at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport left five people dead.

A Japan Airlines erupted into flames after the collision with a coastguard aircraft on the runway on January 2.

Footage from within the Japan Airlines Airbus-A350, which was carrying 379 people, including eight children, showed smoke pouring from beneath its wings as it landed at Tokyo’s Haneda airport at around 5.45pm local time (8.45am GMT).

By the time the plane came to a standstill, it was engulfed by flames as rescuers rushed to evacuate all the passengers.

Five coastguard crew members were killed in the collision. The pilot survived but was in a serious condition.



Just two weeks ago, a plane at Tokyo’s Haneda Airport left five people dead

A passenger on board the commercial flight described the moment their plane appeared to have collided with the other aircraft.

“I felt a boom,” the unnamed passenger told the Kyodo news agency, “like we had hit something and jerked upward the moment we landed. I saw sparks outside the window and the cabin filled with gas and smoke.”

U.S. Plans Methane Fee on Oil Firms to Combat Climate Change

Nilanjan Choudhury
Mon, January 15, 2024 


The United States has taken a substantial stride in confronting climate change with the Environmental Protection Agency (‘EPA’) proposing a fee on methane emissions originating from major oil and gas facilities. This strategic move aligns with the 2022 climate law, serving as a complementary measure to more extensive regulations on greenhouse gas emissions within the Oil/Energy sector. The target of the EPA's proposal is facilities reporting methane emissions exceeding 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent annually.

Some notable energy firms that the proposed regulatory framework could impact include ExxonMobil XOM, Chevron Corporation CVX and ConocoPhillips COP, among others.

Fee Structure and Incentives for Emission Reduction

The government is suggesting a new fee, starting at $900 per ton in 2024 and going up to $1,200 in 2025 and $1,500 later on. It is crucial to note that the fee is applicable solely to emissions surpassing specified levels. The EPA envisions that, over time, fewer facilities will face charges as they implement emission reduction measures, making them eligible for compliance exemptions.

As per EPA, this fee is part of a comprehensive strategy. They want to use new technology and rules to make companies come up with innovative ways to prompt immediate action within the industry. The goal is to quickly reduce emissions of methane, a gas that is even worse for the environment than carbon dioxide.

Methane's Climate Impact

Methane is a gas that often comes out unnoticed from places where they drill for oil and gas. It has a big effect on making the Earth warmer and breaks down in the air faster than carbon dioxide. So, if we reduce the amount of methane we release, it can quickly help slow down climate change. In December, the EPA made a new rule during the COP28 climate meeting in Dubai. This rule focuses on stopping methane emissions from oil and gas activities. It prohibits routine flaring — burning of natural gas that cannot be processed or captured — and introduces measures for monitoring and detecting leaks.

Even though this is an important step, the fee for methane in the IRA had to be changed to get enough votes. It ended up covering only some of the methane releasesCVX from the industry.

Fee on Oil and Gas Waste

In December 2023, the EPA provided additional details on rules for the proposed 'Methane Fee' applicable to waste generated by oil and natural gas companies. The fee comes with a two-year phase-in period for companies to stop the regular burning of natural gas from new oil wells. This rule, following what Congress said in the 2022 climate law, is a big change. It makes it a rule for oil and gas companies to pay a fee if they release too much methane. The fee structure includes fines from $900 to $1,500 per ton by 2026.

Arguments: For & Against

The EPA estimates that the fee, the first of its kind at the federal level, would have minimal effects on energy production and prices, while significantly contributing to climate change mitigation by incentivizing producers to reduce wasteful methane emissions.

Conversely, industry groups criticized the proposed fee as a potential tax increase that might elevate natural gas prices. They have urged Congress to repeal the fee, asserting that it creates a confusing regulatory regime that stifles innovation. In other words, industry representatives view it as punitive and detrimental to the nation's energy stability.

Companies That Could be Affected

While all U.S.-focused energy firms will come under the purview of the proposed regulations, we look at three of the biggest names in the space:

ExxonMobil: ExxonMobil is one of the largest publicly traded oil and gas companies in the world, with operations that span almost every corner of the globe. XOM is fully integrated, meaning that the Zacks Rank #3 (Hold) firm participates in every aspect related to energy — from oil production to refining and marketing.

Chevron: The only energy component of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, San Ramon, CA-based Chevron is engaged in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas, refining and marketing of petroleum products, manufacturing of chemicals, and other energy-related businesses. The #3 Ranked CVX produces around three million barrels per day of oil equivalent.

ConocoPhillips: Headquartered in Houston, TX, ConocoPhillips is primarily involved in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Considering proved reserves and production, Zacks Rank #3 COP is among the largest explorers and producers in the world.

Climate anxiety: 'I don't want to burden the world with my child'

Navin Singh Khadka - Environment correspondent, for BBC 100 Women
Mon, January 15, 2024 

Julia Borges


Awareness of the climate crisis has generally been strongest in developed countries, but "climate anxiety" is now also leading some couples in other parts of the world to decide against having children.

Julia Borges' worries about climate change intensified during the first months of the pandemic, when she and others were in isolation, alone with their thoughts.

"I started to picture my city and my university under water," says the 23-year-old agriculture and engineering student from Recife, on Brazil's north-eastern coast.


"I started to have anxiety crises, to the point of thinking about giving up on my own life, because I didn't know how to deal with it all."

Taking a course in climate leadership was little help - it only increased her feeling of responsibility for what was happening. She soon came to the conclusion that it wouldn't be right to have a child.

"I cannot see myself as responsible for the life of another human being, for generating a new life that would become another burden to a planet that is so overloaded already," Julia says.

In 2022 a team from Nottingham University asked adults in 11 countries whether anxiety or distress about climate change had made them think they should not have children, or had made them regret having them. The proportion saying that they did have such thoughts - sometimes, often or always - ranged from 27% in Japan to 74% in India. The study is due to be published next year.

An earlier study published in the Lancet, based on a 2021 survey of 10,000 people aged 16 to 25, found that more than 40% of respondents in Australia, Brazil, India and the Philippines said climate change made them hesitant about having children. In France, Portugal, the UK and the US the figure was between 30% and 40%. In Nigeria it was 23%.

And an analysis of 13 earlier studies carried out between 2012 and 2022, which was published this month by researchers from University College London, found that concerns about climate change were typically associated with a desire for fewer children.


Chart showing how climate anxiety has made people in 11 countries to question having children

This was usually because participants were concerned about the effect climate change might have on their children's lives, or because they felt, like Julia, that more children would only add to pressure on the planet's resources. However, in two studies in Zambia and Ethiopia researchers say the dominant view was that "smaller families are better positioned to support themselves during adverse environmental conditions".

In 2019 the singer Miley Cyrus said she wouldn't have children because of the state of the planet, and US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked on Instagram if it would be right to bring children into a world blighted by climate change. The same debate now seems to be happening in countries that are on the front line of the climate crisis.

BBC 100 Women names 100 inspiring and influential women around the world every year and tells stories with women at the centre


Meet 2023's 100 Women here

Julia's concern about climate change only increased when in May 2022, Recife was hit by a storm that caused floods and landslides, leading to more than 120 deaths in the region.

"Just three days before those massive rains, I had given a lecture to children from a local NGO, on the topic of climate crisis. Right on the spot, as that was later the area most affected by the flooding," she says. "That really affected me, in the sense of how can we think about children in the future if the children of the present are already in danger?"

Floods in Recife in May 2022 caused deadly landslides in parts of the city

Two other women in countries far from Brazil have also been strongly influenced by serious weather events they attribute to climate change.

Shristi Singh Shrestha, a Nepali animal rights campaigner, paid a visit this year to her family's village, and was horrified to find people going hungry because of drought.

All their crops had dried up and they had failed to find water even after digging a 200ft well. Meanwhile, in a neighbouring district, a village had been swept away by floods.


Shristi Shrestha had sleepless nights after a visit to her family's drought-hit village

Shristi, 40, had been concerned about climate change long before this. Eight years ago, she used to look at her sleeping newborn daughter and worry about the world she would inherit.

"Understanding how this world works, how climate change is changing lives for the worst, for animals and children - this realisation made me cry everyday. It was pretty horrible to me," she says.

She vowed then not to have another child.

This new tragedy in the village - which led to young girls being married off by parents who couldn't feed them - caused her to have sleepless nights, wracked by climate anxiety.

What is climate anxiety?

By psychotherapist Caroline Hickman, University of Bath

Climate anxiety, or eco-anxiety, is the healthy distress that we feel when we look at what is happening in our changing world. We are facing personal and planetary threats from our rapidly changing climate. And it causes us to feel anxious and afraid for our own and our children's futures.

It is not just anxiety, but also sadness, depression, grief, despair, anger, frustration, and confusion. We often have moments of hope or optimism, but this can be hard to hold on to as we are heading rapidly in the wrong direction and not taking sufficient steps to slow down the climate crisis.

For 24-year-old Ayomide Olude, who works for a sustainability NGO in Nigeria, the experience of filming a documentary in a coastal fishing community last year strengthened her determination never to have a child.

Residents of Folu, 100km east of Lagos, showed her a pier that had been used in the past to have fun by the sea, almost all of which was already under water.

"During storm surges the flood water now reaches quite deep into the village, so people are now leaving their houses," Ayomide says. "This was where there was a real-estate boom in the past but now you see abandoned houses and some parts of the village are already under water."

Fishermen told her their job was now unsafe, because storms had become so intense.

Ayomide says she often hears young Nigerians discuss their anxieties in a "climate café" she runs in Ogun state, north of Lagos, a setting where people are encouraged to share what they know and feel about climate change. The experience in Folu sharpened her own concerns.

Ayomide Olude says social pressure to have children is intense

Like Julia in Brazil, she faces pressure from society and her family to have children, but says nothing will persuade her to change her mind.

"In a society where women barely have the power to decide, and where there are religious beliefs that one should have kids, it takes considerable strength and determination to say this in public," she says.

"My parents are upset, and we don't talk about it much. I try not to think about it although I feel sad for them."

Shristi, for her part, has to cope with relatives continually asking when she will have a second child.

But all three women say their partners support their decision.

University of Bath psychotherapist Caroline Hickman, the lead author of the 2021 Lancet study, argues that climate anxiety is a healthy response to the climate crisis.

She advises anyone experiencing it to make contact with others who feel the same way, and to collaborate with them on practical steps to address the crisis.

"These difficulties are not going away, so we need to learn how to face them."
Tips for coping

Be part of a community of like-minded people so you have people to share feelings and thoughts with.

Learn to regulate your emotions so you do not get overwhelmed (feeling too much) or shut down (feeling too little). Mindfulness and meditation can be helpful, but so is anything that helps to build emotional resilience.

Then there is a possibility to "re-frame" eco-anxiety into eco-care, eco-courage, eco-connection. We should not try to get rid of it, we only feel eco-anxiety because we care. We should feel proud that we care!

Caroline Hickman, University of Bath

Julia has taken this path. She has helped map areas vulnerable to flooding and landslides, and works for a local NGO that educates people about the climate and the environment.

"What helped me release some of that anxiety was to become an agent of change and transformation in my community," she says.

Nonetheless, her worries remain.

"I can still feel that despair, but I've been working on it with my therapist - and it helps to talk about it."

Additional reporting by Paula Adamo Idoeta

Germany, which committed genocide in Namibia, blasted for defending Israel by African nation

Adam Schrader
Sun, January 14, 2024 

Hage Geingob, president of Namibia, addresses the 70th session of the General Debate of the United Nations General Assembly held at the UN in New York City

 File Photo by Monika Graff/UPI

Jan. 14 (UPI) -- Namibian President Hage G. Geingob blasted Germany on Saturday for defending Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, pointing to the genocide Germany itself perpetrated on Namibians in the early 1900s.

Geingob's comments come just a week after King Abdullah of Jordan commented about the alleged genocide in Palestine while speaking at the Kigali Genocide Memorial in Rwanda, a memorial for 250,000 of the Tutsi people killed during the 1994 genocide.

Israel has been accused of genocide by South Africa for the mass killing of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, forced displacement of Palestinians from Gaza, food blockades, and the infliction of bodily and mental harm on civilians.


In Gaza alone, Israeli forces have killed more than 23,000 people and displaced 85% of the population internally, escalating the decades-long conflict with Palestine - which has observer status at the United Nations and is recognized as a nation by 139 of the 193 member states in the U.N. Israel is recognized by 163, for comparison.

"The German government is yet to fully atone for the genocide it committed on Namibian soil," Geingob's office said on social media.

Known as the Herero and Namaqua genocide and recognized as the first genocide of the 20th century by Holocaust museums, German colonizers invaded and slaughtered as many as 100,000 of the Herero people and 10,000 of the Nama people living in modern Namibia.

German soldiers raped thousands of Namibian women and Eugene Fischer, a doctor, conducted medical experiments on the children born from the rapes -- later inspiring Nazi doctor Joseph Mengele during Germany's genocide of the Jews and other groups in Europe.

"In light of Germany's inability to draw lessons from its horrific history, President Geingob expresses deep concern with the shocking decision communicated by [Germany] ... in which it rejected the morally upright indictment brought forward by South Africa before the ICJ that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza," Geingob's office said.

Geingob's office blasted the "genocidal and gruesome" acts perpetrated by Israel in Gaza and noted that Human Rights Watch and other advocacy groups have "chillingly concluded that Israel is committing war crimes." The president has asked Germany to reconsider its decision to intervene in the ICJ case as a third party.

In his remarks in Rwanda, Abdullah supported calls for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict and blasted Israel for its "indiscriminate aggression and shelling" of Gaza.

Cambodia, which also endured a horrific genocide in the 20th century, has long supported the full establishment of the state of Palestine along borders established in 1967. But Cambodia has maintained neutrality among the latest conflict between Israelis and Palestinians.

Namibia criticises German support for Israel over ICJ genocide case

Danai Nesta Kupemba - BBC News
Sun, January 14, 2024 

President Hage Geingob has appealed to Germany to retract its support of Israel

Namibia has condemned former colonial ruler Germany for rejecting a case at the UN's top court accusing Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.

Germany has offered to intervene on Israel's behalf in the case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.

President Hage Geingob urged Germany to "reconsider its untimely decision to intervene as a third-party in defence".

In 2021 Berlin acknowledged committing genocide in Namibia.

German colonisers massacred more than 70,000 Herero and Nama people between 1904 and 1908. Historians consider this to be the 20th Century's first genocide.

President Geingob said Germany could not "morally express commitment to the United Nations Convention against genocide, including atonement for the genocide in Namibia" and at the same time support Israel.

"The German Government is yet to fully atone for the genocide it committed on Namibian soil," he added.

On Friday the German government said the accusation of genocide against Israel was completely unfounded and amounted to a "political instrumentalisation" of the UN genocide convention.

"In view of Germany's history and the crime against humanity of the Holocaust, the government sees itself as particularly committed to the genocide convention," it said.

It said Hamas - which attacked Israel on 7 October, triggering the current war - aimed to destroy Israel, which was acting in self defence.

Hamas killed about 1,300 people, most of them civilians, and took about 240 others hostage on 7 October.

Since then Israel has killed nearly 24,000 people, mostly children and women, in its retaliatory attacks on Gaza, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. The UN and humanitarian organisations have warned of the risk of famine in Gaza as well as the spread of disease among displaced people and have urged that more aid be allowed into the territory.

The scale of the Israeli response prompted South Africa to ask the ICJ to consider whether Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians in Gaza.

Pretoria's case included a litany of alleged Israeli offences, from the indiscriminate killing of Palestinian civilians to the wholesale destruction of Gaza's infrastructure.

Israel has strongly rejected the allegation, calling it "baseless" and its legal team was scathing about South Africa's submission, arguing that if anyone was guilty of genocide, it was Hamas.

Germany admits colonial-era Namibia genocide


Israel and S Africa play heavy on emotion in genocide case


What is the genocide case against Israel?

Opinion

What the evidence really says about ultra-processed foods

Eric Robinson, University of Liverpool
Tue, January 16, 2024 
The Conversation

A fair number of ultra-processed foods will have some unfavorable nutritional profiles -- but many don’t. File Photo by Gary C. Caskey/UPI


Jan. 16 (UPI) -- The perils of ultra-processed foods received widespread coverage in recent months -- thanks in no small part to the publication and promotion of TV presenter and doctor of virology Chris Van Tulleken's book Ultra-Processed People.

Ultra-processed foods, in short, are commercially manufactured food products that include ingredients you wouldn't cook with at home. Some of this processing makes foods more palatable, some increases shelf life and makes them more affordable -- such as whole-meal supermarket bread, for example.

Scientists have long known that foods high in saturated fat, salt, sugar, calories or which contain too few whole grains and fiber contribute to greater risk of health problems -- such as obesity, hypertension, heart disease and type 2 diabetes.


A fair number of ultra-processed foods will have some of these unfavorable nutritional profiles -- but many don't. What is new and controversial about ultra-processed food is the idea that food processing itself is deadly.

Van Tulleken's book argues that "it is the ultra-processing, not the nutritional content, that's the problem." Musing on why some pizza isn't great for our waist lines, he writes "the only question is whether it is an ultra-processed food." Van Tulleken also claims ultra-processed food is linked to more deaths than tobacco, and is the number one cause of early death globally.

But, in my view a lot of this is just wrong.

Myths scrutinized

Ultra-processed foods haven't been shown to be the largest cause of deaths globally and no scientific study has ever found this.

I believe this bold but misleading claim appears to be a misinterpretation of research that suggests that poor diet is a leading cause of death. Most deaths attributed to poor diet in this and similar studies are due to factors such as not eating enough fruit and vegetables, oily fish or whole grains.

Nor is there strong evidence that whether a food is ultra-processed or not is what determines how it may affect your health.

Many studies have shown that people whose diets are high in ultra-processed foods have poorer health compared to those whose diets contain fewer ultra-processed foods. However, research suggests that it's some specific types of ultra-processed foods foods that are linked to worse health in studies that examine this, rather than all ultra-processed foods.

This includes categories like sugary drinks and processed meats, which we have known for some time are bad for health. Eating other foods classed as ultra-processed does not predict worse health. And some studies have even shown them to predict better health. Brown bread and cereals, are good examples.

Pretty much all scientific studies used as evidence on the harms of ultra-processed foods are "observational studies." This means the researchers don't change a person's diet to see what happens to their health -- they observe the health of people based on what they report they eat.

As such, observational studies can only try to account for all the ways in which people who eat a lot of ultra-processed foods versus fewer ultra-processed foods differ.

This is key to ultra-processing, because there may be unmeasured factors about a person or their diet that cause worse health -- making it appear the number of ultra-processed foods in a person's diet is harming their health, when it isn't. A recent study captures this perfectly.

The study looked at whether ultra-processed food consumption was associated with developing cancer. It was, as shown in other studies. But it also looked at whether ultra-processed food consumption was associated with a health outcome it should have no plausible reason to be associated with: accidental death. People who ate a lot of ultra-processed foods were more likely to die in car crashes, falls and other accidents, it turns out.

There's no plausible reason why processed food would cause accidental death. Rather, the reason is probably something else that has either not been accurately measured and accounted for or not measured at all -- known as a "confounding factor."

People from poorer backgrounds are more likely to be victims of accidental death -- as are people who have worse mental health. We also know that people from poorer backgrounds or who have worse mental health often eat more ultra-processed food.

A study can measure a person's income, but the many ways in which living in poverty or having worse mental health can damage physical health are very difficult to measure with any accuracy. They therefore may be examples of confounding factors that make ultra-processed food appear to predict worsening health, like cancer.

Given the doom and dread about food processing, you'd think there's convincing evidence that has identified how food processing harms health in humans. But there isn't. Panels of scientists from the United States and United Kingdom (both with and without histories of food industry funding) agree on this and agree that it isn't clear if food processing itself harms health.

I believe there's good reason to conduct more research to understand ultra-processed food and health. But this is a long way from Van Tulleken's assertion that we're eating "food that isn't food" and that ultra-processed food is worse for health than smoking.

Hype around ultra-processed food is problematic because it may be causing unnecessary anxiety among people who already struggle with food or worry about their health.

As well as confusing the public on what food is and isn't healthy, ultra-processed food hype may also distract attention from much-needed government action to restrict food industry marketing and sales of the types of foods we know are bad for health -- foods higher in sugar, salt, saturated fat and calories.

Perhaps in the future, convincing evidence might show that some specific types of food processing can cause severe health problems. But until then, sensationalist messages and misleading claims about ultra-processed food are very real problems.


Eric Robinson is a professor in psychology at the University of Liverpool.

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

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

Bad-faith reverse-discrimination claims hurt America’s economic future and global standing

Roy Swan
Mon, January 15, 2024


MLK II STATUE WITH CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS
Samuel Corum - Getty Images

There was a time when cotton was king and Black slave labor built the stature and wealth of America, a brutal time in history the legacy of which stubbornly persists to this day in our economic, political, legal, and education systems.

Confronted with these ugly truths, our country has an opportunity to repair generations of harm. Instead, I fear we are headed down a more destructive path–not only denying our history but doubling down on the discrimination that has for so long denied Black Americans their share of the American dream. In doing so, we are crippling our economy with our own hypocrisy–and tarnishing America’s international standing as others reckon more honestly with their past.

From slavery to the Jim Crow South, redlining to the destruction of Black Wall Street, America has spent centuries profiting from Black labor while denying and destroying Black prosperity. The inevitable result: staggering financial inequality, with the average white family accruing 10 times more wealth than Black families, and Black people holding just 2% of national wealth and controlling less than half of one percent of capital in America.

This is no mere echo of historical transgressions–it is a reflection of ongoing barriers to success, including a criminal justice system that incarcerates Black Americans at five times the rate of whites and societal bias that has reduced them to a negligible presence in corporate C-suites. Presidents Johnson and Nixon started down the path to righting some of these wrongs with the U.S. government’s Black Capitalism program, but that ended almost as swiftly as the false promises to address race-based wealth and social inequality that came after George Floyd’s murder.

It is against this backdrop that a vocal faction of Americans has the audacity to cry “reverse discrimination,” so threatened by the country’s meager efforts to atone for its sins that they seek to hide its history of oppression. Their efforts extend beyond banning books and corrupting curriculums to twisting the same legal tools originally designed to remedy civilian and government oppression of Black people to instead put even more weight on those attempting to climb from the basement of America’s economic pecking order.

Recently, the activist whose efforts overturned affirmative action, eliminating yet another vehicle for marginalized populations’ educational and economic success, filed a lawsuit against a small, Black-owned American venture capital firm over its efforts to support Black women entrepreneurs. Never mind that they receive just 0.06% of all venture capital–less than 1/1000th of their percentage of the American population—or that white men under 35 have 224 times the wealth of Black women under 35.

To this litigant and his ilk, any attempt to acknowledge the roots of this gross inequity, much less adopt a targeted approach to remedy it, is a threat. They so aggressively defend the unequal status quo because they cannot bear the alternative: facing the abominable discrimination and oppression under de facto affirmative action for white people that has created the conditions for Black women’s inability to attract venture capital. Instead, they attack, deflect, deny, and hide historical truth and consequences.

This willful ignorance is geopolitically self-destructive and irresponsible, as today’s world order is determined by the productive and innovative power of a nation’s human capital, which drives national wealth. Keeping players off the field for ideological and racist reasons will only hold America back, while other countries steamroll ahead by tapping the full potential of all the talent at their disposal.

Our allies across the Atlantic have taken an approach worthy of emulation. In acknowledgment of its historical investment in the transatlantic chattel slave trade, the Church of England recently announced a £100 million program of impact investing, grant-making, and research with the target of alleviating the ongoing consequences of its past actions. As a member of the fund’s Oversight Group, I am heartened by the symbolic financial investment but even more moved by the Church Commissioners’ commitment to truth and reconciliation. England has taken a step in the right direction, but America’s inaction and retrenchment is a catapult backward–and a costly one.

Race-based discrimination is estimated to have set America back over $50 trillion since 1990 alone. Other estimates forecast that eliminating race-based discrimination would generate 6 million jobs and $5 trillion in American economic power in just five years.

If Americans care about global economic power, moral authority, and reputation, we must explore the nation’s ugly history of targeted Black oppression, calculate the wealth transferred through exploitation and extraction, and invest in a plan for a better future in the spirit of patriotic capitalism.

It’s time to stop using bad faith claims of reverse discrimination as a polarizing wedge and give everyone opportunities and resources to unleash their potential for the sake of the nation. And everyone has a role to play. In addition to more equitable laws and policies, we need investors to become patriotic capitalists and put market rate-seeking impact investments to work to erase the compounding economic and social damage inflicted on Black people and others oppressed because of their race.

Contrary to the zero-sum claims of history-denying capital hoarders, a more just country is a more prosperous country, too. And we all win when we all win.

Roy Swan is the head of mission investments at the Ford Foundation.

More must-read commentary published by Fortune:

Economic pessimists’ bet on a 2023 recession failed. Why are they doubling down in 2024?

‘Parroting Putin’s propaganda’: The business exodus over Ukraine was no Russian bonanza

Why retail’s $100 billion ‘shrink’ crisis may not be all about shoplifting

The anti-DEI movement has gone from fringe to mainstream. Here’s what that means for corporate America

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.