I created this blog to help archive my writing portfolio and have a place for it. Recently I've been working on a series of articles that function as a “Learn Along With Me” format. I research a topic I want to know more about and write about what seems significant. I hope others can learn from what I researched as well. Feel free to send me requests if there are any topics you would like to know more about but don’t want to research on your own. I do my best to include useful resources in every article if you want to delve specifically into any mentioned topic, as well. None of the works on this blog are eligible for training AI, plagiarism, or any other form of content stealing.
Cycloseric cyclolites starts like other coral, anchored to a spot, and its stem dissolves as it matures!
Relocating lets them go to deeper waters in the Indo-Pacific if they started life in areas with stronger waves and not a lot of available space. This also helps them avoid coral bleaching caused by large temperature variations!
They have active mobility, through pulse inflation like jellyfish: tissue inflation, then contraction and twisting that moves the coral "forward". The inflation process also helps catch water flow for 'passive' movement.
Also it's positive phototaxis, meaning they move towards light, specifically blue-wavelength light in this study which has a big effect on the circadian rhythms of coral in general. That wavelength most resembles the deeper waters they'd move to in their natural habitat.
They're notably not the only free-living coral. Others include Herpetolithus crassus and Trachyphillia geoffroyi, but most move by passive locomotion instead of pulse inflation. And more information about these types of coral is very hard to find.
Scientists found a free-living coral species actively travels toward blue light resembling its natural habitat and moves like a jellyfish to
Not all corals are attached to the substrate; some taxa are solitary and free-living, allowing them to migrate into preferred habitats. Howe
The first archive existed around 4,000 B.C., in which Sumerians used clay tablets to track transactions.
C. L. Bedale and C. H. W. Johns discuss these translated tablets, summarizing them as a necessary part of life for Babylonian temple stewards. Many people lived by wages and allowances from the temples, and thus we have these ledgers illuminating aspects of Babylonian city life.
We also have clay tablets from the Hittite Empire, around 1400-1300 B.C. A majority of tablets from Boǧazköy, Turkey are legal texts, documenting their laws, family relations, commodity prices, and more. These also include religious texts, which tell us about certain rituals and beliefs about gods and storytelling.
The archives of Egypt, around 3,000 - 1,000 B.C., likewise served to document legal matters, along with administrative and military information. One group of papyri, kept at a harbour site, details the movement of boats carrying limestone and food deliveries to a building site. These inform us about how administration worked around this construction project. We also, of course, have many records about the functions of temple life for these periods, due to papyrus being best preserved in dry, cool places.
The earliest surviving Chinese writing is on oxen bones of about 1600 - 1100 B.C. The writing details divinations made by the contemporarily ruling Shang royal house. Other writing materials include tortoiseshells and bronze, all documenting similar divinations, providing the moniker “oracle-bone script”. Around 500 B.C., a new script emerged to create documentation of government affairs, written on bamboo scrolls. This is more accurately related to the concept of archiving, but it is useful to know the earlier script it emerged from.
We are constantly trying to learn about the past. Having historical information is extremely valuable to improve our foresight and to have past data to compare our current world to. For example, Ancient Greece holds the first known democracy. We know many details of how that government in Athens worked because of written records of speeches. We therefore know that what we currently call the democratic nation of the U.S.A. is not the same. While Ancient Athens was a direct democracy, the U.S. government is more accurately a republic, sometimes referred to as a representative democracy.
Past archives also help us keep current archives. Many Ancient Egyptian documents have been lost to the elements, due to the moisture-sensitive nature of papyrus. What has survived is mostly in tombs and temples, or on clay tablets. With these surviving artifacts, we can better understand what materials will last under certain conditions, and the environments required both to find other ancient materials, and to preserve modern ones.
More broadly, this is also why archeology is so important. Archaeological projects need to be funded in order for us to find and gather these artifacts. Without proper funding for research and for preserving these materials in museums, much of this information would be lost to us.
One browser search will provide multiple sources with conflicting claims about which U.S. state is leading in the clean energy industry. Two that have made exceptional changes are Texas and South Dakota.
Texas
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports that Texas has become a leader in wind energy, accounting for ~16% of the nation’s renewable electricity production in 2023. It’s only behind California in wind production, according to the EIA.
Texas has large expanses of clear land, with a portion of the 360-mile long Gulf Coastal Plains taking up about ⅓ of the state. Wind speeds reach up to 12 mph and transmission lines already span the state to deliver energy produced from the wind farms. This industry, as well as solar, has already supported more than 25,000 jobs in the state, with 73% not requiring a college degree.
Unfortunately, the use of the produced energy is limited. In 2022, the Texas Tribune discussed the fact that the Texas transmission network cannot deliver energy outside of the state. This has caused issues with energy production, storing, and accessibility to consumers.
But there are also distribution issues within the state itself, which in recent years have become apparent multiple times from outages and lack of electricity availability to certain regions. Since a major blackout event in 2021, there have been improvements to make the Texas energy grid more resistant to weather damage. Still, the Austin-American Statesman newspaper emphasizes the need to drastically upgrade the Texas power grid, though they will likely have to fund it without federal help.
South Dakota
South Dakota is also a leader in renewable energy initiatives. The EIA reports that 77% of the state’s electricity production was from renewable sources in 2023. Wind energy makes up 55% of this, while hydropower makes up 21%. South Dakota has slightly less percentage of flat land than Texas, but with wind speeds similarly reaching up to around 12 mph.
In 2022, clean energy jobs accounted for about 12,000 jobs in the state, and that is expected to continue growing. While the South Dakota energy plan is difficult to find, if it exists in solid terms, the federal government is improving policies around renewable energy across the nation.
Additionally, solar energy production is especially expected to increase in South Dakota. This is fortunate because, according to the Clean Grid Alliance, solar prices have dropped 53% since 2012.
South Dakota also produces bioethanol as another renewable product, accounting for 9% of the nation’s production.
Coal, natural gas, and oil now make up less than 20% of the state’s energy production. These will likely take time to completely phase out, as many concerns exist around limiting energy dependency during weather crises. South Dakota has a more reliable electricity infrastructure, but there have been risks of rolling blackouts in recent years.
This page has focused on the progress in New Jersey towards clean energy, but it is far from the most changed state in terms of production. Many other states like Texas and South Dakota have seen benefits of moving towards renewable energy. It has permitted Texas to turn away from natural gas and coal, for example. It has created new jobs, and drawn more attention to the need for improved energy infrastructure.
The move toward renewable energy has been a long fight. It has come with challenges and seen a lot of resistance. Fortunately, it is happening, anyway. The Inflation Reduction Act that provided billions of dollars in tax credits for clean energy initiatives has made a difference. The clean energy goals of the federal government and the states are decreasing our dependence on pollution-producing resources. As much as we hope for swift, effective change, even these spread out changes are measurable and important to recognize.
In the days after U.S. election day I am left with a few repeated thoughts. “How?” is chief among them.
More than that, as the doubt and anger and fear grow. As I worry about my inability to trust my neighbors, and I fear what was promised in speeches and rallies, I also wonder why.
What could have gone different to have achieved a different result? What would it have taken?
And, ultimately, I can’t help but wonder, “What did I do wrong? Did I do something to deserve this?” I scramble for ideas of what I could have done differently. If I only could have had the means to canvass across the nation, if I only had donated enough money. Should I have started a call-in show that tried to change minds?
The habit of blaming oneself is a coping mechanism for many people. Self-blame is a common part of grief. It often emerges in response to trauma and exists in correlation with depression 1. As a coping mechanism, it provides a sense of control over negative situations in which we have none. It is completely understandable why those desperate for an explanation or for some way to change current conditions to engage in self-blame regardless of its irrationality.
I will promise you, if you voted, if you did what you could, or if you are ineligible and a spectator forced to witness a country turn on you, you do not deserve this. You did not do something wrong. Yes, you could have done -or did- the actions listed above, or some other advocacy that had an impact.
But those on the other side also had a duty to represent the best interests of their fellow citizens, as well as people around the world that this outcome would affect. You are not responsible for their decision to not care.
If you did what you could, remind yourself of that, and please keep doing it. Protecting ourselves and our communities is vital.
This is an excellent article. It talks about the psychology of tyranny, the history of resistance and the paths we have to take to rescue each other and recover.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture says that students eligible for free or reduced price school meals cannot be charged processing fees begi
FINALLY SOME GOOD FUCKING NEWS!!!!
(This sadly isn't making lunch completely free, it's just making it so low-income families don't have to pay processing fees which can add up really fucking fast and disproportionately effect families who have to load small amounts of money over longer periods rather than a big sum once or twice like more well-off families can. It's still a fucking win!!)
The "junk fees" ban goes into effect for the 2027-2028 school year. The USDA says it wants schools to implement this system as soon as possible. But they are still examining the exact junk fees that families pay, and stated that "The school year 2027-2028 implementation date gives schools ample time to modify current systems or establish new contracts".
In case you were wondering why it doesn't go into effect sooner.
Since the 2024 French elections earlier this year, we left off with a more balanced National Assembly. Left-wing politicians became the highest population at 188 seats with centrist Emmanuel Macron still the president. The centrist party is not far behind with 161 seats and the right-wing party with 142.
Many networks at the time discussed the expectation of a hung parliament, as no one party holds the 289-seat majority.
Some things stay the same. In July, the National Assembly voted to keep centrist party member Yaël Braun-Pivet as speaker, winning by 13 votes. Additionally, many people have called for Macron to step down as President, but he will likely stay for the rest of his term until 2027.
New PM
On the other hand, there have been major changes. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal resigned in July, and was replaced by Michel Barnier in September. He is a conservative, the leader of the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiation, and his appointment was met with much criticism from the left-wing parties.
Days after his appointment, over 100,000 people participated in protests across France. Many people view President Macron’s PM choice as disruptive to democracy, as the PM is most often chosen from the dominant National Assembly party.
Macron states that he made this choice based on the belief that Barnier seemed the most capable of dealing with political deadlocks, as is expected of the Parliament with no party holding majority.
I have to wonder, though, if this was also out of spite for the left-wing parties winning more seats than his centrist party. Barnier’s politics are expected to rely on joint support from the centrist and conservative parties. If the right or center opposes him on anything, he almost certainly will face loss after loss with his proposed policies. Will this lead France backward after the left finally gained some political power?
Barnier’s Address
Barnier delivered his first parliamentary address on Tuesday, October 1st. Summarily, he emphasized the hazard of French finances and debts, and the environment.
France is more than 3 trillion euros in public and environmental debt, which Barnier addresses first. His goal is to bring the deficit down from 6% of the national GDP to 5% in 2025, with the goal of under 3% by 2029.
His outline for achieving this is reducing spending, being more efficient in government spending (addressing corruption and unjustified spending), and taxes. He phrases higher taxes as a temporary measure, and states that large companies as well as the richest and wealthiest French people will be asked for exceptional contributions.
Barnier also addresses environmental debt. He plans to continue reducing GHG emissions, and for France to be more active in the EU and in the Paris Agreements, which push for countries to collectively act against climate change. He also mentions encouraging industry transitions in energy and recycling, encouraging nuclear energy development, and developing renewable resources of energy more, like biofuels and solar energy.
He has also conceived of a large national conference to act on the matter of water, the scarcity of which is an imminent issue for France.
Additionally, he plans to propose a yearly day of citizens consultations. In his idea, doors will be open for citizens for people of all levels of government to ask questions and start discussions and debates on various topics.
Another noteworthy statement from Barnier is that the pension reform bill voted on in 2023 might have to be changed, which received a loud reply from the audience.
As someone living in a country where an entire political party is built on denying factual evidence and realities, it is surprising to hear someone who does not deny climate change, and calls for equitable taxes to address debt.
About 30 minutes into his address, though, New Caledonia comes up. This is more in line with expectations of conservatives. New Caledonia is still a colonized territory of France, and a recent bill from Macron was going to disadvantage native Kanak people for the advancement of French loyalists on the archipelago. After fatal protests, the bill has been suspended before ratification, likely to be readdressed in 2025.
Also in conservative spirit, Barnier calls for stricter immigration policies in effort to meet “integration objectives”. France faces a cost-of-living crisis and an affordable housing shortage that has buttressed the right’s stance on needing stricter border measures.
Le Pen Trial
Also straining politics, especially for right-wing support, is recent news about popular right-wing figure Marine Le Pen.
On September 30th, Le Pen faced charges of embezzling European Parliament money. The right-wing party Rassemblement National is accused of filing false employee records in order to improperly use funds to pay members of the party. Le Pen is one of many senior party members involved in the alleged embezzlement.
This trial is expected to go on for seven to nine weeks, so the final outcome is some time away. But for now we can expect this will have negative impacts if Le Pen still vies for presidential election in 2027. It will likely also decrease citizen’s trust in the conservative party’s ability to make responsible economic decisions.
If found guilty, Le Pen and the other defendants could face up to ten years in prison and lose the eligibility to run for office.
After the 2024 shock vote instigated by President Macron, the French National assembly gained a left-leaning majority, though not enough for an automatic 289-vote majority. In most cases, this would mean a left-wing Prime Minister as well as a left-wing president, though that’s because the presidential vote is usually shortly after that of the national assembly.
Contrarily, Macron went with a conservative candidate that he believed to be stronger for the job. This increases the political unrest in the country, and increases the likelihood of delays and blockages in legislation development.
While the conservative Prime Minister has stated many intentions that people in the U.S.A. might call left-leaning, regarding climate change and tax targets, his appointment has upset many. His views on immigration, especially, contrast with most left-wing groups who want integration and safety for others. Overall, this decision from Macron calls into question his loyalty and dedication to the wants of the French people.
After being appointed Prime Minister in 2024, Michel Barnier delivered his National Assembly Address in early October. In it, he states the necessity to implement stricter policies on immigration and integration. He believes that the high degree of immigration into France gets in the way of meeting “integration objectives.”
Integration Objectives
We can infer that the objectives he references are likely those discussed in the 2019 The Integration of Refugees in France analysis. This analysis states that integration of refugees is done through the common law approach: being treated equally to any other French citizen and receiving all of the same social protections.
The Republican Integration Contract is meant to provide a personalized integration process, primarily by mandating a two-day civic course and language courses.
This in itself is problematic, with many finding the language courses falling short of adequate preparation for daily life, and the civic courses likewise being too dense and too short-term.
A 2023 study also found that the civic courses tend to only help in the short-term, with little long-term effect in aiding immigrants’ social and economic standing. Meanwhile, language training had no correlation to obtaining employment. If these are the objectives that Barnier is shooting for, he has some pathetic goals.
Barnier is hoping to remove thousands of immigrants in order to better implement the CIR, when a better investment would be improving the integration programs.
Barnier’s Other Reasons
Barnier is likely also benefiting off of the sensationalization of crime, resembling the “crime wave” propaganda perpetrated by Donald Trump in the U.S.A. In the states, this is demonstrably false and disinformation. Can the same be said about France?
In 2022, President Macron claimed that half of crime in Paris comes from people who are foreigners.
The first issue in this statement is that the accurate 48% number reported for this statistic represents suspects, not individuals whose guilt has been tried and confirmed. He was also using this statistic to discuss illegal immigration, while that number actually includes legal immigrants.
Specifically, recent news stories have focused on sexual assault, as social media posts started claiming that 60% of sexual assaults in France are perpetrated by non-French men. Contrarily, French Security services data indicate that 86% of people accused of SA in the country in 2023 were French nationals, not foreigners. For clarity’s sake, “French nationals” does refer to nationality under law regardless of race or origin.
Other research in 2023 indicates that migration does not cause an increase in the number of crimes committed.
The above research authors do note an exception in which cases of theft are slightly higher among immigrants, but this is currently a correlation. In at least 25 countries, poverty status leads to higher cases of theft. It is coincidence, and in many cases the failure of local and national government, that immigrants tend to make up a large portion of populations facing poverty. As stated above, France’s civic courses do not seem to help immigrant employment statuses in the long-term.
France is seemingly subject to similar misinformation as the U.S.A. regarding immigration. The idea of a “crime wave” is effective, scary, and easily convinces people that crime is an easily solvable problem by getting rid of the “others”.
Michel Barnier takes advantage of these narratives, intending to make immigration more limited, allegedly for the sake of better integration, which does not even produce effective results when utilized.
Refugees and immigration are a hot topic, easily manipulated by demagogues like Donald Trump and the French right-wing party. True studies reveal how false their claims in recent years have been, and how crime is much more complicated than blaming it on minorities.
Since the 2024 French elections earlier this year, we left off with a more balanced National Assembly. Left-wing politicians became the highest population at 188 seats with centrist Emmanuel Macron still the president. The centrist party is not far behind with 161 seats and the right-wing party with 142.
Many networks at the time discussed the expectation of a hung parliament, as no one party holds the 289-seat majority.
Some things stay the same. In July, the National Assembly voted to keep centrist party member Yaël Braun-Pivet as speaker, winning by 13 votes. Additionally, many people have called for Macron to step down as President, but he will likely stay for the rest of his term until 2027.
New PM
On the other hand, there have been major changes. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal resigned in July, and was replaced by Michel Barnier in September. He is a conservative, the leader of the 2016-2019 Brexit negotiation, and his appointment was met with much criticism from the left-wing parties.
Days after his appointment, over 100,000 people participated in protests across France. Many people view President Macron’s PM choice as disruptive to democracy, as the PM is most often chosen from the dominant National Assembly party.
Macron states that he made this choice based on the belief that Barnier seemed the most capable of dealing with political deadlocks, as is expected of the Parliament with no party holding majority.
I have to wonder, though, if this was also out of spite for the left-wing parties winning more seats than his centrist party. Barnier’s politics are expected to rely on joint support from the centrist and conservative parties. If the right or center opposes him on anything, he almost certainly will face loss after loss with his proposed policies. Will this lead France backward after the left finally gained some political power?
Barnier’s Address
Barnier delivered his first parliamentary address on Tuesday, October 1st. Summarily, he emphasized the hazard of French finances and debts, and the environment.
France is more than 3 trillion euros in public and environmental debt, which Barnier addresses first. His goal is to bring the deficit down from 6% of the national GDP to 5% in 2025, with the goal of under 3% by 2029.
His outline for achieving this is reducing spending, being more efficient in government spending (addressing corruption and unjustified spending), and taxes. He phrases higher taxes as a temporary measure, and states that large companies as well as the richest and wealthiest French people will be asked for exceptional contributions.
Barnier also addresses environmental debt. He plans to continue reducing GHG emissions, and for France to be more active in the EU and in the Paris Agreements, which push for countries to collectively act against climate change. He also mentions encouraging industry transitions in energy and recycling, encouraging nuclear energy development, and developing renewable resources of energy more, like biofuels and solar energy.
He has also conceived of a large national conference to act on the matter of water, the scarcity of which is an imminent issue for France.
Additionally, he plans to propose a yearly day of citizens consultations. In his idea, doors will be open for citizens for people of all levels of government to ask questions and start discussions and debates on various topics.
Another noteworthy statement from Barnier is that the pension reform bill voted on in 2023 might have to be changed, which received a loud reply from the audience.
As someone living in a country where an entire political party is built on denying factual evidence and realities, it is surprising to hear someone who does not deny climate change, and calls for equitable taxes to address debt.
About 30 minutes into his address, though, New Caledonia comes up. This is more in line with expectations of conservatives. New Caledonia is still a colonized territory of France, and a recent bill from Macron was going to disadvantage native Kanak people for the advancement of French loyalists on the archipelago. After fatal protests, the bill has been suspended before ratification, likely to be readdressed in 2025.
Also in conservative spirit, Barnier calls for stricter immigration policies in effort to meet “integration objectives”. France faces a cost-of-living crisis and an affordable housing shortage that has buttressed the right’s stance on needing stricter border measures.
Le Pen Trial
Also straining politics, especially for right-wing support, is recent news about popular right-wing figure Marine Le Pen.
On September 30th, Le Pen faced charges of embezzling European Parliament money. The right-wing party Rassemblement National is accused of filing false employee records in order to improperly use funds to pay members of the party. Le Pen is one of many senior party members involved in the alleged embezzlement.
This trial is expected to go on for seven to nine weeks, so the final outcome is some time away. But for now we can expect this will have negative impacts if Le Pen still vies for presidential election in 2027. It will likely also decrease citizen’s trust in the conservative party’s ability to make responsible economic decisions.
If found guilty, Le Pen and the other defendants could face up to ten years in prison and lose the eligibility to run for office.
After the 2024 shock vote instigated by President Macron, the French National assembly gained a left-leaning majority, though not enough for an automatic 289-vote majority. In most cases, this would mean a left-wing Prime Minister as well as a left-wing president, though that’s because the presidential vote is usually shortly after that of the national assembly.
Contrarily, Macron went with a conservative candidate that he believed to be stronger for the job. This increases the political unrest in the country, and increases the likelihood of delays and blockages in legislation development.
While the conservative Prime Minister has stated many intentions that people in the U.S.A. might call left-leaning, regarding climate change and tax targets, his appointment has upset many. His views on immigration, especially, contrast with most left-wing groups who want integration and safety for others. Overall, this decision from Macron calls into question his loyalty and dedication to the wants of the French people.
A major concern in shifting to a clean energy economy is the loss of many jobs that people have worked in for decades. It is not so simple as putting non-renewable energy employees into renewable energy jobs. These jobs require training, and people who lose jobs as we decrease non-renewable energy reliance need a way to financially sustain themselves.
Lost Jobs
According to Reimagining the Economy in 2023, over one million people worked in fossil fuel production. Not all of these people automatically have skills that easily transfer into clean energy, and some of those jobs are trades that have not required college degrees.
As of 2022, the oil industry was made up of 71% male employees. 73% of employees were white, with no large racial differences from the overall workforce average. Globally, fossil fuels made up about 32 million jobs in the same year.
The coal industry decreased by about 7,000 employees in 2022. Natural gas increased by 7,000, and oil by 279.
In the U.S., decreasing fossil fuel production is expected to displace close to 2 million workers by 2050.
Additionally, most fossil fuel jobs are centered away from the coasts, in states like Texas, the Midwest, and near the Appalachian mountains.
New Jobs
From 2021 to 2022, clean energy jobs grew 3.9% to about 3.1 million jobs. By 2030, the clean energy transition is expected to have created 30 million new jobs. But that doesn’t mean that they’re available to workers leaving the fossil fuel industries.
Many fossil fuel jobs are not near the coasts, for one, while many solar and wind jobs are.
A study in 2023 found that geospatial distance is a primary barrier to transitioning fossil fuel workers to green jobs.
The International Energy Agency (IEA) claims that 14 million new jobs will be created in clean energy, and an additional 16 million fossil fuel workers will shift into clean energy jobs. However, the IEA also estimates that about 60% of clean energy jobs created by 2030 will require post-secondary training. The exact training will depend on the job, but overall, most people interested in the clean energy industry are advised to major in Chemistry, Biology, or Environmental Engineering. Contrastingly, the most sought after degrees in fossil fuel jobs are Petroleum Engineering and Mechanical Engineering. It will likely be very difficult for workers to switch their specializations in this way.
These new jobs will also have risks unless worker protection policies are enacted and upheld. Newer and quickly growing industries, such as solar, are less likely to have labour protections and unions. Around 17% of U.S. fossil fuel jobs have a union, which is relatively high compared to the average of 10% across industries. Clean energy jobs have about a 12.4% union rate, surpassing the general average but still below fossil fuels. In other words, if workers are qualified for clean energy jobs, there is yet another reason for them to resist investing their work in clean energy. Meanwhile, those who do still switch to a clean energy job might see far fewer benefits from their employment.
Moving Forward
With a changing labour force and new growing industries, it is important to realize who will be disadvantaged by switching from the fossil-fuel reliant economy that has been built. Decreasing non-renewable energy production means fewer jobs on which people have been building their livelihoods.
The IEA believes that many of these fossil fuel jobs require skills that translate well to clean energy. With the growth in clean energy jobs expected to outnumber the loss in fossil fuel jobs, the concern then is making sure fossil fuel workers have the resources to make that switch. What are workers expected to do if they can’t physically reach those jobs?
Morgan Frank from the University of Pittsburgh has proposed one possible solution. The areas of machinery, infrastructure, and working with tools are ones that many fossil fuel jobs prepare you for. Workers might want to focus on searching for such jobs, not only within the industries of clean energy.
There is no way to perfectly ensure that every person finds the job they need in the energy-shifting economy. We still have a responsibility to facilitate this transition as much as possible, because shifting to clean energy is about what we owe to the earth and to each other. That includes clean air, parks, and fresh water, but also the ability to afford food, shelter, and amenities since everything is increasingly expensive.
A summary of the stances spoken by Kamala Harris during the presidential debate on September 10, 2024.
Reinstating protections of Roe v. Wade
Continue addressing, as she refers to it, transnational organizations trafficking fentanyl and weapons
She does not refer to individuals, but to organizations during this portion
Not banning fracking
In fact, she mentions that the Inflation Reduction Act provided new leases for oil drilling
Investing in diverse energy sources
Decreasing dependence on foreign oil
Support starting up small businesses through tax deductions
Increase the child tax cut ($6,000 for the first year after birth)
Increase homes by 3 million by the end of her first term
Downpayment assistance for first-time home-buyers ($25,000 tax credit)
Protect social security and medicare
Protect seniors from scams
Needing a ceasefire deal for Palestine-Israel
Two state solution
Security in equal measure for both sides
Ensuring the U.S. has the most lethal fighting force in the world
A break from extraneous language, stating plain policy intentions. As stated in her closing statement, Harris is a candidate with the future in mind, seeking, generally, to help U.S. citizens. She unfortunately invokes politically ‘moderate’ stances such as her statements about Israel and military support, which should both be worded better. However, we can understand this within the context of a political system that would never permit someone rising to power while acknowledging the deep wrongs of the military and Israel. Overall, Harris is a far healthier candidate for the United States based on the principles claimed in this debate.
In 2017, the documentary Chasing Coral was released on Netflix, a follow up to 2012 documentary Chasing Ice.
The documentary chronicles the journey of a diving team, made up of scientists and photographers, to capture the state of coral reefs around the world. In many cases such as in Lizard Island and New Caledonia on the Great Barrier Reef, they captured major bleaching events that had been leaving the world with fewer of these essential habitats.
Importance of Coral Reefs
A coral reef itself is a network of individual organisms - polyps - connected by calcium carbonate to form the firm, stony ‘skeleton’. But coral reefs are far more than just the individual coral organisms that form the foundation. They are entire ecosystems of millions of marine species. They are considered some of the most diverse ecosystems in the world.
About 25% of ocean species depend on coral reefs for habitat, food, and reproduction. Clownfish, for example, depend on the protection of sea anemones that grow on hard surfaces of coral. In return, the anemones gain food and maintenance from their fish inhabitants.
Many crustaceans also inhabit coral reefs. The Coral Crab (the Trapeziidae family) even specifically adapted to a life within the nooks and crannies of coral. They feed on excretions from the coral while cleaning it of harmful debris and sediment.
Additionally, coral reefs provide income and jobs for local communities. Fishing, diving, and snorkeling at reefs make up billions of dollars in economic benefits in Mesoamerica alone. Economists also predict that maintaining the health of reefs will produce billions of dollars in return on investment.
Current State of Coral Reefs
The sheer number of organisms that depend on coral reefs mean that changes to them have devastating impacts.
At the time of the Chasing Coral filming, coral reefs were going through the 2014-2017 Global Coral Bleaching Event. Increasing temperatures caused heat stress in ocean ecosystems, leading to the most widespread deaths of coral reefs ever recorded. 65.7% of coral reef area around the world was affected by this event, and 14% of the world’s coral died between 2010 and 2018.
Another heat stress event is occurring in 2024. An increase of even 1°C sustained over several weeks can cause bleaching - a process where coral expel algae living in their tissue, which often means the death of the coral. Throughout the 20th century to 2023, ocean temperatures rose 0.14°F on average each decade, with the past three decades being the warmest in recorded history.
How to Recover Coral
The oceans have cooled before, and can cool again. First, we have to get to a point of not worsening the current global warming.
The Paris Agreement on climate change established the goal of keeping the global temperature increase to 1.5°C. This would improve conditions for coral reef survival. U.S. Presidential candidate Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement. In 2021, President Biden had the U.S. rejoin the Agreement, and Presidential candidate Kamala Harris would further keep commitments to that agreement.
How we can recover coral rests primarily in our voting. We are responsible for voting into office people who care about the environment and will commit to implementing policy that saves the earth.
IUCN.org also specifies the need to transfer into economic systems that enforce sustainable consumption and production. Such systems would facilitate the move to greenhouse gas emissions, slowing temperature increases.
Spreading awareness has a large impact, as well. Current economic thinking, according to IUCN.org, does not consider coral reefs as the asset they are, and doesn't acknowledge their many social, medicinal, and environmental benefits. We need to treat the world as the finite, invaluable resource that it is.
Like rainforests on land, coral reefs foster the highest biodiversity in the ocean. They foster a plethora of life that all contributes to the health of the planet, even harboring some medicinal resources, like compounds used in treating leukemia, ulcers, and cardiovascular diseases. Addressing global warming is imperative to reaching the future we want. We have to make sure we work towards green energy goals and keep the oceans and lands from becoming uninhabitable.
Storms in recent decades have escalated in frequency and severity, causing billions of dollars in damage and leaving people homeless and vulnerable. We can expect this trend to continue if we do not globally mitigate climate change.
This is an examination of Kamala Harris’ environmental policies.
Continuation, Doubling Down
We can expect many policies introduced during Biden’s presidency to continue during Harris’. For example, Biden re-committed the U.S.A. to the Paris Agreement, a treaty that binds nations together in efforts to keep the global temperature increase under 2°C. This entails vast decreases in greenhouse gas emissions, and thus turning to more energy efficient products as well as clean energy alternatives.
In 2022, Biden’s administration passed the Inflation Reduction Act. This climate bill, among the biggest in history, provided billions of dollars to pull us away from the fossil fuel-dependant economy.
In addition to perpetuating these policies, Kamala Harris will be able to push further towards clean energy.
During her campaign, Harris has brought up the environmental justice unit she created to hold polluters accountable, implying that she would continue to enforce ramifications for pollution-heavy companies.
In 2023, Harris announced the work she had been doing with EPA administrator Michael Regan. In this speech, she acknowledged the need to invest in communities to help those who don’t have the means themselves to move towards clean energy. She also acknowledged that we need to make up for lost time in these initiatives, sticking to the intent to meet the nation’s goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
Intersectionality
Harris has specifically acknowledged the fact that climate change disproportionately affects certain communities, such as lower-income and communities of color. She stated her intention to make sure pollution effects are addressed with attention to equity and equality. Her work with the EPA administrator was an example of putting these ideas into action, by funding communities who need help.
Before and throughout Biden’s presidency, Kamala Harris has spoken about and followed through with efforts to address current environmental crises. She has pushed to hold companies accountable for their pollution and advocated for policies that reduce the U.S.A.’s emissions and increase renewable energy.
Despite these previous statements, climate change has not been a popular focus of Harris’ 2024 campaign. The Washington Post believes that this is an effort to alienate as few voters as possible while focusing on other major issues. Specifically, Pennsylvania as a swing state depends strongly on a natural gas economy, and domestic oil production has decreased gas prices. Discussing any certain intentions of affecting those areas might discourage undecided voters.
We can see in these tactics and in Harris’ pull back from a full-on fracking ban that she does listen to the public. She pays attention to these concerns and is able to adapt in order to do what seems best for the nation. While many, including myself, do not completely agree with all of her policies, she is a candidate who will make a difference in the environmental sector.
In 1960, Jane Goodall started studying Chimpanzees in Tanzania.
The study of Chimps at the time was key to the study of early human behaviour, and Goodall’s findings spurned years of continued research. Understanding humans’ closest relatives has greatly expanded our understanding of ourselves.
Goodall documented that Chimpanzees are omnivorous - until then thought to be herbivores. She also observed their use of tools, which completely threw off existing beliefs of humanity - that other animals were incapable of complex thinking in that way. This discovery received extensive scrutiny due to its challenging of existing beliefs as well as the gender of its founder.
Jane Goodall followed Chimpanzees day by day, observing their behaviours and documenting their bonds, personalities, and interpersonal relationships. She found evidence of mourning and empathy through behaviours such as comforting each other.
She also observed what could be called ‘warfare’ between a group of Kasakela Chimpanzees that had splintered into two.
Warfare
The concept that our primate relatives engage in warfare introduces a plethora of questions to existing dogma. For much of human history, especially in nations following the Abrahamic religions, non-human animals were generally considered machines, with no soul or free will, too dumb to use tools and unable to have their own unique experiences. Tool use on its own indicates more complex thinking than that. Warfare additionally implies levels of forethought and premeditation. It challenges concepts that people in 2024 are still grappling with.
Many modern theists and pessimists consider warfare unique to humans, and believe that it emerges from uniquely human creations such as morals, religion, and revenge.
But for those keeping up with science, we know that this is incorrect.
Many primates live in groups, and intergroup aggression is common in most group-living species. Understanding the intention behind aggression is complicated, and it often comes from more than one factor. Many factors are indeed the “basic” reasons: food resources, access to reproduction, and defending oneself. But close observation indicates that aggression goes beyond these.
The concept of revenge, as a motivator of aggression, is difficult to prove in empirical evidence. The best we can do in most cases is analyze the surrounding evidence, which we have.
Field researchers report that chimpanzees exhibit reconciliation behaviours. This is observed when two opponents from a recent confrontation, minutes after the fact, approach each other, try to establish eye contact, and have a physical reunion if both respond positively.
On the other side of this, we see reciprocity in chimpanzees regarding intervention in other fights. Not only do chimps intervene on another’s behalf, but that individual is then likely to ‘return the favour’ in the future. This implies a concept of revenge and allyship, complex relationship dynamics that indicate levels of foresight.
In biology, we also see challenges to the idea that religion is unique to humans.
Religion
We can see in chimpanzees and other animals, such as crows and elephants, potential understanding of the concept of death. These animals engage in certain behaviours when a member of the group dies, including vocalizations, covering the body, and a type of vigil - staying with the body for a length of time with suspended vocal activity. Similar patterns are observed around birth for chimpanzees, as well, and around unique weather patterns like rain or fire.
The restrictions in direct communication with chimpanzees makes it difficult to know if they understand life and death, or have any abstract beliefs of why they exist. However, we can observe what can be considered rituals, where animals act exceptionally around certain events. These behaviours can reasonably indicate that they might have ‘religion’, though James Harrod, the author of this study, clarifies that religion requires a methodical definition in order to study it. The prototype definition that Harrod proposes is one lens through which to study the behaviours of chimpanzees.
From the first discoveries of Jane Goodall that toppled years of anthropological beliefs, studying chimpanzees has led to a variety of new questions and concepts still revolving around the question, What does it mean to be human?
Societally, many people have varying definitions and hypotheses about the purpose or meaning of life. Many of us live in societies that exist as they are solely because of what our ancestors believed that meaning to be, specifically in how we relate to other humans and other animals. In finding out more about the truth - what empirically we can understand about the world - we find out that many of those beliefs are wrong.
Science is difficult because it is not absolute, in many ways. It is continually redefining and rediscovering. But that is another adventure of life - being able to redefine ourselves as humans, as individuals, as animals- as we learn more.
The idea of a Republican winning the United States 2024 presidential election is disastrous for many people. It would result in the loss of human rights, increased violence in many states, and even more deaths from worse public health conditions.
It would also be deadly because of its expected effects on the environment
Both during and in the wake of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential term, we saw numerous violations of policies, demagogy, and loosened regulations. This was even before three Supreme Court Justice seats were filled by him.
Now, the Republican party also has a firmer guideline for their governmental plans called Project 2025. It plainly explains their intentions and how they wish to achieve them. These include measures to end many policies and rules regarding environmental responsibility.
With this solidified roadmap, popular opinion is that these changes will happen much faster and more forcefully if Trump wins again.
The EPA
The Environmental Protection Agency is the federal agency concerned with environmental policies. When violations of things like the Clean Air Act occur, the EPA works out the relevant charges and settlements, providing penalties to companies that harm the environment.
The actions of the EPA go far in protecting both the environment and human health. They measure greenhouse gases, work with industries to reduce those emissions, monitor water quality, and much more.
Project 2025 discusses reducing the EPA’s control in these areas. This includes repealing the AIM Act of 2020, which works to reduce HFC use and facilitate the transition to alternatives that are not greenhouse gases and not harmful to human health.
Another targeted policy is the Inflation Reduction Act. Specifically, Project 2025 calls for undoing the grants from this Act given towards the development of zero-emission vehicles. The US Department of the Treasury has stated that the Inflation Reduction Act is the largest investment in reducing carbon emissions in US history.
Plans for the Climate
In addition to affecting the EPA, a Republican presidency would repeal many other important policies.
For example, in addition to HFCs, it would reduce regulations on PFAS, another group of pollutants that cause a wealth of health issues including liver damage, cancers, and birth defects. PFAS can take over 1000 years to begin to break down, and build up in water, food, and many other everyday amenities.
Energy-efficient lightbulbs, household appliances, and showerheads are ways that individuals have been able to make a difference environmentally. They have specific requirements they have to meet in order to be advertised appropriately. Those requirements are also a target of Project 2025.
Many authors of Project 2025 also benefit from the oil industry. In addition to ending clean energy programs and offices, they intend to increase drilling for oil and gas in the US.
Overall, environmentalism is an enemy to the Republican party. They claim that many environmental acts and policies have been misused for political motives by the Left. Regulatory barriers such as the Endangered Species Act would be lowered. Even the most basic policy that took years of fighting to enact, the US Global Change Research Program, responsible for the National Climate Assessment, would be eliminated.
We would see a complete overhaul of current conduct, with many EPA departments being downsized or dismantled. Oil and gas production would increase drastically, and toxic chemicals would become far more abundant than they already are.
These actions are dangerous. Toxic chemicals are banned for a reason. Emission regulations exist for a reason. This plan is constructed by people who don’t believe that climate change or historic damage to the ozone layer are real. They do not understand how the environment works or do not care because profit and power are more important to them than a healthy, long-lasting future for the world.
The Republican party wants to continue -and worsen- our reliance on fossil fuels, claiming that this will make the US more energy independent. It will actually make us far more dependent because of its finite amounts and the damage it does to the environment.
The long-term efforts of the Republican party to build a biased government have created an extremely tenuous situation. The election in 2024 will be catastrophic to the future of this country if Republicans win. If they don’t, it still doesn’t mean the fight is over. The Democratic party also has a lot of work to do and needs a lot of change. Most importantly, we need to maintain momentum for electing officials who will champion the rights of people. If Republicans lose this election, their plans will simply move forward to be tried at the next opportunity. This is a continual fight for a reliable future.
Kamala Harris is now the Democratic nominee for the 2024 election. Part of her campaign has included leaning into some moderate policies, such as less opposition to fracking and her recent statements about the border.
Harris has stated that she will be harder about the border than Donald Trump, the Republican opponent. At a rally in Georgia, she said she “will bring back the border security bill that Donald Trump killed”.
That Border Bill
Considered bipartisan, the bill Harris referred to was negotiated by Republicans with Democrats, then killed by Republicans after Trump urged them to do so.
By popular account, Trump wanted the bill to tank in order to force reliance on him to handle the ‘crisis’. If he can keep action from happening during the Biden-Harris term, voters might feel forced to vote for him if immigration is one of their concerns.
The proposed bill would provide significant additional funds for surveillance at the U.S.-Mexico border. It aims to increase search and seizure activity from Border Agents. That in itself is violating to individuals, as no warrant or probable cause is necessary for those searches. This allows agents far too much free reign to act as they please towards people regardless of their ‘potential danger’. Numerous videos online document the abuse people face from this.
The bill also calls for expanding the ability to detain people at the border, including funds for expanding custodial detention capacity. Following Trump’s 2016 election, we saw hordes of news about families separated, along with children and parents kept in cages, malnourished, and treated horribly. At least 37,000 people are currently in detention by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). At least 59.5% of those people have no criminal record.
The bill that Harris is announcing support for would worsen border conditions and facilitate Border Agents in keeping even more people wrongfully imprisoned.
Is there any good reason she’s doing this? Is there reason to worry about the border? What does it mean about her if there isn’t?
Immigration and Crime
No, simply. There is no strong evidence that immigration directly causes more crime.
A big concern in this area is drug trafficking. The Department of Homeland Security itself states that most fentanyl stopped at the border is being moved by U.S. citizens.
Additionally, Trump frequently refers to an “immigrant crime wave”. Statistics from places like New York disagree with that concept. While the immigrant population has increased in the city since 2022, the crime rate has overall remained steady, and even decreased for certain violent crimes like rape, murder, and shootings.
Another study found that, in the past 150 years, immigrants have been less likely to be incarcerated than U.S.-born citizens - 60% less, currently.
Evidence does not support the necessity of stricter border policies - especially ones that will only increase abuse towards those seeking asylum and do nothing to facilitate people becoming documented and successful working citizens.
As stated, Trump caused the bill to fail allegedly because it would force voters to vote for him if they want stricter border policies. Harris supporting such a bill completely weakens that attempt from Trump, making her a viable option for people concerned about immigration.
Again, as discussed, people do not need to be concerned about the border, but too many people still are. Considering the minds of voters, this switch from Harris to a non-progressive stance could be advantageous for her campaign.
(Of course, this is then hoping that she will not follow through, because such a law is unnecessary and harmful to people)
The French 2024 election saw an amazing turnout from voters who ended up keeping the far-right out of the majority in the National Assembly.
This is not a landslide victory, but it does prove promising for the future if we can maintain this success.
French Parties
France has three main parties, here referred to as the ‘left’, ‘centrist’, and ‘right’ for convenience.
The left is primarily the New Popular Front (NFP). Their goals include limiting inflation on staple food items, increasing the minimum wage, and increasing public sector salaries and welfare benefits. They also aim to end the 2023 French pension reform law, which raised the retirement age to 64 and required someone to have worked at least 43 years.
The center, or Les Centristes, is that which President Emmanuel Macron considers himself part of. Their goal is finding a compromise between socialism and capitalism, supporting a competitive economy as well as social welfare, and developing public transit and cleaner energy. Macron has praised the pursuit of decarbonized energy and vied for incentive policies supporting electric energy. He is harshly criticized for economic-related policies, such as heavy tax breaks for the richest citizens, the pension reform law, and putting his personal success above the French people.
The right are called the National Rally or, until 2018, the National Front. It is the most strongly xenophobic, and its goals include vilifying the European Union, increasing control and regulation of immigration, and feigning support for queer people while opposing same-sex marriage.
Election Results
The election saw the left win 182 seats in the National Assembly, while centrists won 163 and the right won 143, with smaller political factions making up the remainder. An absolute majority would be at 289 seats, so in the years to come we will likely see a lot of contention around the proposals, debating, and passing of laws.
This does mean the next Prime Minister will likely be elected -by Macron- from the politically left. This will be difficult, as many of Macron’s affiliates view leaders from the left as too extreme.
Popular veteran of left-wing politics, Jean-Luc Mélanchon, is an unlikely candidate due to how divisive he has been considered, despite coming in third in the 2022 presidential election. Marine Tondelier is another possible candidate, and currently the National Secretary of the Green Party. There is also François Ruffin, particularly known for disagreeing with Mélanchon based on views of what democracy should be. These are only a few of the people Macron has to consider to eventually fill the position.
Another important change is illuminated by the events surrounding the Pension Reform Bill. When Macron pushed it through, two no-confidence motions came from the National Assembly. If either had passed, Macron would have been forced to make major changes to the government, such as completely replacing his government appointments. While neither passed, one was only nine votes from the majority. With even more seats held by those who don’t align with Macron, we can expect potential future motions like this to be more successful.
In other sectors, we might see large change with the left now rising in numbers in the National Assembly. Before the election, an interview with Sarah Legrain from the NPF indicated a belief in the National Assembly’s responsibility towards arts and culture. This responsibility includes not only improving access to the arts, but working towards an economy in which arts and culture can thrive.
Will conditions improve for people in France due to this election? With how recent it is, we can’t be sure. The fallout of this hectic decision from Macron to hold the reelection is yet to be fully realized. However, we can see specific examples of how the left might focus their attention in places like the economy, culture, and welfare.
Macron’s second and final term will end in 2027. With the hopeful turnout of this election, we can hope that French voters remain united and able to push their country further towards progress when the next election comes.
What Can This Mean for US elections?
Key information we can take from this is in the example of the French politicians. Between the first and second round of voting, more than 200 left-leaning candidates withdrew to avoid risking a split vote.
Similarly, many voters in the U.S. are having to deal with the dilemma of voting for the “least bad” options over voting for the “best” option. Third-party candidates, as discussed before on this page, are extremely unlikely to win a primary presidential election. Their popularity is in a middle ground because they are known enough to raise hopes of big changes, but not enough to stand against the two disproportionately powerful U.S. parties.
While Joe Biden announced the cancellation of his 2024 Presidential campaign on July 21st, we do not yet know who his replacement will be.
Harris as President
Most social media and news points to Kamala Harris, currently serving as Biden’s vice president. Though not confirmed, she is who Biden endorsed as replacement, and there is much to gain from the Democratic party choosing her.
She is younger, first of all, which is a major criticism voters have of Biden (and Trump). She now has experience as vice president in the White House, and she was of course on the primary ticket as Biden’s running mate, who won in every state primary.
Her policies are also stronger than his. On many key issues, Harris’s past remarks indicate stronger beliefs than Biden’s.
For example, Biden has spoken about reinstating Roe v. Wade to protect abortion access, a policy that still allowed states to instill restrictions on clinics and physicians. Harris instead proposed in 2019 federal protections that go further than Roe v. Wade in allowing the Department of Justice to protect abortion access.
Economically, Harris could be more active in protecting workers. While Biden said he would renegotiate the Trans-Pacific Partnership during his presidency -a trade deal that US labor and environmental groups protested- he failed to actually do so. Meanwhile Harris voted against one of Trump’s laws specifically because it didn’t do enough to protect US jobs and the environment.
In areas like animal welfare, data privacy, and artificial intelligence regulations, they have also had similar outlooks.
In many areas, Biden and Harris agree on policies and viewpoints; however, Harris has been more active and demonstrative in some areas. Biden was able to do a lot in his presidency considering the imbalanced representation of Republicans in the government. If Harris wins this election, we can expect to see even more impactful change, especially with the expectation that she would nominate the next two Supreme Court replacements.
Who could be her VP?
With Harris expected to be the Democratic nominee, there are a few she might pick as her running mate.
One is Pete Buttigieg, the U.S. Secretary of Transportation. He ran in the 2020 primaries, and as Secretary has focused on decreasing the container congestion problem at U.S. ports, as well as a national roadway safety strategy to reduce deaths and injuries.
Another option is Andy Beshear, current Governor of Kentucky. He has helped create 50,000 full-time jobs and greatly improved the state by landing the largest electric vehicle battery plants in the world. He wants to protect public education, healthcare, abortion rights, and pensions.
Roy Cooper is the last I will bring up. He is older than the other candidates, but might bring more political crossover to the ticket, as he has in North Carolina. He has defended abortion rights, worked to expand Medicaid, and fought for better public education.
All of these candidates run on similar viewpoints that can be expected for the Democratic party, and have accomplished records that demonstrate their active roles in improving the country.
With Harris likely to take over the Democratic Presidential nomination, there are a few likely candidates for her running mate. Overall, we can expect and hope for this change in the race to benefit the Democratic party. Though it does throw off original plans, a younger candidate who inspires less doubt in voters is a large improvement for progressive efforts.
