 |
|
|
|||||
The climate crisis is worsening. Last year was the warmest on record, global sea ice levels are at a record low, and the economic toll of extreme natural disasters continues to mount. Just this week, the World Meteorological Organization said the global average temperature is likely to rise nearly 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels within the next five years, with growing negative impact on our economies, our daily lives, our ecosystems and our planet. Experts are adamant that the only way to slow the warming is to stop burning the fossil fuels that create the greenhouse effect. And yet, in 2024, emissions reached a new high. As the WMOs Secretary-General Celeste Saulo put it: We are heading in the wrong direction. And as the temperature rises, so does the chance that Earths natural systems will cross thresholds that trigger irreversible and cascading destruction. The encroaching threat of these tipping points is why the British governments Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) is pouring 57 million ($76 million) into studying climate cooling approaches. Thats a fancy way of referring to climate geoengineering, or intentionally tinkering with the Earths weather systems in an attempt to cool things down. More specifically, ARIA is examining whether we might be able to reflect some sunlight away from the surface of the Earth and back into space. With this investment, the UK government becomes the top funder of solar geoengineering research in the world. But whats really raising eyebrows is the news that some of ARIA’s experiments could take place outside, in the real world, and with a governments seal of approval. Could this be a step toward legitimizing what has, up until now, been seen as a climate hack of last resort? Geoengineering has long been a somewhat taboo topic in the larger conversation about climate change. Many scientists worry it could have unintended and irreversible consequences, possibly doing more harm than good. For example, modelling from a recent study published in the journal Nature Climate Change suggested that so-called marine cloud brightening off the U.S. West Coast would indeed help lower temperatures locally, but could inadvertently trigger more intense heat waves in Europe. At the same time, environmentalists fear geoengineering would give a free pass to polluters to carry on with business as usual. ARIA acknowledges these anxieties, and gives concession to the net-zero purists. Decarbonization is the only sustainable way to reduce global temperatures, says ARIA program director Mark Symes. But ARIA also says that the dearth of real and relevant physical data from outdoor [geoengineering] experiments is itself dangerous given the direction were headed. What might be the risks of hurried deployment of under-researched climate engineering approaches where we have little understanding of the consequences? the group asks. In other words, if things get so bad that we have to use these tools, wed better know what were doing. As things stand, if we were to face a climate tipping point in the near future, we currently lack the basic knowledge needed to understand what our options are, Symes says. ARIA aims to fill the existing knowledge gaps and answer fundamental questions about whether solar geoengineering is practical, measurable, and controllable. ARIA aims to fill the existing knowledge gaps and answer fundamental questions about whether solar geoengineering is practical, measurable, safe, controllable, or even whether [it] should be ruled out entirely, Symes says. It will fund 21 projects over the next five years, four of which are controlled, small-scale outdoor experiments focusing on solar geoengineering methods including: spraying seawater into the air to brighten clouds over the Great Barrier Reef in Australia, and in the UK; using an electric charge to brighten clouds in the UK; and using weather balloons to expose small amounts (as in milligrams) of mineral dust to the stratosphere to understand whether this method could be used to reflect sunlight (the balloon launch locations have yet to be determined but are likely to be in the U.S. or the UK). A fifth outdoor experiment will focus on trying to re-thicken Arctic sea ice in Canada (which, if successful, could also have the knock-on effect of reflecting more sunlight back into space). The soonest any of these outdoor projects would begin is early 2026. The other 16 projects will examine the ethics of geoengineering, how it might be responsibly governed, as well as computer modeling and simulating climate cooling in the lab. ARIAs broad program of research will help advance our fundamental understanding of solar geoengineering and help to ensure that policymakers have the information they need to make informed decisions about these ideas in future, said Dr. Pete Irvine, a research assistant professor at the University of Chicago who studies solar geoengineering, and the co-founder of SRM360, a nonprofit focused on fostering discussions around solar reflection methods. Previous attempts to conduct outdoor geoengineering tests have been short-lived and quickly condemned. At least eight U.S. states have passed or are considering legislation to ban the practice, and the Environmental Protection Agency is investigating a geoengineering startup called Make Sunsets, accusing it of polluting the air (nevermind the EPAs loosening of pollution restrictions for, say, coal-fired power plants). On an international scale, many nations have signed onto a de facto large-scale geoengineering moratorium. The U.S. has also been building an alert system that would be able to detect if other nations are using solar geoengineering.&bsp; None of this has stopped scientists and private companies from dabbling. If anything, the stigma around geoengineering has pushed projects to become more rogue and secretive. Just last year, a study on cloud brightening techniques in Alameda, California, was forced to shut down in part because local officials only learned about the research from an article in The New York Times. The ARIA program is hoping to avoid a similar fate by engaging with local communities at the outset of a project, and keeping lines of communication open as work progresses. ARIA sees consultation and engagement with the public as processes that will be sustained for the lifetime of projects, Symes wrote recently. A key aim is to earn and maintain trust in the research that is being undertaken. The group will conduct environmental assessments, and be transparent about any known risks, as well as test results. The program is also overseen by an independent oversight committee. ARIA says it has no intention of actually deploying or scaling any of the solutions it wants to test. That may be a comfort to some, but it could also be seen to undermine the value and legitimacy of the research. “These technologies will always remain speculative, and unproven in the real world, until they are deployed at scale, said Mike Hulme, a professor of human geography at the University of Cambridge. Just because they work in a model, or at a micro-scale in the lab or the sky, does not mean they will cool the climate safely, without unwanted side-effects, in the real world. There is therefore no way that this research can demonstrate that the technologies are safe, successful, or reversible. Theres no real guarantee these experiments will go ahead. According to ARIA documents, the tests will be required to start indoors, and can only move out of the lab if questions still remain unanswered and researchers are certain that any effects would last no longer than 24 hours. And ARIA might pull the plug on a project that fails to meet certain research milestones. Our current trajectory suggests that warming is happening at an alarming rate, Symes says. Our goal is to build knowledge and help shape global standards for how this science is conducted responsibly.
Category:
E-Commerce
As President Donald Trumps tariff policies and the global trade war began to dominate headlines, early attention focused on the impact on consumers, investors, and major companies like Apple and Ford. Since then, the spotlight has also turned to Main Street, where small and midsize businessesincluding manufacturers and industrial suppliersare increasingly feeling the strain. Analyses from the Institute for Supply Management and other industry sources confirm that costly fractures are now spreading across Americas supply chains, threatening the nations manufacturing revival. Small and midsize businessesresponsible for half of U.S. industrial production and three-quarters of the jobs in supply chain industriesare bearing the brunt of rising costs and ongoing economic uncertainty. These firms are central to Americas industrial future, yet little has been done to help them adapt, let alone boom, as President Trump promised during his campaign.As an example, in March The Wall Street Journal featured Tormach, a small Wisconsin-based machine-tool manufacturer, in a story on tariffs. In 2024, the firm relocated production to Mexico after learning about then-President-elect Trumps planned tariffs on Chinese goods, only later to be hit by tariffs targeting Mexico. “We can’t just move factories overnight,” said CEO Daniel Rogge, reflecting the reality for many smaller manufacturers: Sweeping policy changes impose added costs and uncertainty they are not equipped to absorb. Mounting pressure This dynamic is playing out across the country, even if its effects are mixed (some types of firms can benefit). As tariffs upend global supply chains, small manufacturers in the U.S. are under mounting pressurenow with fears of recession, business failure, and job lossesjust as their contributions are becoming more critical. Significant tariff increases and renegotiated trade deals are part of the Trump administrations announced strategy to expand a “production economy” in America. But without greater predictability and solutions to help our suppliers adapt, the new protectionism threatens to derail a manufacturing revival already underwayone driven by geopolitics and catalytic national investments. Since 2021, the federal government has earmarked trillions of dollars to upgrade U.S. infrastructure, revitalize domestic manufacturing, and strengthen supply chains. These public investments underpin a modern industrial policy projected, by J.P. Morgan Private Bank in 2023, to catalyze $1 trillion in private investment over the next decade and encourage global companies to reshore operations. Small and midsize businesses are at the heart of this reindustrialization, as demand surges for the critical goods and services they supply. A strategic tool As trade policy experts and economic analysts have noted in recent months, tariffs can be a strategic tool when used selectively alongside other industrial policiessheltering local firms, or at least buying them time to become more competitive, by making imported products from foreign competitors more expensive. Former President Joe Bidens targeted tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and solar technology, for instance, were designed to align with public investment and regulation in his administrations clean energy agenda. However, blanket tariffs against established trading partners challenge U.S. businesses in established global supplier networks, a central feature of integrated trade and distributed production. Manufacturers relying on cross-border supply chains report rising input prices and declining orders, which compound as components enter and leave U.S.-based factories. Further, the Trump administrations approach has fueled widespread confusion, driving record-high small business uncertainty and declining optimism and investment, according to surveys by the National Federation of Independent Business. High stakes For small and midsize manufacturers in the U.S., the stakes are existential. One important reason is that these firms continue to face structural barriers that stifle their performance. Research from the McKinsey Global Institute shows that small businesses in U.S. manufacturing are less productive than their larger peers and international counterparts, thanks to challenges in accessing financing, skilled labor, technologies, and new markets. Tariffs, without adaptive support, threaten to deepen this divide. Historically, the U.S. has responded to disruptive trade transitions with adjustment programs designed to support domestic firms and workers. In particular, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms (TAAF) was created in 1962 to help companies adapt to rising imports and global competition. But this program and others like it have proven too limited in scope and largely out of step with modern economic demands. Moreover, the Trump administrations move to cut, and then restore, funding for proven small manufacturer programs, such as the Manufacturing Extension Partnership led by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, along with court-contested funding freezes on infrastructure and other federal investments, further complicates efforts to rebuild Americas industrial base. A Marshall Plan As the Trump administration advances a sweeping protectionist agenda and other nations and trading blocs respond, the United States needs a modern trade adjustment strategy that matches the scale of our reindustrialization and the realities of shifting geopolitics. Following the November election, we called for a Marshall Plan for Small Businessa strategic framework designed to build the base of small and midsized firms and talent needed to drive Americas new industrial economy. The plan has three mutually reinforcing pillars, each validated by working examples in diverse regions of the country: 1) equip small businesses with the tools, services, and advisory support to navigate shifting markets, adopt modern technologies, and scale operations; 2) launch a small-business-centered workforce development model capable of training and mobilizing skilled workers across high-demand occupations; and 3) expand access to flexible financing tailored to the unique needs of small businesses and especially suppliers, supporting investments in research and development, equipment, workforce, and strategic growth opportunities such as mergers and acquisitions. Since his first term, President Trump has promised a manufacturing revival. Delivering on that demands a forward-looking agenda that gives small and midsize manufacturers and their workersthe backbone of Americas productive capacitythe tools, talent, and capital they need to survive and grow. This was important unfinished business before the U.S. launched a trade war. Now its an imperative.
Category:
E-Commerce
LUBBOCK Every winter, after the sea of cotton has been harvested in the South Plains and the ground looks barren, technicians with the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District check the water levels in nearly 75,000 wells across 16 counties. For years, their measurements have shown what farmers and water conservationists fear mostthe Ogallala Aquifer, an underground water source thats the lifeblood of the South Plains agriculture industry, is running dry. Thats because of a century-old law called the rule of capture. The rule is simple: If you own the land above an aquifer in Texas, the water underneath is yours. You can use as much as you want, as long as its not wasted or taken maliciously. The same applies to your neighbor. If they happen to use more water than you, then thats just bad luck. To put it another way, landowners can mostly pump as much water as they choose without facing liability to surrounding landowners whose wells might be depleted as a result. Following the Dust Bowland to stave off catastrophestate lawmakers created groundwater conservation districts in 1949 to protect what water is left. But their power to restrict landowners is limited. The mission is to save as much water possible for as long as possible, with as little impact on private property rights as possible, said Jason Coleman, manager for the High Plains Underground Water Conservation District. How do you do that? Its a difficult task. A 1953 map of the wells in Lubbock County hangs in the office of the groundwater district. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] Rapid population growth, climate change, and aging water infrastructure all threaten the states water supply. Texas does not have enough water to meet demand if the state is stricken with a historic drought, according to the Texas Water Development Board, the state agency that manages Texas water supply. Lawmakers want to invest in every corner to save the states water. This week, they reached a historic $20 billion deal on water projects. High Plains Underground Water District General Manager Jason Coleman stands in the districts meeting room on May 21 in Lubbock. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] But no one wants to touch the rule of capture. In a state known for rugged individualism, politically speaking, reforming the law is tantamount to stripping away freedoms. There probably are opportunities to vest groundwater districts with additional authority, said Amy Hardberger, director for the Texas Tech University Center for Water Law and Policy. I dont think the political climate is going to do that. State Sen. Charles Perry, a Lubbock Republican, and Rep. Cody Harris, a Palestine Republican, led the effort on water in Austin this year. Neither responded to requests for comment. Carlos Rubinstein, a water expert with consulting firm RSAH2O and a former chairman of the water development board, said the rule has been relied upon so long that it would be near impossible to undo the law. I think its better to spend time working within the rules, Rubinstein said. And respect the rule of capture, yet also recognize that, in and of itself, it causes problems. Even though groundwater districts were created to regulate groundwater, the law effectively stops them from doing so, or they risk major lawsuits. The state water plan, which spells out how the states water is to be used, acknowledges the shortfall. Groundwater availability is expected to decline by 25% by 2070, mostly due to reduced supply in the Ogallala and Edwards-Trinity aquifers. Together, the aquifers stretch across West Texas and up through the Panhandle. By itself, the Ogallala has an estimated three trillion gallons of water. Though the overwhelming majority in Texas is used by farmers. Its expected to face a 50% decline by 2070. Groundwater is 54% of the states total water supply and is the states most vulnerable natural resource. Its created by rainfall and other precipitation, and seeps into the ground. Like surface water, groundwater is heavily affected by ongoing droughts and prolonged heat waves. However, the state has more say in regulating surface water than it does groundwater. Surface water laws have provisions that cut supply to newer users in a drought and prohibit transferring surface water outside of basins. Historically, groundwater has been used by agriculture in the High Plains. However, as surface water evaporates at a quicker clip, cities and businesses are increasingly interested in tapping the underground resource. As Texas population continues to grow and surface water declines, groundwater will be the prize in future fights for water. In many ways, the damage is done in the High Plains, a region that spans from the top of the Panhandle down past Lubbock. The Ogallala Aquifer runs beneath the region, and its faced depletion to the point of no return, according to experts. Simply put: The Ogallala is not refilling to keep up with demand. Its a creeping disaster, said Robert Mace, executive director of the Meadows Center for Water and the Environment. It isnt like you wake up tomorrow and nobody can pump anymore. Its just happening slowly, every year. [Image: Yuriko Schumacher/The Texas Tribune] Groundwater districts and the law The High Plains Water District was the first groundwater district created in Texas. Over a protracted multi-year fight, the Legislature created these new local government bodies in 1949, with voter approval, enshrining the new stewards of groundwater into the state Constitution. If the lawmakers hoped to embolden local officials to manage the troves of water under the soil, they failed. There are areas with groundwater that dont have conservation districts. Each groundwater districts has different powers. In practice, most water districts permit wells and make decisions on spacing and location to meet the needs of the property owner. The one thing all groundwater districts have in common: They stop short of telling landowners they cant pump water. In the seven decades since groundwater districts were created, a series of lawsuits have effectively strangled groundwater districts. Even as water levels decline from use and drought, districts still get regular requests for new wells. They wont say no out of fear of litigation. The field technician coverage area is seen in Nathaniel Bibbs office at the High Plains Underground Water District. Bibbs is a permit assistant for the district. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] You have a host of different decisions to make as it pertains to management of groundwater, Coleman said. That list has grown over the years. The possibility of lawsuits makes groundwater districts hesitant to regulate usage or put limitations on new well permits. Groundwater districts have to defend themselves in lawsuits, and most lack the resources to do so. A well spacing guide is seen in Nathaniel Bibbs office. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] The law works against us in that way, Hardberger, with Texas Tech University, said. It means one large tool in our toolbox, regulation, is limited. The most recent example is a lawsuit between the Braggs Farm and the Edwards Aquifer Authority. The farm requested permits for two pecan orchards in Medina County, outside San Antonio. The authority granted only one and limited how much water could be used based on state law. It wasnt an arbitrary decision. The authority said it followed the statute set by the Legislature to determine the permit. Thats all they were guaranteed, said Gregory Ellis, the first general manager of the authority, referring to the water available to the farm. The Braggs family filed a takings lawsuit against the authority. This kind of claim can be filed when any level of governmentincluding groundwater districtstakes private property for public use without paying for the owners losses. Braggs won. It is the only successful water-related takings claim in Texas, and it made groundwater laws murkier. It cost the authority $4.5 million. I think it should have been paid by the state Legislature, Ellis said. Theyre the ones who designed that permitting system. But that didnt happen. An appeals court upheld the ruling in 2013, and the Texas Supreme Court denied petitions to consider appeals. However, the states supreme court has previously suggested the Legislature could enhance the powers of the groundwater districts and regulate groundwater like surface water, just as many other states have done. While the laws are complicated, Ellis said the fundamental rule of capture has benefits. It has saved Texas legal system from a flurry of lawsuits between well owners. If they had said Yes, you can sue your neighbor for damaging your well, where does it stop? Ellis asked. Everybody sues everybody. Coleman, the High Plains districts manager, said some people want groundwater districts to have more power, while others think they have too much. Well owners want restrictions for others, but not on them, he said. Youre charged as a district with trying to apply things uniformly and fairly, Coleman said. Cant reverse the past Two tractors were dropping seeds around Walt Hagoods farm as he turned on his irrigation system for the first time this year. He didnt plan on using much water. Its too precious. The cotton farm stretches across 2,350 acres on the outskirts of Wolfforth, a town 12 miles southwest of Lubbock. Hagood irrigates about 80 acres of land, and prays that rain takes care of the rest. Walt Hagood drives across his farm on May 12, in Wolfforth. Hagood utilizes dry farming, a technique that relies on natural rainfall. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] We used to have a lot of irrigated land with adequate water to make a crop, Hagood said. We dont have that anymore. The High Plains is home to cotton and cattle, multi-billion-dollar agricultural industries. The success is in large part due to the Ogallala. Since its discovery, the aquifer has helped farms around the region spring up through irrigation, a way for farmers to water their crops instead of waiting for rain that may not come. But as water in the aquifer declines, there are growing concerns that there wont be enough water to support agriculture in the future. At the peak of irrigation development, more than 8.5 million acres were irrigated in Texas. About 65% of that was in the High Plains. In the decades since the irrigation boom, High Plains farmers have resorted to methods that might save water and keep their livelihoods afloat. Theyve changed their irrigation systems so water is used more efficiently. They grow cover crops so their soil is more likely to soak up rainwater. Some use apps to see where water is needed so its not wasted. A furrow irrigation is seen at Walt Hagoods cotton farm. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] Farmers who have not changed their irrigation systems might not have a choice in the near future. It can take a week to pump an inch of water in some areas from the aquifer because of how little water is left. As conditions change underground, they are forced to drill deeper for water. That causes additional problems. Calcium can build up, and the water is of poorer quality. And when the water is used to spray crops through a pivot irrigation system, it’s more of a humidifier as water quickly evaporates in the heat. According to the groundwater district’s most recent management plan, 2 million acres in the district use groundwater for irrigation. About 95% of water from the Ogallala is used for irrigated agriculture. The plan states that the irrigated farms afford economic stability to the area and support a number of other industries. The state water plan shows groundwater supply is expected to decline, and drought wont be the only factor causing a shortage. Demand for municipal use outweighs irrigation use, reflecting the states future growth. In Region O, which is the South Plains, water for irrigation declines by 2070 while demand for municipal use rises because of population growth in the region. Coleman, with the High Plains groundwater district, often thinks about how the aquifer will hold up with future growth. There are some factors at play with water planning that are nearly impossible to predict and account for, Coleman said. Declining surface water could make groundwater a source for municipalities that didnt depend on it before. Regions known for having big, open patches of land, like the High Plains, could be attractive to incoming businesses. People could move to the country and want to drill a well, with no understanding of water availability. The state will continue to grow, Coleman said, and all the incoming businesses and industries will undoubtedly need water. We could say Well, its no ones fault. We didnt know that factory would need 20,000 acre-feet of water a year, Coleman said. Its not happening right now, but whats around the corner? Coleman said this puts agriculture in a tenuous position. The region is full of small towns that depend on agriculture and have supporting businesses, like cotton gins, equipment and feed stores, and pesticide and fertilizer sprayers. This puts pressure on the High Plains water district, along with the two regional water planning groups in the region, to keep agriculture alive. Districts are not trying to reduce pumping down to a sustainable level, said Mace with the Meadows Foundation. And I dont fault them for that, because doing that is economic devastation in a region with farmers. Hagood, the cotton farmer, doesnt think reforming groundwater rights is the way to solve it. Whats done is done, he said. Our U.S. Constitution protects our private property rights, and thats what this is all about, Hagood said. Any time we have a regulation and people are given more authority, it doesnt work out right for everybody. Rapid population growth, climate change, and aging water infrastructure all threaten the states water supply. [Photo: Annie Rice for The Texas Tribune] What can be done The state water plan recommends irrigation conservation as a strategy. Its also the least costly water management method. But that strategy is fraught. Farmers need to irrigate in times of drought, and telling them to stop can draw criticism. In Eastern New Mexico, the Ogallala Land and Water Conservancy, a nonprofit organization, has been retiring irrigation wells. Landowners keep their water rights, and the organization pays them to stop irrigating their farms. Landowners get paid every year as part of the voluntary agreement, and they can end it at any point. Ladona Clayton, executive director of the organization, said they have been criticized, with their efforts being called a war and land grab. They also get pushback on why the responsibility falls on farmers. She said its because of how much water is used for irrigation. They have to be aggressive in their approach, she said. The aquifer supplies water to the Cannon Air Force Base. We dont want them to stop agricultural production, Clayton said. But for me to say it will be the same level that irrigation can support would be untrue. There is another possible lifeline that people in the High Plains are eyeing as a solution: the Dockum Aquifer. Its a minor aquifer that underlies part of the Ogallala, so it would be accessible to farmers and ranchers in the region. The High Plains Water District also oversees this aquifer. If it seems too good to be truethat the most irrigated part of Texas would just so happen to have another abundant supply of water flowing underneathits because theres a catch. The Dockum is full of extremely salty brckish water. Some counties can use the water for irrigation and drinking water without treatment, but its unusable in others. According to the groundwater district, a test well in Lubbock County pulled up water that was as salty as seawater. Rubinstein, the former water development board chairman, said there are pockets of brackish groundwater in Texas that haven’t been tapped yet. It would be enough to meet the needs on the horizon, but it would also be very expensive to obtain and use. A landowner would have to go deeper to get it, then pump the water over a longer distance. That costs money, and then you have to treat it on top of that, Rubinstein said. But, it is water. Landowners have expressed interest in using desalination, a treatment method to lower dissolved salt levels. Desalination of produced and brackish water is one of the ideas that was being floated around at the Legislature this year, along with building a pipeline to move water across the state. Hagood, the farmer, is skeptical. He thinks whatever water they move could get used up before it makes it all the way to West Texas. There is always brackish groundwater. Another aquifer brings the chance of history repeatingif the Dockum aquifer is treated so its water is usable, will people drain it, too? Hagood said there would have to be limits. Disclosure: Edwards Aquifer Authority and Texas Tech University have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here. This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune, a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||