Returning to the Moon can benefit commercial, military and political sectors – a space policy expert explains

The Moon marks new territory for commercial, military and geopolitical interests. NASA/JPL/Cassini Imaging Team/University of Arizona

Mariel Borowitz, Georgia Institute of Technology

NASA’s Artemis program aims to return humans to the Moon for the first time in more than 50 years, with the first human landing currently scheduled for 2025. This goal is not just technically ambitious, but it’s also politically challenging. The Artemis program marks the first time since the Apollo program that an effort to send humans to the Moon has been supported by two successive U.S. presidents.

As a scholar of international affairs who studies space, I’m interested in understanding what allowed the Artemis program to survive this political transition where others failed. My research suggests that this program is not just about advancing science and technology or inspiring the public. It also offers practical benefits for the commercial sector and the military and an opportunity to reinforce U.S. global leadership.

Commercial interest in the Moon

Several companies around the world, including both startups and established aerospace firms, have begun working on missions to the Moon. Some, like Japan-based iSpace and U.S.-based Astrobotic, are developing commercial lunar landers and have plans to eventually collect lunar resources, such as water or minerals.

NASA is planning to return to the Moon with Artemis missions. This video describes where on the Moon they may land, and how they’ll decide.

For now, efforts to return to the Moon are largely funded by government space agencies, like NASA or the European Space Agency. However, many experts talk about the growth of a “cislunar economy,” where companies make money through their activities in and around the Moon.

Expert studies suggest that it will be decades before many activities – like mining lunar resources or collecting solar energy on the Moon – will generate profits. But in the meantime, government space programs can leverage commercial innovation to cut costs, spur innovation and accelerate their programs. And some commercial activity, such as lunar tourism, may be profitable in the near future. SpaceX has already sold one trip to the Moon, tentatively scheduled for launch in 2024.

Companies entering the market early may have an advantage. Crowding is unlikely to be an issue in the near term – the Moon has a surface area roughly equivalent to the entire Asian continent. Even at the poles, multiple sites offer access to both water ice and solar illumination.

However, the first companies on the Moon may set precedents for the extent of lunar mining allowed, as well as the safety and sustainability protocols that others coming later may follow. The United Nations has established a working group to examine the legal issues related to using space resources, but it won’t finish its first set of proposed principles until 2027. In the meantime, commercial entities are already attempting to land on the Moon.

Military interest in the Moon

In 2020, the head of the U.S. Space Force referred to the Moon as “key terrain,” and the Air Force Research Laboratory is funding an experimental satellite called Oracle, scheduled for launch in 2026. Oracle will monitor the space between the Earth and the Moon.

The U.S. military has decades of experience in monitoring spacecraft orbiting the Earth. It could use this expertise to support safety and security as commercial and civil governmental activity near the Moon increases. They could also provide the United States with better intelligence on the space activities of strategic competitors, like China.

Some individuals in the space sector go further and suggest that the military should watch for weapons hidden in deep space or on the far side of the moon. However, the physics and economics of space suggest that these uses are costly, with little practical benefit.

While leveraging U.S. military expertise in space makes sense, there are reasons not to take developments in this area too far. Military advances like these – even if done in support of civil and commercial goals – may raise suspicion from other nations, potentially leading to increased military space activity on their part, and ultimately increasing tensions.

Geopolitical concerns

The Apollo program is famous for its role in the U.S. and the Soviet Union’s mid-20th century “space race.” The United States’ ability to land humans on the Moon was interpreted by many around the world as evidence of U.S. technological superiority and the capabilities of a democratic and capitalist society. Some have suggested that the United States is now in a new space race, this time with China. China recently accelerated its plans to send humans to the Moon.

While not everyone agrees that such a race is taking place, the use of this terminology by U.S. political leaders, including current NASA Administrator Bill Nelson, and its ubiquity in global media coverage suggest that many will view efforts to land humans on the Moon in this way. If China lands humans on the Moon before the United States, people around the world may see this as evidence of China’s role as a global leader and the capabilities of its communist government.

The return to the Moon is not just about competition. It also offers nations opportunities to engage in international cooperation. More than 20 nations have announced plans to undertake missions to the Moon. Just as the United States is leveraging commercial developments, the U.S. is working with international partners, as well. Europe, Japan and Canada have already joined the United States as partners on the Lunar Gateway, a space station that will orbit the Moon, with the first modules expected to launch in 2025.

The United States is also seeking international support for the Artemis Accords, a set of principles for responsible lunar exploration and development. As of July 2023, 27 nations had signed the accords. This includes not just close allies like the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan, but also less traditional partners, such as Rwanda, Nigeria and the United Arab Emirates. India’s signing of the accords in June 2023 was seen as a sign of strengthening ties between the U.S. and India.

Twenty-seven countries have signed on to the Artemis Accords, an international collaboration with the goal of encouraging responsible behavior on and around the Moon. Joel Kowsky/NASA via Getty Images

It’s worth noting that China’s lunar program also emphasizes international engagement. In 2021, China announced plans to develop the International Lunar Research Station in partnership with Russia, and it has invited other nations to join, as well. Sweden, France, Italy, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates are all participating in China’s upcoming lunar lander mission.

Ever since humans last left the Moon in 1972, many have dreamed about the days when people would return. But for decades, these efforts have hit political roadblocks. This time, the United States’ plans to return to the Moon are likely to succeed – it has the cross-sector support and the strategic importance to ensure continuity, even during politically challenging times.

Mariel Borowitz, Associate Professor of International Affairs, Georgia Institute of Technology

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

Democrats revive the Equal Rights Amendment from a long legal limbo – facing an unlikely uphill battle to get it enshrined into law

U.S. Rep. Carolyn Maloney speaks during a press conference in December 2022, calling to affirm the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. Alex Wong/Getty Images

Deana Rohlinger, Florida State University

Democrats in Congress are making a new push to get the long-dormant proposed Equal Rights Amendment enshrined into law. As legislation, it would guarantee sex equality in the Constitution and could serve as a potential legal antidote to the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which removed the federal right to an abortion.

“In light of Dobbs, we’re seeing vast discrimination across the country,” said U.S. Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand of New York in an interview July 13, 2023. “Women are being treated as second-class citizens. This is more timely than ever.”

Gillibrand, U.S. Rep. Cori Bush of Missouri and other Democratic lawmakers are arguing that the Equal Rights Amendment, often referred to as the ERA, has already been ratified by the states and is enforceable as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.

Efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution to recognize women’s rights have faced major challenges for the past century. Most recently, in April 2023 Senate Republicans blocked a similar resolution that would let states ratify the amendment, despite an expired deadline.

I’m a scholar who studies gender and politics. Here’s a quick summary of how the country got to this point and the barriers that still exist to adding the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution.

Members of the National Organization for Women demonstrate outside the White House in 1969 for the Equal Rights Amendment. Bettmann/Contributor

‘Ladies against women’

Women’s rights advocates argue that sex discrimination is a pervasive problem that could be resolved by the ERA. Even though the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment prohibits states from denying any person equal protection under the law, women’s rights are not explicitly guaranteed.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, which took away a woman’s right to an abortion, women’s rights advocates argue that the ERA is critical in the post-Dobbs world. The amendment could help protect women’s access to reproductive health services, including abortion and contraception.

Proponents also believe that the ERA can be used to push back against legislation that threatens the rights of LGBTQ+ people.

The push for equal rights first heated up in the 1920s after women gained the right to vote.

Alice Paul, a suffragist, proposed the first version of an Equal Rights Amendment in 1923. The language of the legislation, which is very similar to the amendment Democrats are currently championing, guaranteed equal rights under the law, regardless of a person’s sex.

The proposal was adopted and turned into proposed legislation by two Kansas Republicans, Sen. Charles Curtis and Rep. Daniel Anthony Jr., and was brought up during every congressional session between 1923 and 1971 without success.

The idea of an Equal Rights Amendment, however, gained momentum among politicians and the broader public. World War II opened many doors for women, who filled gaps in the labor force while men were off fighting. During this time, women were welcomed into politics, onto juries, openly wooed by educational institutions and encouraged to take up male-dominated majors such as math, science and technology.

The fledgling feminist group, the National Organization for Women, adopted the passage of the ERA in its 1967 Bill of Rights for Women and began staging massive demonstrations and lobbying politicians in the late 1960s and early 1970s in an effort to get Congress to pass the amendment.

Finally, in 1972, the ERA passed both houses of Congress. The amendment had seven years to be ratified by three-fourths, or 38, of the 50 states.

While 30 states ratified the ERA in 1972 and 1973, the amendment ultimately came up three states short of approval by the 1979 deadline.

This was in large part due to the efforts of conservative women’s organizations opposed it. Conservative women said that the ERA was a threat to family and child-rearing, because it would disrupt traditional gender roles. They also believed women would lose, among other things, their exemptions from the draft and combat duty.

At the same time, for a number of reasons, Nebraska, Tennessee, Idaho, South Dakota and Kentucky rescinded their ERA ratifications between 1972 and 1982. Some state legislators argued that the amendment was too controversial given its potential to upend traditional gender roles and legalize what they called “abortion on demand.”

States such as Illinois and Florida became battlegrounds for liberal and conservative women fighting over the amendment. Feminists successfully lobbied Congress to extend the ERA’s ratification deadline to June 30, 1982. The ERA, however, was not ratified by the three states needed to ensure its passage. In 1982, conservative women proclaimed the Equal Rights Amendment officially dead.

In 2023, conservative women’s groups like the Eagle Forum and Concerned Women for America continue to make the same arguments against the ERA. Instead of focusing on the battlefield, however, the groups argue that the ERA will eliminate restrictions on abortion and erase “women-only safe spaces” like bathrooms and locker rooms.

Protesters gather to call for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment in Washington, D.C., in September 2022. Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images

Another chance?

Since 2017, three more states – Nevada, Illinois and Virginia – have ratified the Equal Rights Amendment, bringing the total to 38 states, which is the number required to ratify the ERA and officially make it the 28th Amendment. That is why Democrats believe they have legal standing.

Some constitutional experts see Democrats’ latest attempt to codify the ERA as a political stunt rather than a legitimate legal move. To some extent, I think this may be true.

More than a dozen states have ERA equivalents that protect women’s equal rights in their constitutions. And four states, including New York, have active ERA initiatives.

The current push for Democrats to pass the ERA seems to be largely about advocating for abortion access and mobilizing abortion rights supporters ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

About half of the states across the U.S. have enacted restrictive abortion laws over the last year, with some states banning the procedure altogether. State ERA efforts, like the one in New York, are a response to these bans.

The renewed push for the ERA makes the fight over abortion access, once again, a national battle. In the current polarized political environment, abortion access promises to serve as a political lightening rod in coming years.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on Dec. 13, 2018.

Deana Rohlinger, Professor of Sociology, Florida State University

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

Helping Heroes Handle IBD

For many veterans, their greatest battle isn’t against enemy forces. It’s a challenge that lies within their own bodies.

An estimated 66,000 veterans live with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Whether diagnosed while in service or after discharge, it’s normal to have questions about the disease, need resources to navigate care options and want to connect with others who understand what you are experiencing.

Regardless of your specific circumstances, learning to be an advocate for your health can take some time as you complete your transition process into the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) health care system.

Being a proactive participant in your health care can help you in your journey. Arm yourself with more information about IBD and your options with these tips from the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation.

Learn About IBD
No matter where you are in your disease journey, you may have questions about Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis. Focus groups led by the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation revealed many veterans living with IBD want to learn more about their diet and how to manage their disease symptoms.

Living with IBD means paying special attention to what you eat. Your diet needs to include enough calories and nutrients to keep you healthy and avoid malnourishment. Some of the best ways to maintain adequate nutrition are to work with your health care team, seek help from a dietitian, make healthy food choices and avoid foods that make your symptoms worse.

Many people with IBD also take medications on a regular basis to manage symptoms and help prevent flares, even when the disease is in remission. Patients may sometimes use complementary therapies together with traditional medicine; however, it is important to remember complementary therapies should not replace the treatment prescribed by your doctor.

Continuous Care
Living with a chronic illness like Crohn’s or colitis means seeing your doctor regularly. Continuous care helps ensure your needs are being addressed and you’re receiving the care you need.

Working on an ongoing basis with a primary care doctor and gastroenterologist (ideally an IBD specialist) allows you to focus on targeted IBD and preventive care such as immunizations, cancer screenings and bone health monitoring.

Keep these tips in mind as you navigate your care, whether it be through a VA hospital, community center or private physician outside the VA.

• Seek help from a social worker, care coordinator or patient navigator.
• Adhere to recommendations for follow-up visits with your health care team.
• Keep a list of all prescribed and over-the-counter medications in your smartphone or on paper.
• Sign up for the VA’s health app, Myhealthevet, to communicate with your health care team, access your records, request prescription refills and access other helpful tools.

Mental Health and Emotional Wellness
People with IBD are 2-3 times more likely to experience anxiety and depression than the general population, according to the Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation. However, there are ways to help you cope with these feelings and concerns.

Coping tips include engaging in activities like exercise, relaxation techniques and meditation. You might also consider seeking help from a mental health professional who can assist you with acquiring skills to cope with your fears, worries and emotions.

To find more resources, including perspectives from other veterans managing IBD, visit crohnscolitisfoundation.org/veterans, where you can also find a link to a support group for veterans with IBD on Facebook.

Manage Your Menu
It’s not always easy knowing what foods best fuel your body, especially when you have Crohn's disease or ulcerative colitis. Your diet and nutrition are a major part of life with IBD, yet there is no single diet that works for everyone.

Nutrition affects not just your IBD symptoms, but also your overall health and well-being. Without proper nutrients, the symptoms of your Crohn’s disease or ulcerative colitis can cause serious complications, including nutrient deficiencies, weight loss and malnutrition.

While there is no one-size-fits-all for meal planning, these tips can help guide you toward better daily nutrition:

• Eat small, frequent meals daily.
• Stay hydrated with water, broth, tomato juice or a rehydration solution. Drink enough to keep your urine light yellow or clear.
• Drink slowly and avoid using a straw, which can cause you to ingest air that may cause gas.
• Prepare meals in advance and keep your kitchen stocked with foods you tolerate well.
• Use simple cooking techniques such as boiling, grilling, steaming and poaching.
• Use a food journal to keep track of what you eat and any symptoms you experience.

SOURCE:
Crohn’s & Colitis Foundation

Fight Hunger with Family Meals

Selfless ways to support community members in need

With hectic day-to-day schedules and varying dietary needs, many families face the dreaded daily question: “What sounds good for dinner?” In contrast, millions struggle to put food on the table each night, impacting about 1 in 8 children, according to Feeding America.

You can help support those in need through Safeway and Albertsons’ “Fight Hunger, Serve Hope” cause program – an initiative to fight hunger in local communities during summer months when households with school-aged children face higher rates of food insecurity. The company’s private label will donate one meal for every O Organics® product purchased, up to $7 million and the equivalent of 28 million meals. Donations will be made to Nourishing Neighbors, a program of Albertsons Companies Foundation, to fund grants dedicated to providing healthy meals for at-risk youth throughout the summer.

“While summertime sparks excitement for countless students, it also marks the unfortunate reality that millions of children face when they lose access to school cafeteria lunches and breakfasts they depend on throughout the school year,” said Jennifer Saenz, EVP and chief merchandising officer at Albertsons Companies. “As a company, we are committed to making a difference in the lives of children in need. For the first time, we are making it easier than ever for our customers to support this mission by connecting each purchase of our O Organics brand to hunger relief efforts in the communities we serve.”

Following the campaign period, families looking to help in their communities can give back in a variety of ways.

Donate Canned Goods
Once school is in session, many classrooms participate in canned food drives for a variety of causes while serving a dual purpose: feeding those in need and teaching children the importance of giving back. Sending your students to school with canned goods can show them the value of helping others and instill a sense of responsibility.

Volunteer at a Food Pantry
Sharing valuable resources like canned goods helps make a difference in communities, but local food pantries also need willing volunteers to sort and distribute food, among other duties. It can provide a unique sense of perspective as you meet other volunteers, improve the lives of people in your community and gain new skills.

Promote the Power of Family Meals
Whether it’s breakfast, lunch, dinner or all three, sharing a meal with neighbors can be a powerful moment. It provides an opportunity to connect while enjoying easy-to-make recipes like Ribeye Steak, Grape Tomato and Mushroom Kebabs; Grilled Chicken Salad with Goat Cheese, Fresh Raspberries and Pecans; and Mixed Berry-Lime Smoothie Bowl with Banana and Granola.

Find more meal ideas by visiting Safeway.com and Albertsons.com.

Ribeye Steak, Grape Tomato and Mushroom Kebabs

Recipe courtesy of Safeway and Albertsons
Total time: 30 minutes

• 2 cloves garlic
• 1/2 small bunch Italian (flat-leaf) parsley
• 1/4 cup O Organics extra-virgin olive oil
• 1/8 cup red wine vinegar
• 2 teaspoons O Organics Dijon mustard
• 1/2 teaspoon salt
• 1/2 teaspoon black pepper
• 3/4 pound O Organics ribeye steak
• 1/2 pint O Organics grape tomatoes
• 1/4 pound O Organics white mushrooms
• green pepper, sliced (optional)
• 1/2 medium red onion
• 6 skewers

1. Peel and mince garlic. Wash and dry parsley. Shave leaves off stems; discard stems and mince leaves.
2. In large bowl, whisk minced garlic, half the minced parsley (reserve remainder for garnish), olive oil, vinegar, Dijon mustard, salt and pepper.
3. Cut steak into cubes; transfer to marinade bowl and toss to coat.
4. Wash tomatoes, mushrooms and green pepper. Halve mushrooms. Add tomatoes, mushrooms and green pepper to marinade. Peel onion and cut into chunks; add to marinade. Toss beef and vegetables until well coated.
5. Heat grill pan, outdoor grill or skillet to medium-high heat.
6. Thread steak and vegetables onto six skewers.
7. Cook kebabs in batches until steak is browned and vegetables are tender, 3-5 minutes per side. Transfer to plate and repeat with remaining kebabs.
8. To serve, plate kebabs and sprinkle with remaining minced parsley.

Grilled Chicken Salad with Goat Cheese, Fresh Blueberries and Pecans

Recipe courtesy of Safeway and Albertsons
Total time: 20 minutes

• 3/4 pound boneless, skinless O Organics chicken breasts
• 1/4 teaspoon salt
• 1/8 teaspoon black pepper
• 2 teaspoons O Organics extra-virgin olive oil
• 1 package (5 ounces) O Organics spring mix
• 1 package (6 ounces) O Organics blueberries (or desired berry)
• 1/4 cup O Organics pecan halves
• 3 tablespoons O Organics olive oil
• 1 tablespoon O Organics balsamic vinegar
• 1/2 log (4 ounces) O Organics goat cheese

1. Pat chicken dry with paper towels and place on cutting board. Cut chicken in half horizontally to form thin cutlets. Season with salt and pepper on both sides.
2. Preheat grill pan, outdoor grill or skillet to medium-high heat.
3. Once pan is hot, coat with oil. Add chicken to pan and grill, turning once, until cooked through, 3-4 minutes per side.
4. Wash and dry spring mix. Place in medium bowl.
5. Wash and dry blueberries. Add to bowl with mixed greens. Using clean cutting board, roughly chop pecans. Add to bowl.
6. Transfer cooked chicken to cutting board and cut into thin strips.
7. In bowl, mix olive oil and balsamic vinegar to create dressing.
8. Add chicken and dressing to salad bowl; toss to combine.
9. To serve, divide salad between plates or bowls and crumble goat cheese over top.

Mixed Berry-Lime Smoothie Bowl with Banana and Granola

Recipe courtesy of Safeway and Albertsons
Total time: 10 minutes
Yield: 3 cups

• 1 banana
• 1/2 package (6 ounces) O Organics blackberries
• 1/2 lime
• 2 cups O Organics frozen mixed berries
• 1 cup plain O Organics Greek yogurt
• 4 fluid ounces O Organics whole milk
• 1/8 cup O Organics honey
• 1/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon
• 2/3 cup O Organics granola of choice

1. Wash and dry banana and blackberries.
2. Peel and thinly slice banana; set aside.
3. Zest and juice lime into blender. Add frozen mixed berries, yogurt, milk, honey and cinnamon. Blend on high speed until smooth, 1-2 minutes.
4. To serve, divide smoothie between bowls and top with banana, blackberries and granola.

SOURCE:
Albertsons
Safeway

Weather forecast accuracy is crucial in a heat wave – 1 degree can mean the difference between life and death

Extreme heat can put lives at risk, making accurate forecasts essential for people working outdoors. FG Trade/E+ via Getty Images

Derek Lemoine, University of Arizona; Jeffrey Shrader, Columbia University, and Laura Bakkensen, University of Arizona

Weather forecasts have gotten quite good over the years, but their temperatures aren’t always spot on – and the result when they underplay extremes can be lethal. Even a 1-degree difference in a forecast’s accuracy can be the difference between life and death, our research shows.

As economists, we have studied how people use forecasts to manage weather risks. In a new working paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, we looked at how human survival depends on the accuracy of temperature forecasts, particularly during heat waves like large parts of the U.S. have been experiencing in recent days.

We found that when the forecasts underplayed the risk, even small forecast errors led to more deaths.

Our results also show that improving forecasts pays off. They suggest that making forecasts 50% more accurate would save 2,200 lives per year across the country and would have a net value that’s nearly twice the annual budget of the National Weather Service.

Forecasts that are too mild lead to more deaths

In the U.S. alone, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issues 1.5 million forecasts per year and collects around 76 billion weather observations that help it and private companies make better forecasts.

We examined data on every day’s deaths, weather and National Weather Service forecast in every U.S county from 2005 to 2017 to analyze the impact of those forecasts on human survival.

We then compared deaths in each county over the week following a day with accurate forecasts to deaths in the same county over the week following a day with inaccurate forecasts but the same weather. Because weather conditions were the same, any differences in mortality could be attributed to how people’s reactions to forecasts affected their chance of dying in that weather.

Vehicles on the 110 Freeway pass warning signs on Sept. 2, 2022, during a heat wave with temperatures as high as 112 degrees Fahrenheit (44 Celsius) in the Los Angeles suburbs. Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images

We found similar results when the forecast was wrong on hot days with temperatures above 86 degrees Fahrenheit (30 Celsius) and on cold days with temperatures below freezing. Both summer days that were hotter than forecast and winter days that were colder had more deaths. Forecasts that went the other way and overestimated the summer heat or winter cold had little impact.

That doesn’t mean forecasters should exaggerate their forecasts, however. If people find that their forecasts are consistently off by a degree or two, they might change how they use forecasts or come to trust them less, leaving people at even higher risk.

People are paying attention

People do pay attention to forecasts and adjust their activities.

The American Time Use Survey, conducted continuously for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows what Americans across the country are doing on any given day. We found that on days when the forecast called for temperatures to be milder than they turned out to be – either cooler on a hot day or warmer on a cold day – people in the survey spent more time on leisure and less in home or work settings.

Electricity use also varies in sync with forecasts, suggesting that people’s use of air conditioning does not just respond to the weather outside but also depends on how they planned for the weather outside.

A man shields his head from the Sun as he walks across New York’s Brooklyn Bridge on a hot summer day in 2018. Drew Angerer/Getty Images

However, forecasts are not used equally across society. Deaths among racial minorities are less sensitive to forecast errors, we found. That could be due in part to having less flexibility to act on forecasts, or not having access to forecasts. We will dig into this difference in future work, as the answer determines how the National Weather Service can best reach everyone.

The value of better forecasts

It’s clear that people use forecasts to make decisions that can matter for life and death – when to go hiking, for example, or whether to encourage an elderly neighbor to go to a cooling center.

So, what is the value of accurate forecasts?

We combined our theoretical model with federal cost-benefit estimates of how people value improvements in their chances of survival. From those, we estimated people’s willingness to pay for better forecasts. That calculation accounts for the risk of dying from extreme weather and for the costs of using forecasts to reduce their risk of dying, such as the costs of altering work and play schedules or using electricity.

The result shows that 50% more accurate forecasts are worth at least US$2.1 billion per year based on the mortality benefits alone. In comparison, the 2022 budget of the National Weather Service was less than $1.3 billion.

Weather forecasts have gotten steadily better over the past decades. About 68% of the next-day temperature forecasts now have an error of less than 1.8 degrees. Our results suggest investing in improved forecast accuracy would probably be worth the cost.

Past improvements have come from better models, better observations and better computers. Future improvements could come from similar channels or from applying recent innovations in machine learning and artificial intelligence to weather prediction and communication.

Climate change will increase the frequency of extremely hot days, which are especially important for human health and survival to forecast accurately. Climate change will make the weather weirder, but weird weather can do less harm when we can see it coming.

Derek Lemoine, Associate Professor of Economics, University of Arizona; Jeffrey Shrader, Assistant Professor of International and Public Affairs, Columbia University, and Laura Bakkensen, Associate Professor of Economics and Policy, University of Arizona

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

Increasing monopoly power poses a threat to Canada’s post-pandemic economic recovery

A recent report from Canada’s competition watchdog found that a lack of competition in the grocery sector has led to higher prices for consumers. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Graeme Roy

Garros Gong, University of Waterloo

Canada is currently grappling with a significant economic issue: market concentration. A select few corporations dominate key sectors, leading to reduced competition, rising prices and limited purchase options for consumers.

Canada’s grocery industry is a prime example of this. A recent report from the Competition Bureau found that a lack of competition in the grocery sector is resulting in higher food prices.

The grocery industry is dominated by five major players — Loblaws, Metro, Empire (the owner of Sobeys), Walmart and Costco. These five companies account for over three-quarters of all food sales in Canada.

The Bureau recommended four policies to encourage competition in the sector. These include establishing a grocery innovation strategy, encouraging new independent and international players, introducing legislation for consistent unit pricing and limiting property controls.

While independent grocery chains could be a viable alternative, they don’t occupy as large a presence of the market as they do in other countries. The Canadian grocery market is heavily concentrated and limits the ability of independent chains to compete by forcing them to purchase their products from larger chains.

History of monopolies

The Hudson’s Bay Company was granted a commercial monopoly over the entire Hudson Bay drainage basin, known as Rupert’s Land, in 1670. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Nathan Denette

Canada’s economy has historically been marked by notable monopolies, thanks to its vast geographical expanse and relatively sparse population.

Entities like the Hudson’s Bay Company and Canadian Pacific Railway company played significant roles in the country’s development. This largely happened out of concern that domestic companies would be overwhelmed by American competitors unless they grew significantly.

Recent trends indicate this phenomenon is not only persisting, but intensifying. While Sobeys, Loblaws, Metro, Costco and Walmart dominate over 60 per cent of the grocery sector, Bell, Rogers and Telus command about 89 per cent of the wireless telecommunications market.

The concentration of power extends beyond these sectors. The banking industry in Canada is dominated by six banks — the Royal Bank of Canada, TD Bank, Scotiabank, the Bank of Montreal, CIBC and National Bank, which collectively control about 93 per cent of the industry.

Similarly, the beer market is largely controlled by two multinational giants, Anheuser-Busch InBev and Molson Coors.

And the Canadian telecommunications industry is still reeling from the recent merger between two of the industry’s giants, Rogers Communications and Shaw Communications. The implications of this deal are far-reaching.

The Rogers-Shaw merger

The Rogers-Shaw merger’s final approval came with 21 enforceable conditions Rogers and Videotron must adhere to, aimed at bolstering competition and reducing costs for customers.

The merger’s approval depended on Shaw selling its Freedom Mobile business to Quebecor’s Videotron. If Rogers breaches its conditions, it must pay up to $1 billion in damages. Videotron could be subject to $200 million in penalties if it fails to meet its commitments.

Innovation, Science and Industry Minister François-Philippe Champagne holds up a contract between the telecoms and the federal government as he speaks at a news conference about the Rogers-Shaw merger on Parliament Hill in Ottawa on March 31, 2023. THE CANADIAN PRESS/ Patrick Doyle

Despite these conditions, some remain skeptical about the impact of the merger on competition in Canada’s telecommunications sector.

Some critics have argued the merger may lead to higher prices for consumers and less innovation. Carleton University political economy professor Dwayne Winseck warned it could lead to a “tight oligopoly on steroids.”

On the flip side, other experts believe the merger could benefit consumers by accelerating the rollout of 5G networks and improving infrastructure and services, particularly in rural areas.

However, these benefits could be offset by the potential for higher prices and less competition. The merger could lead to a dominant market share in Ontario, reducing competition and potentially leading to higher internet prices.

This is particularly concerning, given Ontario’s average monthly price of home internet services is already higher than the national average. This situation underscores the need for a revamp of Canada’s competition laws.

Loopholes in competition law

The merger has sparked controversy because it exploited weaknesses in Canada’s anti-monopoly law, the Competition Act, to push the deal through.

The Competition Act has been criticized for failing to prevent acquisitions that allow large firms to eliminate competitive threats and solidify their dominance.

As Canada’s competition watchdog, the Competition Bureau can review mergers to determine if they will be harmful to competition. But since its introduction in 1986, the bureau has only challenged 18 mergers and has never won a challenge on final judgment.

The law also has a high bar for intervention in a merger, often favouring negotiated agreements that include concessions or remedies that address some of the competition concerns, but not necessarily all.

The Competition Commissioner, Matthew Boswell, believes the existing competition laws are inadequate. Boswell has been hamstrung by legal loopholes and unable to prevent anti-competitive mergers, like the Rogers-Shaw deal, from happening.

Challenges and opportunities

Along with rising consumer prices, limited purchase options and intensifying competition, the growth of monopolies in Canada has led to a host of other issues.

Monopolies have the potential to stifle innovation — a key driver of economic growth, as a lack of competition tends to dampen innovative efforts. Productivity growth, which is crucial for improving living standards, is also under threat, as monopolies can create an environment less conducive to efficiency and progress.

As Canada embarks on its post-pandemic economic recovery, policymakers must ensure economic resilience and inclusiveness while preventing existing monopoly issues from worsening.

At the same time, there is an opportunity to reshape the economic landscape to encourage competition and foster innovation, benefiting everyone involved in the market.

This journey towards a more prosperous future will require rigorous scrutiny of developments like the proposed Rogers-Shaw merger and the wisdom to navigate the interplay of monopolies, competition and the broader economy.

Garros Gong, Ph.D. Student in Management Science, University of Waterloo

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

Positive parenting can help protect against the effects of stress in childhood and adolescence, new study shows

Warm, supportive caregiving can help counteract the effects of stress during childhood and development. Halfpoint Images/Moment via Getty Images

Jamie Hanson, University of Pittsburgh and Isabella Kahhalé, University of Pittsburgh

The Research Brief is a short take about interesting academic work.

The big idea

Warm and supportive parenting may buffer against the effects of stress during childhood and adolescence. That is the key takeaway of our recent study, published in the journal PNAS Nexus.

Some children and adolescents who experience stressful events such as physical abuse or neglect have less tissue in a brain region called the hippocampus. The hippocampus plays a critical role in learning and memory and is also highly susceptible to stress.

However, in our study, we did not find a link between increased stress and reduced brain tissue in the hippocampus for young people who reported more warmth from their caregivers.

Positive parenting includes a range of warm and supportive techniques such as providing praise for doing something well, emotional support and affection. Contrast this with harsh parenting techniques, such as shouting and physical punishments.

As a first step, we explored whether positive parenting protected against a connection between childhood stress and behavioral problems in children.

We analyzed brain scans of almost 500 children between 10 and 17 years old using data from a project called the Healthy Brain Network. We measured brain tissue using structural magnetic resonance imaging, or MRI, a technique that allows us to look at the size of brain regions. To measure stress, we asked children about the number of negative life events they had experienced across family, community and school contexts and how distressed each of those events made them.

Results showed that positive parenting had protective effects against the connection between stress and behavior; in other words, children who had experienced more distress from negative events, but who also perceived their parents as being warm and supportive, exhibited less challenging behavior such as rule-breaking or aggression. We next examined how parenting buffered against a known biomarker of stress in the brain: less tissue in the hippocampus.

Consistent with prior research, we found that more childhood stress correlated with smaller hippocampal volumes. However, we found that children’s perception of having received positive, supportive parenting served as a buffer against the biological effects of stress. Even when young people reported high levels of distress from negative life events, those who perceived their parents as more supportive did not have reduced brain tissue in the hippocampus.

In contrast, we did not find this same protective effect when we looked at what caregivers thought of their parenting. In other words, if parents said they were supportive and positive in their parenting but the child didn’t see them that way, we did not see this protective effect.

Positive reinforcement can work in many situations and with people of all ages.

Why it matters

Past research has found that the hippocampus is smaller in children and adults exposed to high levels of stress in childhood. These smaller volumes are in turn associated with behavioral problems, learning and memory challenges and increased vulnerability to future stress.

Our study highlights the importance of nurturing parenting in promoting healthy brain development and resilience in children. By fostering an environment of warmth and support, caregivers can help children cope with stress more effectively. Dozens of studies have found that positive parenting practices – such as helping children name emotions and providing a space for them to disclose feelings without judgment – can help kids get through difficult events.

What other research is being done

Our team’s work and that of others underscores that stressful experiences can have a detrimental impact on development. Many researchers are trying to understand which aspects of stress matter and how.

For example, experiences that are threatening, like violence, may influence the brain and behavior differently from experiences of deprivation, like not having enough food.

At the same time, while researchers think that certain types of stress have particular characteristics, the person experiencing the stress may not feel that way. That is, not having enough food might feel very threatening to the person going through it. Our study indicates that it is critical to center the perspectives of those directly affected by the stress in this area of research.

Jamie Hanson, Assistant Professor of Psychology, University of Pittsburgh and Isabella Kahhalé, PhD student in Clinical and Developmental Psychology, University of Pittsburgh

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

Microsoft and Activision: the big questions that will decide whether the US$68 billion deal goes ahead

Joost Rietveld, UCL

Microsoft’s proposed US$68 billion (£52 billion) acquisition of video game maker Activision Blizzard should be allowed to go ahead, according to a US federal judge. After five days of gruelling testimony, Judge Jacqueline Corley ruled the merger is unlikely to result in a substantial lessening of competition across the markets for video game consoles, multi-game subscription services and cloud streaming.

The ruling paves the way for Microsoft to finally consummate the merger after nearly a year and a half of regulatory scrutiny. Yet US competition authority the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has taken the rare step of appealing the decision.

With the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) also blocking the deal, it could still fail to conclude before an agreed completion deadline between the companies of July 18. So what are the main issues and how is this likely to play out?

Cloud gaming

Microsoft owns the Xbox gaming console and makes games like Minecraft and Age of Empires. California-based Activision is one of the largest games makers in the world, with franchises like Call of Duty, Diablo and Candy Crush.

Cloud streaming is viewed by many as the future of gaming. Microsoft’s xCloud streaming service competes with Amazon’s Luna, Nvidia’s GeForce Now and Sony’s PlayStation Plus – alongside several smaller services such as Boosteroid, Gamestream and Ubitus.

Microsoft’s xCloud currently holds around 60%-70% market share, which is mostly attributed to the service being bundled with the popular Xbox Game Pass Ultimate subscription service. The next largest competitors, Nvidia and Sony, have around 10% to 20% share each.

Microsoft’s cloud gaming platform currently dominates the market. Irina Anosova

So far, however, cloud gaming has struggled to take hold with consumers. Compared to video streaming, it is computationally more demanding. This makes it prone to latency, which degrades the user experience. Services have also struggled to successfully differentiate themselves by offering exclusive games.

The most notable failure to date is Google’s Stadia, which shuttered in January 2023 after less than four years. Yet as a whole, the segment is expected to keep grinding upwards, capturing 6.2% of gaming in 2027 compared to 3.8% today, with revenues rising from US$4.3 billion to US$18.7 billion.

Regulatory differences

The proposed merger has already been approved in 40 countries, with ten regulators clearing the deal unconditionally, including Brazil, China, Japan, South Africa and South Korea. The European Commission (EC) was among those that cleared the deal with conditions. These related to ensuring Activision games wouldn’t be restricted to Microsoft’s cloud gaming services but could be played on any platform.

Key to the US and UK authorities taking a more restrictive view are the questions of what cloud gaming is, how it will develop over the next ten years and the extent of Microsoft’s dominance – especially after it integrates Activision’s portfolio.

The first key point of contention is whether cloud gaming constitutes a separate market or a mere method of distribution that is embedded in the broader distribution ecosystem. The UK and US competition authorities both view cloud gaming as a “distinct market” that needs to be protected from a large technology incumbent. On the other hand, Judge Corley called it a “potential alternative delivery mechanism” that is embedded within console and PC gaming platforms and does not need to be treated as a separate antitrust market.

Pro-merger: Judge Jacqueline Corley. Wikimedia

I agree with her. Earlier this year I submitted a report to the CMA titled Cloud Gaming Is Not A Distinct Market. My main point was that the cloud platforms both operate in very different ways and are deeply embedded in other distribution methods like console and PC gaming.

For example, a consumer can only stream games on Nvidia’s GeForce Now if they own them on a traditional distribution platform such as Valve’s Steam. Equally, the vast majority of Micrsoft xCloud users access the service from their Xboxes, and 80% of them access streaming to sample and play games while waiting for their downloads to finish in the background.

The second issue concerns whether Microsoft’s acquisition will harm consumers in cloud gaming. Paramount here are the various licensing agreements for all Activision games that Microsoft has offered to rival providers like GeForce Now and Boosteroid, conditional on the merger being approved. These contracts are ultimately what secured EC approval.

The CMA has traditionally taken a dim view of such licensing deals due to potential challenges around enforcing contracts, but Judge Corley also took a more positive stance. She and the EC both thought the deals would end up enhancing competition. In my view, making Activision games available on more cloud platforms could spur adoption by consumers. It might also end up benefiting other games makers.

What next

The next few days will be crucial. The terms of the deal stipulate that Microsoft must consummate the merger by July 18, or pay Activision US$3 billion in termination fees. Yet blocking the way are the FTC appeal and the CMA in the UK.

The CMA signalled it was willing to negotiate with Microsoft after the US ruling, but has since tempered any expectations of a quick resolution. As it stands, Microsoft is taking its case to the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal.

It seems unlikely that all outstanding issues will be resolved by July 18. This begs the question of whether Microsoft and Activision will risk closing the deal anyway, which could see them forced to de-merge later. Alternatively they might feel they have to extend and renegotiate the terms.

In the midst of this drama, a notice has circulated stating that Activision will get delisted from the Nasdaq-100 index as early as July 17. This suggests the firms may indeed be preparing to close the deal. We should soon find out if it is going to set a new high score for video game acquisitions or whether it is game over for Microsoft and Activision.

Joost Rietveld, Associate Professor in Strategic Management, UCL

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

Actors are demanding that Hollywood catch up with technological changes in a sequel to a 1960 strike

As this picket sign says: lights, cameras, no action. Katie McTiernan/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

David Arditi, University of Texas at Arlington

For the first time since 1960, actors and screenwriters are on strike at the same time.

As with many of the other strikes that have rippled across the United States over the past three years, this walkout is over demands for better pay and restrictions on their employers’ use of technology to replace paid work.

The actors’ strike began on July 14, 2023, after their union, SAG-AFTRA, voted to end negotiations with the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, which represents the major production studios. The main concerns of the union – which represents 160,000 actors and people in other creative professions – center around compensation on streaming platforms, such as Netflix and Amazon Prime, and artificial intelligence.

Screenwriters, who have been on strike since May 2, have similar concerns.

The two strikes have halted U.S. TV and movie production. Premieres are being canceled, and Emmy-nominated actors aren’t campaigning for those prestigious TV awards.

Rewind to the rise of TV

Ever since Louis Le Prince filmed the first movie, “Roundhay Garden Scene,” in 1888, actors have earned a living through their work being shown on screens small and large.

The first hit shows on TV aired in the mid-1940s, but actors initially earned far less from television than movies. Around 1960, with the advent of hits like “Leave It to Beaver,” “Beverly Hillbillies” and “Bonanza,” TV became very profitable. TV’s growing prestige and economic heft gave television actors newfound power at the contract negotiating table.

Actors demanded that their craft be compensated for TV shows about as highly as for their film appearances. Led by future President Ronald Reagan and Charlton Heston – who went on to serve as a National Rifle Association president – the Screen Actors Guild went on strike on March 7, 1960. Among that union’s top demands: health care coverage and residuals for movies aired on television, reruns and syndication.

Residuals are a form of royalty paid to actors when movies and TV shows air on television after their initial run. That can include reruns, syndication and the broadcasting of movies on television.

The actors union’s strike, which coincided then as today with a screenwriters strike, successfully negotiated a contract with executives that resolved the residuals conflict and secured health care coverage for its members.

That contract applied to broadcasting and, years later, cable TV.

But it doesn’t work for streaming, because streamed shows aren’t scheduled. Whereas “Friends,” a sitcom that initially aired on NBC, is available today on Max, formerly HBO Max, through syndication, and its actors receive relevant residuals, “Orange Is the New Black” originated on Netflix. Because it never runs on a different platform via syndication, the actors in its cast earn paltry residuals in comparison – even though viewers are still watching the show’s seven seasons.

Hwang Dong-hyuk, the creator of “Squid Game,” forfeited all residuals when he cut a deal with Netflix. It earned Netflix nearly US$1 billion, but Hwang got none of that bounty.

Actors Charlton Heston, right, and future President Ronald Reagan, second from right, shake hands with leaders of the Association of Motion Picture Producers after the Screen Actors Guild ended its 1960 strike against seven movie studios. Bettmann via GettyImages

Fast-forward to 2023

As I explained in my 2021 book, “Streaming Culture,” streaming has fundamentally changed the production and consumption of both TV and film while blurring the lines between them.

People consume different types of media through subscriptions and streaming technology than they do while watching broadcast TV and cable television. Actors and writers are concerned that their compensation hasn’t kept up with this transformation.

And the actors who are on strike argue that the formulas in place since 1960 to calculate residuals don’t work anymore.

Residuals paid for roles in broadcast TV shows are based on the popularity of those programs, with actors earning far more for hits like “Grey’s Anatomy” and “NCIS” than for duds. Hit shows can have a second life on streaming platforms and result in actors getting paid again for that earlier work.

In contrast, streaming residuals pay a flat rate for foreign and domestic streams. A streaming original film or TV show earns a set amount for residuals in its domestic market and second set amount for foreign markets. This fee doesn’t change based on popularity or the number of times a production is streamed.

But streaming has changed more than residuals for actors and writers. It has also transformed how TV shows are made.

Ejecting regularly scheduled shows

Many TV seasons have grown shorter since streaming became the norm, falling from 20 or more episodes to 10 or fewer per season.

That’s because streamers started making shows with lower budgets, as it costs less to produce fewer episodes. The studios also cut costs by hiring fewer writers.

Since actors are typically paid per episode in which they perform, their salaries have dropped by virtue of having fewer appearances in even the most popular shows.

The gaps between seasons have also grown longer and more unpredictable. Every season of the nine-year run of “Seinfeld” on NBC began in the fall and ended the next spring, then picked up again the next fall.

Streaming shows are far less predictable.

Amazon Prime’s “The Marvelous Mrs. Maisel” paused for more than two years between seasons 3 and 4.

The same streamer aired the first season of “Lord of the Rings: Power of the Rings,” in September 2022, but Season 2 won’t be released until late 2024.

As gaps between seasons grow, some actors are having a harder and harder time making ends meet.

Another change has to do with the question of whether particular shows will keep going. In conventional broadcast or cable television, networks determine whether they will renew a show during the period known as “sweeps,” at the end of a TV season. Since streaming television has no defined seasons, these decisions can drag on.

This can leave actors and writers in limbo. And their contracts often stop them from working on other shows between seasons.

Will AI erase actors?

Although residuals and the number of episodes have until now been negotiable, perhaps the strike’s biggest issue is the studios’ use of artificial intelligence

Actors fear studios will use AI to replace actors in the future. Without a contract that says otherwise, once a studio films an actor, it can potentially use the actor’s likeness in perpetuity. This means a background actor could be shot for one episode of a TV show and continue to be seen in the background for seasons without pay.

That hasn’t happened yet, but many actors are certain it will.

Actors object to the possibility that studios will seek to “own our likeness in perpetuity, including after we’re dead, use us in their movies without any consent, without any compensation to our performers, especially background performers,” said actor Shaan Sharma, best known for his role on “The Chosen.” “It’s inhumane. It is dystopian.”

Until now, actors and writers say, the studios have refused to negotiate over AI with actors or writers. But both unions see AI as a threat to their members’ livelihoods, a point SAG-AFTRA President Fran Drescher made on MSNBC.

As Drescher continually points out in her media appearances, 99% of actors are struggling on working-class incomes. Meanwhile, studio executives continue to increase their own pay. For example, in 2022, Netflix co-CEOs Reed Hastings and Ted Sarandos earned roughly $50 million each. Warner-Discovery CEO David Zaslav earned $39 million.

No ‘pause’ for widening inequality gap

The gulf between what actors and top executives earn is a major difference between today’s actors and writer strikes and the 1960 strikes. In 1965, executives made 15 times the average salary of their workers. By 2021 those top execs were earning 350 times more than the average worker – including actors.

And while today’s biggest stars, like Pedro Pascal and Natasha Lyonne, earn millions for every performance, most actors struggle to make ends meet.

In Los Angeles, actors earn an average hourly wage of $27.73.

Meanwhile, studios are pulling in huge profits. For example, Netflix and Warner Bros. earned $5.2 billion and $2.7 billion in 2022, respectively.

Watching union action on repeat

As I explain in my new book, “Digital Feudalism: Creators, Credit, Consumption, and Capitalism,” striking actors and screenwriters are part of the wave of labor unrest in recent years. In my view, U.S. workers are rejecting a system that expects workers to buy more on credit while making a living with increasingly precarious jobs.

From Starbucks baristas to Amazon’s union organizers to the workers planning the pending UPS strike, more and more Americans are fighting for higher wages and more control over their schedules.

In fighting threats to their livelihoods, actors and screenwriters are the latest example of a national movement for stronger labor rights.

David Arditi, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Texas at Arlington

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