Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Timothy Rodgers, Postdoctoral Fellow in Environmental Engineering, University of British Columbia

In the 1990s, scientists restoring streams around Seattle, Wash., noticed that returning coho salmon were dying after rainstorms. The effects were immediate: the fish swam in circles, gasping at the surface, then died in a few hours.

Over the next several decades, researchers chipped away at the problem until in 2020 they discovered the culprit: a chemical called 6PPD-quinone that forms when its parent compound, a tire additive called 6PPD, reacts with ozone.

6PPD-quinone kills coho salmon at extraordinarily low concentrations, making it one of the most toxic substances to an aquatic species that scientists have ever found.

Today, a growing body of evidence shows that tire additives and their transformation products, including 6PPD-quinone, are contaminating ecosystems and showing up in people.

Now, alongside the researchers who made that initial discovery, we’re calling for international regulation of these chemicals to protect people and the environment.

Our recently published research outlines the hazard posed by tire additives due to their demonstrated toxicity and high emissions near people and sensitive ecosystems, how current regulations don’t do enough to protect us, and how we can do better.

Tires are complex chemical products

Tires are far from simple rubber rings. They’re complex chemical products made to endure heat, friction and degradation. For example, 6PPD is in tires to protect them from ozone, which causes tires to crack.

Unfortunately, little attention was paid to these chemicals until scientists discovered the impacts of 6PPD-quinone and realized these chemicals could be hazardous.

Once they started looking, researchers found many tire additives, including 6PPD-quinone, in streams near roads, in dust and in the air — wherever there are roads, there is tire additive contamination.

Although 6PPD-quinone is most lethal to coho, it is also lethal to several other species of salmonids, and it may be toxic to aquatic plants and terrestrial invertebrates.

We know that exposure to tire wear particles and the chemicals that leach from them affect other aquatic species that are used as indicators of toxicological risk. This widespread contamination occurs because emissions of tire additives are high.

Every time we drive, we produce particles from tire wear, and those particles release additives into the environment. Tires lose 10-20 per cent of their mass over their lifetime. That means driving emits over one million tonnes of tire particles to the environment in both the United States and the European Union every year.

All those tire particle emissions represent a large source of chemicals to the environment and high human exposures, especially in cities. Researchers have started to find tire additives and their transformation products in people.

Although more research is needed on how tire additives affect people, 6PPD is classified as a reproductive toxin, and other tire additives and their transformation products have been associated with increased cancer risk in exposed populations.

Emerging research with mice indicates that some tire additives and their transformation products impact mammals, with studies showing neurotoxicity, damage to multiple organ systems and impaired fertility from 6PPD-quinone.

That’s why our team of environmental scientists is calling for urgent global action.

Plastics treaty

We’re not arguing that tires shouldn’t have additives, but those additives must be safer. That’s why we are calling for a process that replaces 6PPD and other tire additives with safer alternatives. Tire additives should be nonhazardous across their entire life cycle, and manufacturers should be transparent about what tire additives they are using and what their hazards are.

Next week, governments from around the world are meeting to negotiate a global treaty to end plastic pollution. We call for tires to be explicitly included in the treaty, and we want to see strong measures around plastic additives including tire additives.

We want to see:

• Deadlines for phasing out hazardous chemicals;
• The ability to mandate alternatives;
• Transparency around the chemicals used in tires;
• Independent panels for evaluating additive alternatives and for assessing additive effects;
• Dedicated working groups focused on tire additives due to their large emissions and demonstrated ecological impacts.

The good news is that we’ve done this before. After scientists found a hole in the ozone layer, the world banded together under the Montréal Protocol to phase out the most damaging chemicals to the ozone layer. Today, the ozone layer is recovering, averting millions of cases of skin cancer and helping combat climate change. We need the same level of ambition and urgency now.

Making tires nonhazardous for the environment would help safeguard coho salmon populations, restoring traditional foods to Indigenous Peoples across the Pacific Northwest and protecting a species vital for aquatic ecosystems.

Since roads are built where people are, reducing the hazard from tire particle pollution would reduce one source of exposure to potentially toxic chemicals, and ensure a future where fewer people are impacted by chemical pollution. It’s time for global action on tire additives, before their impacts become even harder to ignore.

Timothy Rodgers receives funding from the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund.

Rachel Scholes receives funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the BC Knowledge Development Fund, and the BC Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund.

Simon Drew receives funding from the British Columbia Salmon Restoration and Innovation Fund.

– ref. Car tires are polluting the environment and killing salmon. A global plastics treaty could help – https://theconversation.com/car-tires-are-polluting-the-environment-and-killing-salmon-a-global-plastics-treaty-could-help-261832

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Ryan Clutterbuck, Assistant Professor in Sport Management, Brock University

WNBA all-star players, led by Indiana Fever’s Caitlin Clark and the Minnesota Lynx’s Naphessa Collier, recently made headlines by wearing “Pay Us What You Owe Us” T-shirts during the pregame warm-up.

The T-shirts, which are now available for purchase, were a demonstration of players’ frustrations with the WNBA owners and the ongoing collective bargaining agreement negotiation. The collective agreement sets out the terms and conditions of employment (like salaries and benefits) between the league and its players, and is set to expire Oct. 31, 2025.

Reportedly, players are asking for increased revenue sharing (the current agreement stipulates WNBA players receive only nine per cent of league revenue, relative to their NBA peers who receive 50 per cent), increased compensation (the average WNBA salary is US$147,745) and other benefits.

Central to these demands is the perception that, despite a surge in popularity, media attention and viewership, WNBA players are still being underpaid and are undervalued.

Negotiations for a new collective agreement are ongoing. But as the T-shirts and subsequent public statements from the players and the WNBA show, there is increasing frustration with how the process is unfolding.

What is ‘owed’ to WNBA players?

Debate over what is “owed” to WNBA players has intensified recently. ESPN commentator Pat McAfee, for example, has suggested the league should simply increase players’ salaries by US$30,000 per player, saying that contracts like Clark’s are “an embarrassment.”

But others argue this discussion should go beyond players’ salaries. Syracuse University sport management professor Lindsey Darvin writes:

“The question isn’t whether the WNBA can afford to pay players what they’re worth; it’s whether the league can afford not to make the investments necessary to realize its full potential.”

According to Darvin, because the WNBA is an economically inefficient — and arguably exploitative — business, its focus should be on increasing revenue, and not simply on reducing its labour costs. For example, with the goal to satisfy increasing market demands for the WNBA, strategies to increase revenue could include expanding the league to new markets, scheduling more games at the 3 p.m. Eastern time slot and increasing the number of regular season games from 44 to 60 or more.

In sport management classrooms and negotiation workshops at Brock University, we call this “expanding the pie” — working collaboratively, as opposed to combatively, to grow the game and the business so that both players and owners benefit over the long term. But this is easier said than done.

Information shapes negotiation outcomes

While it’s still early in the negotiation process, there are lessons that can be learned from this round of collective bargaining. One of those lessons has to do with making and receiving first offers. In particular, two psychological concepts are at play: information asymmetry and the anchoring effect.

Information asymmetry occurs when one party holds more relevant knowledge than the other. For example, in a typical job negotiation, the employer knows the number of applicants for the position, how much the company is willing to pay and what compensation trends look like across the sector. The candidate, by contrast, lacks most if not all of this information and thus enters the negotiation at a distinct disadvantage.

The question is: who should make the first salary offer? The general rule is that when you lack critical information, it’s better to let the other side make the first move.

In the case of the WNBA’s negotiations, the information asymmetry problem is not so obvious. The owners likely have a certain perspective on what is acceptable in terms of sharing league revenue and improving working conditions. But the players possess their own kind of leverage, regarding their willingness to protest or walk out entirely.

The league made its initial proposal to the players in early July, but it was not well received.

The ‘anchoring effect’ can skew negotiations

Another problem influencing negotiations is the “anchoring effect.” This occurs when an initial offer influences subsequent offers and counteroffers, and ultimately has an impact on the final outcome.

Garage-sale aficionados may recognize this tendency, as buyers often negotiate with the seller’s sticker price in mind, haggling to earn a 25 or 50 per cent discount on an item without considering whether the item is actually worth the cost. Here, the sticker acts as the anchor.

While sticker prices and first offers are not inherently malicious, some sale prices and first offers are intended to manipulate buyers and negotiators representing the other side. Savvy negotiators deploy strategic anchors, but even they can sometimes miss.

In maritime terms, anchor scour occurs when a ship’s anchor fails to catch hold and instead drags across the seabed, destroying ecosystems caught in its path.

In negotiations, a similar process can unfold. When initial moves and first offers fail to catch hold because they are perceived to be unfair by the other side, it can damage relationships and can make subsequent negotiations even more difficult.

Now, the WNBA may face the consequences of a poorly received anchor. According to WNBA player representative, Satou Sabally, the WNBA’s initial offer was a “slap in the face”.

New York Liberty’s Breanna Stewart called the players’ meeting with the league on July 17 to discuss a new collective bargaining agreement a “wasted opportunity” while Chicago Sky player Angel Reese called the negotiations “disrespectful.”

It’s time to right the ship

Though it’s still early days, we expect negotiations to heat up in the coming weeks as the Halloween deadline to reach a deal approaches.

There is still time to right the ship, so to speak, but to do so, WNBA players and owners must internalize the potentially disastrous impacts that can come from negotiating over an imagined “fixed pie” instead of expanding it, and dropping anchors that fail to address the other sides’ key interests.

WNBA players and WNBA team owners now have, in front of them, a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform professional women’s sport in North America, through creatively and collaboratively expanding the pie and paying the players what they’re owed.

Michele K. Donnelly has received funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

Michael Van Bussel and Ryan Clutterbuck do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. ‘Pay us what you owe us:’ What the WNBA’s collective bargaining talks reveal about negotiation psychology – https://theconversation.com/pay-us-what-you-owe-us-what-the-wnbas-collective-bargaining-talks-reveal-about-negotiation-psychology-261731

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Spyros A. Sofos, Assistant Professor in Global Humanities, Simon Fraser University

A new round of violence recently erupted in southern Syria, where clashes between local Druze militias and Sunni fighters have left hundreds dead.

In response, Israel launched airstrikes in and around the province of Sweida on July 15, saying it was acting to protect the Druze minority and to deter attacks by Syrian government forces.

The strikes mark Israel’s most serious escalation in Syria since December 2024, and they underline a growing trend in its foreign policy: the use of minority protection as a tool of regional influence and power projection.

The Druze minority

The Druze, a small but strategically significant ethno-religious group, have historically occupied a precarious position in the politics of Syria, Israel and Lebanon.

With an estimated million members across the Levant — a sub-region of west Asia that forms the core of the Middle East — the Druze have often tried to preserve their autonomy amid broader sectarian and political upheavals. In Syria, they make up about three per cent of the population, concentrated largely in the southern province of Sweida.

Following the collapse of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria in late 2024 and the rise of a new Islamist-led government under Ahmed al-Sharaa, the Druze in southern Syria have resisted central authority.

Though not united in their stance, many Druze militias have rejected integration into the new Syrian army, preferring to rely on local defence networks. The latest wave of violence, sparked by the abduction of a Druze merchant, has been met with both brutality from pro-government forces and military retaliation by Israel.

Truly protecting Syrian minorities?

Israeli officials says they intervened to protect the Druze, which is not unprecedented. Over the past year, Israel has increasingly portrayed itself as a defender of threatened minorities in Syria — rhetoric that echoes past efforts to align with non-Arab or marginalized groups, such as the Kurds and certain Christian communities.

This strategy may be less about humanitarian goals and, in fact, much more deeply political.

By positioning itself as a regional protector of minorities, Israel could be seeking to craft a narrative of moral authority, particularly as it faces growing international outrage over its policies in the West Bank and Gaza. This is an example of what scholars refer to as strategic or nation branding by states to cultivate legitimacy and influence through selective interventions and symbolic gestures.

But Israel’s actions may not just concern image. They could also be part of a broader geopolitical strategy of containment and fragmentation.

The new authorities in Syria are seen as a significant threat, particularly because of the presence of Islamist factions operating near the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. By creating what is in effect a buffer zone in southern Syria, Israel’s goal may be to prevent the entrenchment of hostile entities along its northern border while also capitalizing on Syria’s internal fragilities.

Strategic risks

With sectarian tensions resurfacing in Syria, the Israeli government probably sees an opportunity to build informal alliances with disaffected groups like the Druze, who may be skeptical of the new Syrian government. This reflects a shift in Israel’s foreign policy from reactive deterrence to proactive strategic disruption.

This approach is not without risks. While some Druze leaders have welcomed Israeli support, others — particularly in Syria and Lebanon — have accused Israel of stoking sectarian tensions to justify military intervention and advance territorial or security aims.

Such accusations echo longstanding criticisms that Israel’s involvement in regional conflicts is often guided less by humanitarian concern and more by cold strategic calculation.

This new phase in Israeli foreign policy also fits into a broader pattern I’ve previously written about — the increasing revisionism of Israel’s regional strategy under Benjamin Netanyahu’s leadership. That strategy seemingly seeks to upend multilateral norms, bypass traditional diplomacy and pursue influence through direct engagement — often militarized — with non-state entities and marginalized communities.

Read more:
How Israel’s domestic crises and Netanyahu’s aim to project power are reshaping the Middle East

Israel’s July 15 strikes, and an attack on Syria’s Ministry of Defence in Damascus the following day, have drawn strong condemnation from Arab states, Turkey and the United Nations.

While Israeli officials have justified the attacks as defensive and humanitarian, the intensity and symbolic targets suggest a deeper intention: to demonstrate operational reach, and, more importantly, actively engage in a redesign of the region with fragmentation and state weakness as the main objective.

Fragmentation of the Middle East

The United States, while expressing concern over the violence, has largely remained silent on Israel’s expanding role in Syria. This could further embolden Israeli actions in a region where international norms are being increasingly upended and traditional great power engagement is waning.

Sectarian clashes are likely to continue in Sweida and beyond as Syria’s central government struggles to reassert control. That means that for Israel, the opportunity to deepen its footprint in southern Syria under the guise of minority protection remains.

But despite its effort to present itself as a stable, moral presence in an otherwise chaotic neighbourhood, Israel could be undermining the very stability it says it wants to protect as it militarizes humanitarianism.

The world is not not just witnessing a series of airstrikes or another episode of sectarian violence in the Middle East. It’s watching a profound transformation in the regional order — one in which traditional borders, alliances and identities are being reshaped.

Amid this environment, Israel’s role could evolve not just as a military power, but as a revisionist nation navigating, and helping to bring about, the fragmentation of the Middle East.

Spyros A. Sofos does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Israel’s attack on Syria: Protecting the Druze minority or a regional power play? – https://theconversation.com/israels-attack-on-syria-protecting-the-druze-minority-or-a-regional-power-play-261648