Category: Academic Reportage

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Kayla Gabehart, Assistant Professor of Environmental Policy, Michigan Technological University

Many rural Coloradans, especially in agricultural communities, feel looked down on by their urban counterparts. One cattle rancher I spoke to put it plainly. “It’s an attitude … we are the idiots … we are the dumb farmers … we don’t really matter.”

The sentiment is also portrayed in popular culture such as the hit TV show “Yellowstone.”

“It’s the one constant in life. You build something worth having, someone’s gonna try to take it,” says patriarch John Dutton. He was facing repeated threats by developers from “the city” to annex his land for a luxury hotel and resort development.

As a policy scholar, I’ve talked to and interviewed many dozens of people in rural areas in Colorado. I’ve also read hundreds of newspaper articles and watched hundreds of hours of legislative testimony that capture the sentiment of rural people being left behind, left out and snubbed by their urban counterparts.

Recently, I studied the divide between rural and urban Coloradans by looking at their responses to four statewide policies. A designated day to forgo eating meat, two political appointees and the ongoing wolf reintroduction.

These policies, while specific to Colorado, are symptoms of something larger. Namely, an ever-urbanizing, globalized world that rural, agricultural citizens feel is leaving them behind.

‘MeatOut’ or misstep?

My expertise doesn’t just come from my research – I’ve lived it.

I grew up in a rural community in Elbert County, Colorado, about an hour- and-a-half southeast of Denver.

In early 2021, Gov. Jared Polis declared via proclamation that March 20 would be a “MeatOut Day.” For health and environmental reasons, Colorado residents were encouraged to forgo meat for a single day.

Supported by the Farm Animal Rights Movement, MeatOuts have been promoted across the U.S. since the 1980s. Typically, gubernatorial proclamations, of which hundreds are passed each year and are completely ceremonial and devoid of any long-term formal policy implications, go largely unnoticed. And in Denver, Colorado’s metropolitan center, this one did too.

Not so in rural Colorado.

My neighbors in Elbert County promptly responded with outrage, flying banners and flags declaring their support for agriculture and a carnivorous diet.

One rancher from Nathrop painted a stack of hay bales to say, “Eat Beef Everyday.”

Communities all over the state, and even in neighboring states, responded with “MeatIns,” where they gathered to eat meat and celebrate agriculture and the rural way of life. They also coupled these events with fundraisers, for various causes, for which hundreds of thousands of dollars were raised across the state. While Polis backed off the MeatOut after 2021, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has, just this year, supported a similar “Eat Less Meat” campaign, prompting similar rural outrage.

Did I mention there are nearly 36,000 cattle in Elbert County? This is relatively typical of a rural Colorado county, particularly on the Plains.

In Colorado, 2.7 million cattle are raised annually, with a value of US$4.5 billion. The industry is consistently the top agricultural commodity and the second-largest contributor to Colorado’s GDP, at about $7.7 billion per year.

In early March 2021, Polis declared March 22 “Colorado Livestock Proud Day,” in response to the backlash.

Other policies

This came on the heels of several policies supported by Polis prior to the MeatOut controversy that critics considered anti-agriculture.

In 2020, he appointed Ellen Kessler, a vegan and animal rights activist, to the State Veterinary Board. Kessler criticized 4-H programs, designed to educate youth on agriculture and conservation, on her social media, insisting they “don’t teach children that animal lives matter.” Kessler resigned in March 2022, just days before she was cited for 13 counts of animal cruelty. More recently, in May 2025, Polis appointed Nicole Rosmarino to head the State Land Board. Rosmarino has ties to groups that oppose traditional agricultural practices, historically a key component of Colorado State Land Board operations.

Then came wolf reintroduction, passed by urban voters by just under 57,000 votes in the 2020 general election and supported by the governor. Those in support advocated for a return to natural biodiversity; wolves were hunted to extinction in the 1940s.

Rural residents voted decidedly against the initiative. Despite much legislative and grassroots action to oppose it, wolves were reintroduced in December 2023 in various areas along the Western Slope, in close proximity to many ranches. Several cattle have since been killed by wolves. Ever since, rural interests have been working to overturn wolf reintroduction on the 2026 ballot.

An American mess

Rural residents in Colorado have told me they feel excluded. This is not new or exclusive to Colorado, but a story as old as America itself.

University of Wisconsin political scientist Katherine J. Cramer wrote about this rural exclusion in Wisconsin, calling it “rural resentment.” Berkeley sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild called it “stolen pride.” In their book, Tom Schaller, a political scientist at the University of Maryland, and Paul Waldman, a longtime journalist, characterize it as “white rural rage.”

It’s a dynamic that descends from slavery. Isabel Wilkerson, in her book “Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents,” demonstrates that while Black Americans have historically been relegated to the bottom of the hierarchy of an American caste system, poor white people are strategically positioned just above them but below white Americans of higher socioeconomic status. As Wilkerson explains, this is a durable system sustained by norms, laws and cultural expectations that feel “natural.” But they are entirely constructed and designed by the American upper class to intentionally exploit resentment of working-class white people.

The result is what sociologist Michael M. Bell calls a “spatial patriarchy” that characterizes rural America as dumb, incapable, racist, poor and degraded as “white trash.”

This spatial patriarchy is as old as industrialization and urbanization. One of the first policy iterations was rural school consolidation during the turn of the 20th century, designed to modernize schools and make them more efficient. Urban policymakers were influenced by eugenics and the assumption that rural schools “were populated by cognitively deficient children whose parents had not been smart enough or fortunate enough to leave the decaying countryside,” according to sociologist Alex DeYoung.

So, states around the country consolidated schools, the lifeblood of rural communities. Where a school closed, the town often died, as in small towns, schools are not just socioeconomic hubs but centers of cultural and social cohesion.

Environmental impact

The same concept – that urban policymakers know better than rural Americans – is manifest in the modern environmental movement. Like with the MeatOut, rural communities also distrust environmental policies that, in their view, intentionally target a rural way of life. Rural communities take the position that they’ve been made to bear the brunt of the transformations of the global economy for generations, including those that deal with energy and the environment.

For example, environmentalists frequently call for lowering meat consumption and enacting livestock taxes to lower global greenhouse gas emissions.

But, there’s a huge, untapped potential for environmental policies that use language consistent with rural attitudes and values, such as ideas about conservation and land stewardship. Political scientists Richard H. Foster and Mark K. McBeth explain, “Rural residents perceive, probably correctly, that environmental ‘outsiders’ are perfectly willing to sacrifice local economic well-being and traditional ways of life on the altar of global environmental concerns.” They instead suggest “emphasizing saving resources for future generations” so that rural communities may continue to thrive.

The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations attribute between 18% to 24% of greenhouse gas emissions to agriculture, while the International Panel on Climate Change places the estimate closer to 10%. However, agricultural producers point out that, while they may be responsible for that 10%, just 100 companies, such as BP and ExxonMobil, have produced 70% of all emissions. Agricultural producers say policies such as livestock taxes would disproportionately impact small-scale farmers and intensify rural inequality.

Rural communities have the distinct feeling that urban America doesn’t care whether they fail or flourish. Nearly 70% of rural voters supported Trump in the 2024 presidential election. He won 93% of rural counties. Rural Americans feel left behind, and for them, Trump might be their last hope.

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

– ref. Why rural Coloradans feel ignored − a resentment as old as America itself – https://theconversation.com/why-rural-coloradans-feel-ignored-a-resentment-as-old-as-america-itself-260894

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Brendan Cantwell, Professor of Higher, Adult, and Lifelong Education, Michigan State University

The Trump administration and Harvard University are reportedly close to reaching a settlement that would require Harvard to pay US$500 million in exchange for the government releasing frozen federal funding and ending an investigation into antisemitism on campus.

This follows similar deals the White House struck with Columbia University and Brown University in July 2025. Both of those universities agreed to undertake campus reforms and pay a large sum – more than $200 million in the case of Columbia and $50 million for Brown – in order to receive federal funding that the Trump administration was withholding. The White House originally froze funding after saying that these universities had created unsafe environments for Jewish students during Palestinian rights protests on campus in 2024.

As a scholar of higher education politics, I examined the various deals the Trump administration made with some universities. When Harvard announces its deal, it will be informative to see what is different – or the same.

I believe the Columbia and Brown deals can be used as a blueprint for Trump’s plans for higher education. They show how the government wants to drive cultural reform on campus by giving the government more oversight over universities and imposing punishments for what it sees as previous wrongdoing.

Here are four key things to understand about the deals:

1. Antisemitism isn’t a major feature of the agreements

The Trump White House accused Brown and Columbia of tolerating antisemitism during campus protests. But the administration neither followed federal standards for investigating antisemitism, nor did it dictate specific reforms to protect Jewish students.

Ahead of its deal, Columbia in March 2025 adopted a new, broader definition of antisemitism that was created by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The United Nations and most European Union countries also use this definition.

Yet the school’s 22-page deal mentions antisemitism only once, where it says Columbia is required to hire an additional staff member to support Jewish students’ welfare.

Brown’s deal, meanwhile, did not involve the university adopting a particular definition of antisemitism. But Brown did commit to offering “research and education about Israel, and a robust Program in Judaic Studies.” Brown already hosts a Judaic Studies program, and it is unclear from the agreement’s text what additional measures are required.

The deals also extend well beyond antisemitism concerns and into questions of gender and the composition of student bodies.

Columbia agreed to provide “single-sex” housing and sports facilities, for example. The university has an optional Open Housing program that allows mixed-gender roommates and several gender-neutral restrooms.

This places the school in line with Donald Trump’s January executive order that says a person’s gender is based on their sex as assigned at birth.

Brown’s deal also requires single-sex sports and housing facilities. In addition, Brown committed to using definitions of men and women that match Trump’s executive order.

Columbia, which enrolls about 40% of its students from other countries, also agreed to “decrease financial dependence on international student enrollment.”

The Brown deal says nothing about international education.

2. Both deals are expensive but vague about financial details.

Columbia must pay a fine of more than $200 million to the federal government, while Brown will make $50 million in donations to Rhode Island workforce development programs.

In both cases, it is not clear where the money will go or how it will be used.

Congress passed The Clery Act in 1990, creating a legal framework for fining campuses that failed to protect students’ safety.

Since then, the government has reached different settlements with universities.

Liberty University, in Lynchburg, Virginia, was required to pay the federal government $14 million in 2024, for example, for failing to investigate sexual assault allegations.

But Columbia’s payment is far larger than any previous university and government settlement. Columbia will make three payments of about $66 million into the Treasury Department over three years, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education. But it isn’t clear how the money will exactly be spent and what will happen after those three years, The Chronicle of Higher Education reported in August 2025.

Only Congress can legally decide how to spend Treasury Department funds. But Trump has ignored Congress’ appropriation directives on a number of occasions.

Brown, meanwhile, will not pay the government anything. Instead, its deal will go “to state workforce development organizations operating in compliance with anti-discrimination laws, over the ten years.”

The Brown deal doesn’t say what qualifies as qualified workforce development organizations.

3. Trump wants to influence university admissions.

While the Brown and Columbia deals have several differences, the agreements have nearly identical language giving the Trump administration oversight of the way they admit students.

The deals say that the universities must provide the government with detailed information about who applied to the schools and was admitted, broken down by grades and test scores, as well as race and ethnicity. The government could then conduct a “comprehensive audit” of the schools, based on this information.

This information could also be used to determine if universities are showing a preferences for students of color. Without providing evidence, conservative activists have alleged that selective colleges discriminate against white people and that this is a violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Experts have said that these reporting requirements appear to be intended to increase the number of white students admitted to Ivy League schools.

4. The deals could open more doors to federal intrusion.

Claire Shipman, Columbia’s acting president, said in July that the deal would allow the university’s “research partnership with the federal government to get back on track.”

Christina Paxson, Brown’s president, also defended the agreement in a statement, writing that it “enables us as a community to move forward after a period of considerable uncertainty in a way that ensures Brown will continue to be the Brown that our students, faculty, staff, alumni, parents and friends have known for generations.”

But the deals could invite more scrutiny from the federal government.

Both deals spell out the government’s right to open new investigations against Brown and Columbia, or to reopen old complaints if the administration is not satisfied with how the universities are implementing the agreement.

Trump is now pressuring Harvard, UCLA and other universities to strike deals, also based on similar antisemitism allegations.

The White House announced on Aug. 8 that it could seize the research patents, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, that Harvard holds. Since 1980, universities have been able to legally hold, and profit from, patents resulting from federally funded research.

The federal government has long influenced higher education through funding and regulation. But the government has never tried to dictate what happens on campus before now.

Higher education experts like me believe that political goals now drive the way the government approaches higher education. Some of Trump’s conservative allies are now urging the president to go even further, saying “we have every right to renegotiate the terms of the compact with the universities.”

Given these and other pressure tactics, academics who study the law and government warn that the university deals indicate encroaching authoritarianism.

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

– ref. Exactly what is in the Ivy League deals with the Trump administration – and how they compare – https://theconversation.com/exactly-what-is-in-the-ivy-league-deals-with-the-trump-administration-and-how-they-compare-262912

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Andrew A. Schwartz, DeMuth Chair of Business Law, University of Colorado Boulder

Imagine you invest US$500 to help a startup get off the ground through investment crowdfunding. The pitch is slick, the platform feels trustworthy and the company quickly raises its target amount from hundreds of people just like you. Then – silence. No updates, no financials, not even a thank-you.

You’ve been ghosted – not by a friend, but by a company you helped fund.

This isn’t just an unlucky anecdote. It’s happening across the United States. And while it may violate federal law, there’s little enforcement – and virtually no consequences.

Thanks to a 2012 law, startups can raise up to US$5 million per year from the general public through online platforms such as Wefunder or StartEngine. The law was intended to “democratize” investing and give regular people, not just the wealthy, a chance to back promising young companies.

But there’s a catch: Companies that raise money this way are required to file an annual report with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and post it publicly. This report, intended to show whether the business is making progress and how it is using investor funds, is a cornerstone of accountability in the system.

As a professor of business law, I wrote the book on investment crowdfunding. And in my recent research, I found that a majority of crowdfunded companies simply ignore this rule. They raise the money and go silent, leaving investors in the dark.

In most cases, I suspect their silence isn’t part of an elaborate con. More likely, the founders never realized they had to file, forgot about the requirement amid the chaos of running a young business, or shut down entirely. But whether it’s innocent oversight or deliberate avoidance, the effect on investors is the same: no information, no accountability.

This kind of vanishing act would be unthinkable for public companies listed on the stock market. But in the world of investment crowdfunding, limited oversight means that going silent, whatever the reason, is all too easy.

It’s not just 1 or 2 victims

When startups go dark, they don’t just leave their investors behind – they undermine the entire crowdfunding model.

Investment crowdfunding was meant to be an accessible, transparent way to support innovation. But when companies ghost their backers, the relationship starts to look less like an investment and more like a donation.

It’s not just unethical – it’s illegal. Federal law requires at least one annual update. But so far, enforcement has been almost nonexistent.

Concerned state attorneys general have encouraged the SEC to ramp up enforcement actions. This could work in theory, but it’s unrealistic in practice, given the SEC’s limited resources and broad mission.

If nothing changes, the crowdfunding experiment could collapse under the weight of mistrust.

Incentives work − let’s use them

Fortunately, there’s a low-cost solution.

I propose that crowdfunding platforms hold back 1% of the capital raised until the company files its first required report. If it complies, it gets the funds. If not, it doesn’t.

It’s a small but powerful incentive that could nudge companies into doing the right thing, without adding bureaucratic complexity.

It’s the same principle used in escrow arrangements, which are common in finance. In a home sale, for example, part of the money goes into a neutral holding account – escrow – until the seller meets certain agreed conditions. Only then is it released. Applying that approach here, a small slice of crowdfunding proceeds would stay in escrow until the company files its first annual report. No report, no release.

Unfortunately, crowdfunding platforms are unlikely to adopt this voluntarily. They compete with one another for deal flow, and any rule that makes fundraising slightly harder at one platform could send startups to a rival site.

However, the SEC has the legal authority to update its rules, and this change would be easy to implement – no new laws, no congressional fights, just a bit of regulatory will. I’ve even drafted a proposed rule, ready-made for the SEC to adopt, and published it in my recent article, Ghosting the Crowd.

The idea behind investment crowdfunding remains powerful: Open the door to entrepreneurship and investment for everyone. But if that door leads to silence and broken promises, trust will disappear – and with it, a promising financial innovation.

A tiny tweak to the rules could restore that trust. Without it, investors will keep getting ghosted. And the market might ghost them right back.

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

– ref. Crowdfunded companies are ‘ghosting’ their investors – and getting away with it – https://theconversation.com/crowdfunded-companies-are-ghosting-their-investors-and-getting-away-with-it-261346

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Ilana Horwitz, Assistant Professor of Jewish Studies and Sociology, Tulane University

Students at elite universities tend to talk a good game when it comes to religious pluralism. Many of them show up on day one already saying all the right things about respecting different faiths.

But here’s the paradox: They don’t grow from there, according to our research published in The Journal of Higher Education. Students at less selective colleges, meanwhile, do develop more pluralistic attitudes. And by their fourth year, they participate in interfaith activities, such as taking courses about different religions or joining in interfaith dialogues, just as much as anyone else.

Religious pluralism goes beyond tolerance or diversity, which are simply coexisting with people of different faiths. Pluralism involves actively seeking to understand other traditions, talking with people from other backgrounds and working with them toward common goals.

As scholars of religion and education, we worked with sociologist of education David Shuang Song to study how students’ attitudes and actions change over time. We examined data from more than 3,100 students at 112 colleges, using the Interfaith Diversity Experiences and Attitudes Longitudinal Survey. Our study tracked students for four years, measuring two things: their attitudes about appreciating different faiths, and their actual participation in interfaith activities.

Our study revealed three findings.

First, freshmen at highly selective schools – institutions that typically admit fewer than 1 in 5 applicants – often start with stronger support for religious pluralism. Compared with freshmen at less selective schools, they are more likely to agree with questions like “I respect people who have religious or nonreligious perspectives that differ from my own,” though the difference was modest.

Second, fourth-year students at less selective schools showed more pluralistic attitudes than at the start of college. In contrast, students at elite institutions maintained their high initial attitudes without any measurable change.

Third, students at all types of institutions participated in more interfaith activities by the end of college, on average, with less selective schools showing slightly larger gains. That might mean attending services of different faiths, taking courses about other religions or joining dialogue groups.

The bottom line: At less selective colleges, students tended to develop stronger attitudes about religious pluralism, and they also increased their interfaith activities. At elite colleges, students increased their activities, but their attitudes more often remained flat.

Why it matters

The United States is growing more religiously diverse – with growing numbers of non-Christian and nonreligious adults – and more divided across religious lines. Antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents have surged over the past few years, including on college campuses. All of this makes it especially urgent that colleges prepare students to bridge divides.

Our findings reveal an interesting paradox: Elite institutions admit students who already express strong support for religious pluralism on surveys. On average, however, students’ attitudes don’t deepen during college, although their interfaith activities do increase somewhat.

And students’ answers to questions about pluralism don’t necessarily demonstrate genuine commitment. For example, these attitudes may be part of how some elite students learn to seem culturally sophisticated – voicing ideals they associate with being open-minded, cosmopolitan and educated.

The findings may challenge assumptions about where meaningful education about diversity occurs. On average, less selective institutions, which educate most college students, begin with students less inclined toward pluralism. Yet in general, we found that these schools successfully foster growth in both attitudes and behavior – particularly when interfaith programs are integrated into everyday campus life and curriculum. All colleges can challenge students through experiences like interfaith events, research projects or internships.

What’s next

Today’s college students are tomorrow’s civic leaders, educators, policymakers and professionals. If institutions are struggling to cultivate the skills students need to have conversations and collaborate with people from diverse religious backgrounds, the cultural divides that already fracture our democracy are at risk of deepening.

We believe colleges must go beyond performative pluralism to foster the habits of curiosity, humility and collaboration. Pluralism isn’t just a campus value. It’s a civic necessity.

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

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. The paradox of pluralism: How college shapes students’ views of other religions – https://theconversation.com/the-paradox-of-pluralism-how-college-shapes-students-views-of-other-religions-261901

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Alton C. Byers, Faculty Research Scientist, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, University of Colorado Boulder

Each summer in the mountains above Juneau, Alaska, meltwater from the massive Mendenhall Glacier flows into mountain lakes and into the Mendenhall River, which runs through town.

Since 2011, scientists and local officials have kept a close eye on one lake in particular: Suicide Basin, an ice-dammed bowl on an arm of the glacier. Glacier ice once covered this area, but as the ice retreated in recent decades, it left behind a large, deep depression.

In the summers of 2023 and 2024, meltwater filled Suicide Basin, overflowed and escaped through tunnels in the ice, sending surges of water downstream that flooded neighborhoods along the river.

On Aug. 12-13, 2025, the basin flooded again.

The surge of water from Suicide Basin reached record levels at Mendenhall Lake on Aug. 13 on its way toward Juneau, the state capital. Officials urged some neighborhoods to evacuate ahead of the surge. As the water rose, new emergency flood barriers were able to limit the damage.

The glacial flood risks that Juneau is now experiencing each summer are becoming a growing problem in communities around the world. As an Earth scientist and a mountain geographer, we study the impact that ice loss can have on the stability of the surrounding mountain slopes and glacial lakes, and we see several reasons for increasing concern.

The growing risk of glacial floods

In many mountain ranges, glaciers are melting as global temperatures rise. Europe’s Alps and Pyrenees lost 40% of their glacier volume from 2000 to 2023.

These and other icy regions have provided freshwater for people living downstream for centuries – almost 2 billion people rely on glaciers today. But as glaciers melt faster, they also pose potentially lethal risks.

Water from the melting ice often drains into depressions once occupied by the glacier, creating large lakes. Many of these expanding lakes are held in place by precarious ice dams or rock moraines deposited by the glacier over centuries.

Too much water behind these dams or a landslide or large ice discharge into the lake can break the dam, sending huge volumes of water and debris sweeping down the mountain valleys, wiping out everything in the way.

The Mendenhall Glacier floods, where glacial ice holds back the water, are classic jökulhlaup, or “glacier leap” floods, first described in Iceland and now characteristic of Alaska and other northern latitude regions.

Erupting ice dams and landslides

Most glacial lakes began forming over a century ago as a result of warming trends since the 1860s, but their abundance and rates of growth have risen rapidly since the 1960s.

Many people living in the Himalayas, Andes, Alps, Rocky Mountains, Iceland and Alaska have experienced glacial lake outburst floods of one type or another.

A glacial lake outburst flood in the Sikkim Himalayas in October 2023 damaged more than 30 bridges and destroyed a 200-foot-high (60 meters) hydropower plant. Residents had little warning. By the time the disaster was over, more than 50 people had died.

Avalanches, rockfalls and slope failures can also trigger glacial lake outburst floods.

These are growing more common as frozen ground known as permafrost thaws, robbing mountain landscapes of the cryospheric glue that formerly held them together. These slides can create massive waves when they plummet into a lake. The waves can then rupture the ice dam or moraine, unleashing a flood of water, sediment and debris.

That dangerous mix can rush downstream at speeds of 20-60 mph (30-100 kph), destroying homes and anything else in its path.

The casualties of such an event can be staggering. In 1941, a huge wave caused by a snow and ice avalanche that fell into Laguna Palcacocha, a glacial lake in the Peruvian Andes, overtopped the moraine dam that had contained the lake for decades. The resulting flood destroyed one-third of the downstream city of Huaraz and killed between 1,800 and 5,000 people.

In the years since, the danger there has only increased. Laguna Palcacocha has grown to more than 14 times its size in 1941. At the same time, the population of Huaraz has risen to over 120,000 inhabitants. A glacial lake outburst flood today could threaten the lives of an estimated 35,000 people living in the water’s path.

Governments have responded to this widespread and growing threat by developing early warning systems and programs to identify potentially dangerous glacial lakes. In Juneau, the U.S. Geological Survey starts monitoring Suicide Basin closely when it begins to fill.

Some governments have taken steps to lower water levels in the lakes or built flood-diversion structures, such as walls of rock-filled wire cages, known as gabions, that divert floodwaters from villages, infrastructure or agricultural fields.

Where the risks can’t be managed, communities have been encouraged to use zoning that prohibits building in flood-prone areas. Public education has helped build awareness of the flood risk, but the disasters continue.

Flooding from inside and thawing permafrost

The dramatic nature of glacial lake outburst floods captures headlines, but those aren’t the only risks.

Englacial conduit floods originate inside of glaciers, commonly on steep slopes. Meltwater can collect inside massive systems of ice caves, or conduits. A sudden surge of water from one cave to another, perhaps triggered by the rapid drainage of a surface pond, can set off a chain reaction that bursts out of the ice as a full-fledged flood.

Thawing mountain permafrost can also trigger floods. This permanently frozen mass of rock, ice and soil has been a fixture at altitudes above 19,685 feet (6,000 meters) for millennia.

As permafrost thaws, even solid rock becomes less stable and is more prone to breaking, while ice and debris are more likely to become detached and turn into destructive and dangerous debris flows. Thawing permafrost has been increasingly implicated in glacial lake outburst floods because of these new sources of potential triggers.

How mountain regions can reduce the risk

A study published in 2024 counted more than 110,000 glacial lakes around the world and determined 10 million people’s lives and homes are at risk from glacial lake outburst floods.

To help prepare and protect communities, our research points to some key lessons:

1. Some of the most effective early warning systems have proven to be cellphone alerts. If combined with apps showing real-time water levels at a dangerous glacial lake, residents could more easily assess the danger.

2. Projects to lower glacier lakes aren’t always effective. In the past, at least two glacial lakes in the Himalayas have been lowered by about 10 feet (3 meters) when studies indicated that closer to 65 feet (20 meters) was needed. In some cases, draining small, emerging lakes before they develop could be more cost effective than waiting until a large and dangerous lake threatens downstream communities.

3. People living in remote mountain regions threatened by glacial lakes need a reliable source of information that can provide regular updates with monitoring technology.

4. Recently it has become clear that even tiny glacial lakes can be dangerous given the right combination of cascading events. These need to be included in any list of potentially dangerous glacial lakes to warn communities downstream.

The U.N. declared 2025 the International Year of Glaciers’ Preservation and 2025-2034 the decade of action in cryospheric sciences. Scientists on several continents will be working to understand the risks and find ways to help communities respond to and mitigate the dangers.

This is an update to an article originally published March 19, 2025, to include the latest Alaska flooding.

Suzanne OConnell receives funding from The National Science Foundation

Alton C. Byers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Glacial lake flood hits Juneau, Alaska, reflecting a growing global risk as mountain glaciers melt – https://theconversation.com/glacial-lake-flood-hits-juneau-alaska-reflecting-a-growing-global-risk-as-mountain-glaciers-melt-263109