English – Page 41 – MIL Submissions Engine

May 6, 2026

US declares war in Iran ‘over’ to avoid row with Congress over whether it was legal

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Gawthorpe, Lecturer in History and International Studies, Leiden University

Operation Epic Fury is over. Or at least, that’s what the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, announced on May 5, describing any further US action in the Gulf as purely “defensive”.

Rubio’s insistence that the conflict the US and Israel launched on February 28 achieved its objectives is open for debate. But this change of tone and terminology is likely to reflect arguments that raged in the US Congress as the war approached the two-month mark at the end of April, about whether the Trump administration must seek congressional approval for the conflict as required by US law.

The conflict has become the latest episode in a long struggle between the US Congress and the presidency over which branch of government can legitimately start wars. And, in a surprising way, Donald Trump’s actions seem to be pushing power back towards Congress.

The US constitution splits war powers between the presidency and Congress. It gives Congress the power to raise armies and declare war but makes the president the commander-in-chief of the military. That means that, in theory, you need to get Congress to agree to fund and start a war and the president to agree to wage it.

Since the second world war, this system has been changing. The last time the US formally declared war was in 1942 against Bulgaria, Hungary and Romania – having already declared war on Japan and Germany in December 1941. Since then, presidents have often plunged the country into hostilities on their own authority without getting a declaration of war from Congress.

Congress still needs to fund the military – but, with very few exceptions, the legislature has always done so. Individual members of Congress have generally been happy to let presidents take on the blame for starting wars. After conflicts have started, legislators have been unwilling to cut off funds for the troops in the field. As a result, Congress has given up much of its influence over decisions of war and peace.

But not entirely. The high point of Congressional pushback was in 1973, during the tail end of the Vietnam war, which by then had become extremely unpopular. In this context, Congress challenged the executive branch by passing the 1973 War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Act). It’s this law that is shaping the debate over Iran today.

The War Powers Resolution basically repeats what the constitution says: that Congress has to start wars, but it allows for some flexibility. If there is a surprise attack on US forces, the president can act to repel that attack for 60 days before getting a declaration of war from Congress.

As reasonable as this may sound, every administration since the War Powers Resolution was passed has questioned its constitutionality and refused to be bound by it.

To be sure, some presidents have asked Congress for a statement of political support before launching a major war, as they also had done before the War Powers Resolution was passed. For instance, George H.W. Bush did so before the Gulf war of 1990-91. But when doing so, presidents have generally maintained that they did so purely to ensure national unity, and not because the War Powers Resolution required it of them.

Presidents have also launched many interventions in which they ignored the resolution entirely – as Bush himself did in Panama in 1989.

Unpopular war

As a result, the resolution has never acted as a meaningful constraint on presidential war-making power. But things may be changing. The war in Iran is so unpopular that Congress asserting its authority over war powers more strongly than any time since the War Powers Resolution was passed. In the process, it is turning the resolution into something that might meaningfully affect the course of the war.

One reason for this is that even Trump’s Republican supporters in Congress are aware of how unpopular this war is. Many are worried about losing their seats in the midterms later this year. As a result, Congress is stirring. Even senior Republican figures are treating the War Powers Resolution and its 60-day clock as an important constraint on the administration and demanding that the war stop or be authorised by Congress after it passes that mark.

In response to this political pressure, the Trump administration seems to be paying more attention to the requirements of the War Powers Resolution than most administrations before it.

The White House is too afraid of Republican opposition to ignore the resolution entirely, particularly when it knows that it may soon have to ask Congress for more funding for the war. Even the argument it made that the 60-day clock has paused during the ceasefire is an indication that it sees the clock as a legitimate thing in the first place.

If the war starts up again, Republicans will clamour for the administration to come to Congress for a declaration. This would probably trigger a major debate over the conditions that Congress wants to attach regarding strategy, goals and funding.

What this shows is that many of the checks and balances of the constitution only work when there is the political will to make them work.

Andrew Gawthorpe is affiliated with the Foreign Policy Centre in London.

– ref. US declares war in Iran ‘over’ to avoid row with Congress over whether it was legal – https://theconversation.com/us-declares-war-in-iran-over-to-avoid-row-with-congress-over-whether-it-was-legal-282159

May 6, 2026

College students are noticing their AI-smoothed writing sounds strong — and not like them

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Nurul Hassan Mohammad, PhD Candidate, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

Generative AI has become a part of everyday student life in Canada. While institutions focus on misconduct and detection, a deeper shift is happening, one that concerns identity.

A recent KPMG Canada report finds that 73 per cent of students use generative AI for schoolwork, and nearly half say it is their “first instinct.” Also significant is the finding that many students also report feeling uneasy, worried that their use may be seen as cheating.

The study is based on a survey of 684 university, college, vocational and high school students within a larger sample of 3,804 Canadians (aged 18+), on how people are adopting generative AI.

In my doctoral research on STEM education in Ontario colleges, I’m exploring how AI is transforming not only how students write but also how they perceive voice, legitimacy and what it means to be themselves.

Academic policies can define what constitutes cheating, but they do not address a more subtle concern: if AI helped write my assignment, will I still be seen as capable, and will my work represent me?

Identity takes shape through writing

Writing is more than a technical skill. It is one of the primary ways students structure and elaborate ideas, demonstrate competence and position themselves as emerging professionals.

This is particularly significant in STEM, where programs are often closely linked to specific career paths. Students are expected to begin positioning themselves as future professionals through how they communicate and present knowledge.

At the same time, STEM fields are often seen as primarily technical or data-driven, with writing treated as secondary. Yet research shows that communication is central to scientific practice, shaping how knowledge is constructed, interpreted and shared.

A Black person's hands seen on a laptop keyboard. — Communication shapes how knowledge is constructed, interpreted and shared.
(Allison Shelley/EDUimages), CC BY-NC

AI is part of envisioning career paths

Even beyond this, when science students write assignments, they also undertake what social and cultural theorists describe as “identity work.”

Through writing, students build narratives that let them explore how they might belong in particular worlds or professional fields. In my research, I examine how STEM programs operate as cultural worlds with implicit rules about what counts as smart, credible and legitimate participation.

Students interpret rules and adjust how they portray themselves in their work. This identity work is shaped by prior experiences, confidence with disciplinary language and alignment between personal interests and the STEM career paths they see as being available to them. AI is now part of that process.

‘Kinda generic’

In my research, I have observed college STEM classes, taken field notes and spoken with a cohort of students multiple times over a two year period about their work.

I often hear a version of the same concern: the AI-generated draft is technically strong, but “it does not sound like me.” This concern reflects the insight that “voice” or “sound” in writing is a signal of legitimacy.

In my collaborative work on cultivating student agency, I use the idea of “becoming alive within science education” to describe moments when students can bring more of themselves — their perspectives, ways of thinking and experiences — into how they learn and express ideas.

Yet institutions often favour more standardized forms of writing. AI can intensify this by making a fluent, generic style instantly available. For some students, this lowers barriers and supports access. For others, it feels like self-erasure.

One student put it this way:

“It’s better writing, yeah, it sounds good and helps get a better grade. But it’s kinda generic. Like anyone could’ve written it, not just me.”

This recurring pattern in the data points to a broader tension: phrasing, structure and tone in writing carry traces of identity, traces AI can smooth or erase.

How we think about ourselves

Many of us have likely noticed that AI tools can improve the quality and efficiency of writing and may also lead to more uniform outputs, reducing variation in how ideas are expressed. These concerns are echoed in education guidance.

UNESCO warns that AI systems can shape how knowledge is produced and expressed, raising questions about human agency and originality. Canadian policy discussions similarly highlight both the opportunities and risks of AI for student learning and authorship.

Taken together, these insights suggest how beyond only assisting human writing, AI shapes how voice is expressed and how we think about ourselves.

Policy catching up

Canadian post-secondary institutions are still determining their approach to AI.

Many policies aim to balance flexibility with oversight, allowing limited AI use while emphasizing disclosure and addressing risks such as fabricated citations, bias and privacy issues.

Yet institutions also acknowledge challenges in enforcement.

As policies evolve, uncertainty remains. Students must navigate what is permitted, what constitutes their work and whether it truly reflects who they are.

STEM and belonging

In Canada, participation in STEM fields remains uneven across gender and other social dimensions such as race, Indigenous identity, socioeconomic status and immigrant background.

Many students already question whether they belong, making recognition deeply consequential.

If AI-generated writing becomes the implicit standard for “good work,” students may begin to locate competence in the tool rather than in themselves.

Students who rely on AI may question the authenticity of their success, while those who avoid it may feel at a disadvantage.

What can educators do?

Rethinking learning design is important. Students should not have to guess what is acceptable. Assessments should focus on process that makes students’ thinking visible, not just product.

Significantly, writing in one’s own voice must be treated as a skill worth developing.

In practice, this can be as simple as asking students to explain how they used AI in an assignment, or compare an AI-generated paragraph with their own and discuss what changed in tone, clarity and reasoning.

Instructors might also ask students to revise AI-polished text so it reflects their own thinking, or to identify where their interpretation and uncertainty matter. These and other small shifts help foreground not only what students produce but also how they think and position themselves in their work.

AI is here to stay. The question is whether STEM classrooms will help students use these tools without losing their voice, their agency and their sense of belonging.

Nurul Hassan Mohammad 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. College students are noticing their AI-smoothed writing sounds strong — and not like them – https://theconversation.com/college-students-are-noticing-their-ai-smoothed-writing-sounds-strong-and-not-like-them-279436

May 6, 2026

Protestant leaders once championed birth control – not to liberate women, but as part of ‘responsible parenthood’

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Samira Mehta, Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies & Jewish Studies, University of Colorado Boulder

Birth control pills have helped American women control their own bodies, but that wasn’t the main reason for religious leaders’ support. Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Mother’s Day seems like a strange time to celebrate birth control, which, on its most basic level, is about helping people to not become mothers – or not become mothers again.

But in the mid-20th century, much of birth control’s growing support came from attempts to support American women not as feminists, but as mothers. This is the story that I focus on in my 2026 book, “God Bless the Pill: The Surprising History of Contraception and Sexuality in American Religion.” Many religious leaders and U.S. politicians were looking for ways to strengthen the nuclear family, based around a homemaker mother and working father. Expanding legal access to contraception served as a way to make that happen.

Thought leaders who pushed to make birth control more available did not necessarily do so out of a desire to help women control their own bodies. They wanted to protect children and families and believed they were stronger when parents, particularly mothers, could devote intensive time to raising their children – ideally full time. Those views dovetailed with both political needs and Protestant beliefs of the moment.

‘Nuclear Family in the Nuclear Age’

The Cold War may have sprung from geopolitics and nuclear fears, but it was also a form of culture war, with American politicians pitting images of a “godly” United States against “godless communism.”

The nuclear family was a central piece of that propaganda. As historian Elaine Tyler May wrote, politicians, journalists and other public figures trumpeted the ideal of a mother, father and their children living in their own home: the “nuclear family in the nuclear age.” In their depiction, the American family was based on a sexually charged marriage between a beautiful – and fashionable – homemaker mother and a handsome father who could provide for his white, middle-class family.

A man in a suit and a woman with curled hair and red lipstick smile at each other as she holds a white pair of baby shoes. — Birth control made it easier for families to run a household on just one income – many religious leaders’ ideal.
H. Armstrong Roberts/ClassicStock/Getty Images

This idealized family could own a suburban home, one or two cars, and a constantly revolving selection of modern conveniences. Mothers were expected to invest in their appearance, presenting fathers with a delectable wife when they came home from work – plus a sparkling house and a home-cooked meal. In theory, this perfect mother had time, emotional energy and economic resources to parent their children in a very hands-on way.

Some middle- and upper-class Americans could afford this lifestyle, but it was out of reach for many, including many families that were not white. In addition, as Betty Friedan, one of the mothers of second-wave feminism, would articulate in “The Feminine Mystique,” many women who did live that life were not actually happy. That said, the idealized family was a central piece of American rhetoric in the middle of the 20th century – as was religion.

In the 1950s, more Americans attended church and synagogue than in any other decade that century. Around World War II, American figures started to often invoke the phrase “Judeo-Christian” to describe the country – a belated nod to Catholic and Jewish citizens in the still mostly Protestant nation. Nuclear families’ faith was considered a key piece of American defense against a “godless” Soviet Union.

American propaganda contrasted these ideal U.S. families against a vision of communism in which both parents worked. Soviet families were depicted in apartments with a shared kitchen and bathroom down the hall, without the material wonders of capitalism – from a brand new Frigidaire to a Kitchen Aid stand mixer and a Cadillac in the driveway.

In U.S. political rhetoric, the American family lived in technicolor, and the Soviet family lived in black and white.

‘Responsible parenthood’

But affording that vision of the American dream would be easier with fewer children.

Basic birth control methods had been part of American life for a long time – as evidenced by a declining birth rate among the middle and upper class, starting in the middle of the 19th century. “Scientific” birth control that required medical visits, such as diaphragms, had been around since the early 20th century.

A black-and-white photo shows a few women and lots of baby carriages outside a city storefront. — Women with children outside the first birth control clinic in the U.S., in Brooklyn, New York, in 1916.
Circa Images/GHI/Universal History Archive via Getty Images

Diaphragms became more accepted, and in 1936, a U.S. appeals court formally classified birth control as medical equipment. The birth control pill, which had been developed throughout the 1950s, was formally approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1960.

Different Protestant denominations had slowly come to accept birth control, though the Catholic Church remained staunchly opposed to all except the rhythm method. Contraception turned procreation into a new place where Christians could live morally: not having more children than they could afford, nurture, educate and raise with knowledge of God. Denominational statements from groups as diverse as the Lutherans and the Quakers articulated a Christian form of planned parenthood that they would call “responsible parenthood.” In many ways, it was primarily about motherhood.

In 1960, the Rev. Richard Fagley published “Population Explosion and Christian Responsibility,” the first pan-Protestant theory of responsible parenthood. Fagley, a Congregational minister, called the medical knowledge that led to the contraceptive pill “a liberating gift from God, to be used to the glory of God, in accordance with his will for men.” He went on to say that godly scientific knowledge “affects deeply the size of the family … and therefore has created a new area for responsible decisions.”

While Fagley was the first person to collect various denominations’ views into a cohesive theology, his position represented a Protestant consensus, and his argument was adopted by the National Council of Churches the following year.

Birth control, in this formulation, was not about being child-free, or being able to engage in sex outside marriage. Rather, it allowed couples to decide, prayerfully, how many children they could have, and when they would have them. “Responsible parenthood” framed family size around “Christian duty.”

‘Mother-wife’

The theology of responsible parenthood makes clear that it is not about feminist autonomy for women.

For instance, when the National Council of Churches released a statement on responsible parenthood, the reasons listed for limiting the number of children in the family included “The right of the child to be wanted, loved, cared for, educated, and trained in the ‘discipline and instruction of the Lord’ (Eph. 6:4). The rights of existing children to parental care have a proper claim.” In the 1960s, the person assumed to do the majority of the work to raise a child was the mother.

A woman in a dress and apron with curled hair smiles as she hands a bowl to a seated man in a suit, as two children sit with him at a kitchen table. — Mid-century ideals for women imagined them as full-time mothers and homemakers.
Lambert/Hulton Archive/Getty Images

Religious leaders’ rationale included concern for the woman herself, but in her role as “the mother-wife,” as the statement said – framing women in relationship to the men and children in their lives. Birth control was important inasmuch as it preserved her body and mind to fill those roles. And the occasion for more widespread acceptance of “responsible parenthood” was the advent of the birth control pill, for which women were primarily responsible.

In other words, birth control gained acceptance as a way to perfect married motherhood. But in 1972, the Supreme Court case Eisenstadt v. Baird expanded the right of contraception from married people to single people, including teenage girls.

The religious consensus supporting birth control soon fractured among evangelicals and other conservative Protestants. Not only did they start to see birth control as supporting sex outside of marriage, but also as undermining a mother’s moral guidance of her daughters, who could now access contraception without parental consent. Many more liberal Protestants got quieter as well.

That early, vocal support for birth control has come back in recent years. Battles over the Affordable Care Act and the Supreme Court’s 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson decision have caused liberal Protestant denominations to reaffirm their commitment to reproductive healthcare, including birth control and abortion. That commitment has a long history – even if it is not a strictly feminist history.

Samira Mehta receives funding from the Henry Luce Foundation.

– ref. Protestant leaders once championed birth control – not to liberate women, but as part of ‘responsible parenthood’ – https://theconversation.com/protestant-leaders-once-championed-birth-control-not-to-liberate-women-but-as-part-of-responsible-parenthood-280980

May 6, 2026

The method in Iran’s madness? Closure of Strait of Hormuz echoes a centuries-old Danish play − and is a tragedy for the world order

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Vivek Krishnamurthy, Associate Professor of Law, University of Colorado Boulder

Vessel movements in the Strait of Hormuz are seen on a ship-tracking website. AFP via Getty Images

More than two months into the war in Iran, navigation through the Strait of Hormuz – the key waterway through which more than a third of the international trade in oil and gas passes – remains perilous and uncertain. Underscoring the uncertainty, on May 3, 2026, the Trump administration launched Project Freedom to help stranded ships through the strait. Yet the next day, at least two ships came under fire from Iran.

Iran began blocking the strait to navigation on Feb. 28, after the United States and Israel launched a military campaign against the country. By mid-March, Tehran was demanding tolls of up to US$2 million per vessel. In response, the U.S. imposed what President Donald Trump declared to be a “complete” maritime blockade on Iran and subsequently threatened punishing economic sanctions on any entity that pays Iran’s tolls.

Following Iran’s lead, other nations are now contemplating using their own leverage over crucial choke points closer to their shores. Indonesia floated a proposal to charge tolls on vessels transiting the Strait of Malacca, before walking it back. China has also issued warnings against foreign military vessels transiting the Taiwan Strait.

These events have prompted commentators to warn of the end of a golden era of navigational freedom that the U.S. has underwritten for more than a century. But as an expert on international law, I know that attempts by nations to weaponize their leverage over crucial geographic choke points at sea and on land are nothing new. In fact, they go back at least six centuries.

The Danish roots of sea tolls

From the early 15th century until 1857, Denmark required ships passing through the narrow straits connecting the North Sea to the Baltic Sea to stop at the port city of Helsingør — or Elsinore, as Shakespeare styled it in “Hamlet” — and pay a toll before proceeding.

At their peak, these Sound Dues generated nearly 10% of Danish national revenues. The Sound Dues rankled the maritime powers of the day, but Denmark could easily enforce them thanks to the narrowness of the Øresund Strait, which is less than 3 miles wide at Helsingør.

Ultimately, they were ended not through war but through diplomacy, led in large part by a rising maritime power with a strong interest in open sea-lanes: the United States.

Seeking to increase its trade with Prussia, in 1843 the administration of President John Tyler advised Denmark of the United States’ refusal to pay the Sound Dues because they lacked any basis in international law. Rumors swirled that the U.S. was willing to back up its refusal to pay with force.

After years of uncertainty, the fate of the Sound Dues was resolved by the Copenhagen Convention of 1857. Denmark agreed to abolish the tolls forever in exchange for a one-time, lump-sum payment from the major trading nations. The principle of free navigation of the world’s oceans has largely prevailed since then, in part as a result of subsequent U.S. efforts to exercise these freedoms against those who would restrict them.

How the law developed

The Danish settlement reflected a broader body of law – the law of transit – that had been evolving alongside an international system of sovereign states for centuries.

Its core principle is that when convenience dictates or necessity requires, a country must allow the people, goods and vessels of other nations to pass through its territory for a journey that begins and ends elsewhere. The principle has deep roots in American and international legal history: Thomas Jefferson invoked it when negotiating with Spain, which then controlled Louisiana, to secure the United States’ right to navigate the Mississippi River.

Free transit guarantees have been a feature of every major international order since the Congress of Vienna ended the Napoleonic wars in 1815. Yet in each case, those guarantees have come under pressure as the order that produced them weakened.

Before World War I, restrictions on transit rights multiplied across Europe. The League of Nations, a precursor to today’s United Nations, made strengthening transit rights its first priority in the 1920s. But these arrangements fell apart as fascism rose across Europe and Asia and regimes from Nazi Germany to Imperial Japan denounced their international legal obligations.

The post-World War II order reaffirmed transit rights – through the law of the sea, trade agreements and the laws governing civil aviation – and for decades they held.

The International Court of Justice clarified the governing legal principle for international straits in its very first case, decided in 1949: Any body of water useful to international navigation between two open seas is open to the vessels of all nations.

The U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, concluded in 1982, reaffirmed this rule in holding that countries may not charge tolls on vessels passing through straits within their waters. Although neither Iran nor the U.S. has ratified the convention, the U.S. accepts its provisions on navigational freedom as binding on all countries.

Iran’s levying of tolls in the Strait of Hormuz violates the core legal principle that nations may not exploit advantages of geography to bilk foreigners who need to traverse their land or maritime territory. Yet the American and Israeli military campaign that provoked Iran’s response likewise violates the U.N. Charter’s rules on the use of force.

Such issues are not just limited to the Strait of Hormuz. Indeed, trade law, security commitments and the norms against the unilateral redrawing of borders are all under strain.

Seen in this larger context, China’s warnings against military passage through the Taiwan Strait and Indonesia’s trial balloon over the Malacca Strait are not isolated provocations. They are symptoms of the same underlying condition: an international order losing the shared commitment that has often made its rules enforceable.

In January 2026, Trump told The New York Times that he did not need international law and that his own moral judgment was the only constraint on American foreign policy. Around the same time, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney warned that the American-led international order was “fading.”

The Strait of Hormuz is where those trend lines are now colliding – to the detriment of billions of people around the world, and to the idea of an international order based on law rather than the naked exercise of power.

Vivek Krishnamurthy 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. The method in Iran’s madness? Closure of Strait of Hormuz echoes a centuries-old Danish play − and is a tragedy for the world order – https://theconversation.com/the-method-in-irans-madness-closure-of-strait-of-hormuz-echoes-a-centuries-old-danish-play-and-is-a-tragedy-for-the-world-order-281961

May 6, 2026

Why banning pro-Palestine marches is a risky response to antisemitic violence

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Joel Busher, Professor of Political Sociology, Coventry University

Following recent antisemitic violence and aggression, calls from some quarters for a temporary ban on pro-Palestine marches have gained traction. Conservative party leader Kemi Badenoch has firmly supported a ban, while
Keir Starmer, the prime minister, has suggested that some protests may need to be stopped. The government’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has called for a moratorium on such marches.

Those who have made such calls do so on the grounds that pro-Palestine marches, whatever their intent, are contributing to a “tone of Jew hatred within our country”, in the words of Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis. Starmer has also expressed concern about the “cumulative” effect of the marches on Jewish communities.

This is an understandable position in some ways. There can be little denying that some participants in pro-Palestine events have articulated antisemitic positions. And in a period where more clearly needs to be done to address antisemitic violence and aggression, a ban appears to provide a way for authorities to send a clear message that there is no place for antisemitism in Britain today.

Yet there are also problems with such proposals. As policymakers consider their options, it is important that these problems are taken seriously.

Evidence on the relationship between protest activity and targeted violence outside of the protest arena is limited. The available evidence points to a complex and context-dependent relationship.

Some studies have found that when protests increase, extremism and extremist violence can also rise, especially when society is more divided. Such a pattern has been observed, for example, in the US, where the bipartisan thinktank the Center for Strategic and International Studies identified heightened protest activity and rising domestic terrorism during the early 2020s.

However, many studies of nonviolent protest show that it reduces political violence, by providing nonviolent means of pursuing social and political objectives.

Where heightened protest activity coincides with increased extremist violence, it is often unclear whether protests or marches themselves are the cause. Today, people participating in social movements are likely to access and share information through a range of (often unregulated) spaces both offline and online. It is difficult to assess how important protests themselves might be in influencing people to go on to engage in targeted violence.

This is not simply academic nitpicking. It means that it is possible that a ban on marches would have little to no effect on the use of targeted violence against Jewish communities.

In fact, there is a distinct possibility that banning pro-Palestine marches, even if only temporarily, might actually increase violence.

Studies show that violence is less likely to escalate when moderate groups within protest movements are present and have influence. This has been observed, for example, in research into the escalation or inhibition of violence during waves of far-right protest.

Expanded state repression – such as bans on certain forms of previously legal protest – can weaken the position of moderate factions. When this happens, calls for restraint and advocacy of non- or less-violent strategies can lose credibility within the movement, weakening the “internal brakes” on violence.

Practicalities of enforcement

A moratorium on pro-Palestine marches would also raise many questions about the practicalities of any restrictions. For one, calls on the police to ban other contentious demonstrations that risk hostility towards different groups would increase.

What particular types of action would be banned? Marches? Demonstrations? Would size be a factor? Would it cover a protest against the ban on the protest? What about other forms of action such as sit-ins, information stands or coordinated online action? And what sanctions would be imposed on those who did not comply?

Attempting to enforce such bans could become a significant drain on already stretched public resources, not least because activists would probably seek to increase pressure on authorities because of those costs. This is one of the most obvious lessons to draw from responses to the government’s attempts to ban the group Palestine Action.

In addition to this, police have also recently been authorised to consider the “cumulative impact” of protests on local areas when policing. They have had to grapple with how and when to incorporate this in addition to their usual powers.

Before introducing a ban, it’s important to think about the example it would set and how it could influence future decisions about the right to protest. The UK would be less able to criticise authoritarian countries and illiberal democracies that misuse counterextremism and counter-terrorism powers that limit people’s freedom.

None of this is to deny the urgency of confronting antisemitic violence and aggression in the UK. This requires sustained political commitment, effective policing and community protection. But restricting the right to protest is a blunt and risky instrument.

The available evidence suggests it may do little to reduce harm and could, in some circumstances, make matters worse. Politicians should therefore be cautious before treating bans on marches as a solution to complex and deeply rooted problems.

Joel Busher has received funding from the Centre for Research and Evidence on Security Threats (CREST) for his work on the escalation and inhibition of political violence.

Tufyal Choudhury 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. Why banning pro-Palestine marches is a risky response to antisemitic violence – https://theconversation.com/why-banning-pro-palestine-marches-is-a-risky-response-to-antisemitic-violence-282168

May 6, 2026

Additional learning needs present a key challenge for the incoming Senedd

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Emily Roberts-Tyler, Lecturer in Education, Bangor University

The upcoming Senedd elections may shift the balance of power in Wales. Any new government must immediately grapple with the significant ongoing challenges of embedding educational reforms across the additional learning needs system.

Recent policy proposals to change the system of support for children with special educational needs in England have brought a heightened focus on how education systems might best support all learners. In Wales, special educational needs and disabilities are referred to as additional learning needs (ALN).

Wales reached a major milestone in August 2025 when the ALN code came fully into effect, four years after its publication.

Despite the devolution of education and increasing divergence in education policy between Wales and England, the ALN code in Wales shares some similar ambitions to England’s recent policy plans.

These reforms in Wales sought to increase the rights and autonomy of children and young people. They provide statutory individual development plans for those needing anything additional to universal learning provision. They also extend support for learners aged up to 25. The intention is to improve consistency and strengthen multi-agency collaboration across education, health and social care.

The progress of reform

The additional learning needs reforms in Wales reflect a commendable shift towards rights-based, person-centred planning and autonomy for children and young people and their families.

This is also a key tenet of the Curriculum for Wales. This has been implemented since 2022 in primary schools, and gradually over subsequent years in secondary schools. The curriculum framework has a focus on learner voice and providing a broad, purpose-led and flexible curriculum. It is designed to ensure that even those from disadvantaged backgrounds or with complex needs are supported to access a meaningful education.

However, a number of challenges remain with embedding the ALN reforms across Wales.

A key issue relates to the identification of learners with ALN. Under the new system, there has been a 53% decrease in the number of learners being identified as having ALN. This is despite a reported increase in children presenting with more complex needs, indicating that learning needs may in fact be increasing. Data also suggests that it is those with low to moderate needs who are much less likely to be formally identified.

It has been suggested that this reduction could be due to children who might previously have been identified with ALN being catered for through an improved universal offering.

Girl looking worried in class — Some students may be missing out on support.
New Africa/Shutterstock

However, teachers have reported that the proportion of learners in their classes with ALN has increased over the past five years. A majority – 65% – of teachers in Wales reported that there were learners in their classes who still needed additional support, but were no longer identified as having ALN following changes in identification criteria.

Lacking resources

This has caused hugely increased workloads in attempts to provide adequate learner support. At the same time, the number of in-house specialist staff to advise and support delivery has dramatically reduced. Without the resources to support more learners with additional needs, many teachers have reported that children are often not receiving the education they are entitled to.

There have been significant strides towards developing inclusive schools across Wales. Even in the best cases, though, there is a long way to go. In reality, the overall picture behind the reduction in identification of ALN indicates issues with identification criteria and resources, and whether the current policy encompasses all children in need, rather than a sudden shift to high quality inclusive education.

Schools report an increase in local authorities refusing requests for assessments or access to support for struggling learners. They have suggested the bar is being raised for access to support, without clarity or transparency. There’s also a clear indication from specialist staff in Wales that they have insufficient time to fulfil their ALN duties.

This suggests that processes and resources for identifying learners with ALN are playing a significant part in the reduced identification. Many learners could be slipping through the net, rather than experiencing effective inclusive provision.

This tension between policy intent and practice is familiar territory when it comes to inclusion. There are ongoing concerns that legislative reform has outpaced operational readiness and available resources, leading to a crisis point.

This crisis is exacerbated for Welsh-medium learners. The policy intention is for a fully bilingual system. But finding Welsh-medium specialists and honouring language preference is proving challenging. This has lead to families struggling to find support in their preferred language. Such battles are at odds with both Welsh Language policy and the principles of Person-Centred Planning and autonomy that are central to the reforms.

Whatever the outcome of the Senedd elections, educators and families across Wales will be hoping for an increased sense of momentum and urgency. They’ll also be looking for a commitment to sustained and appropriate levels of funding to ensure learners in Wales can be supported to access their education.

Emily Roberts-Tyler 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. Additional learning needs present a key challenge for the incoming Senedd – https://theconversation.com/additional-learning-needs-present-a-key-challenge-for-the-incoming-senedd-281048

May 6, 2026

‘The farther away, the better’ is the problematic logic behind U.S. third-country deportations

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Guillermo Candiz, Assistant Professor, Human Plurality, Université de l’Ontario français

Since January 2025, the Donald Trump administration in the United States has signed bilateral agreements with 27 governments to deport migrants to countries where they have no ties.

This process is known as third-country deportation, and it’s created a system that operates as migration deterrence. These agreements also transfer responsibility for managing migrant lives to the Global South.

In February 2025, the Trump administration sent two chartered planes carrying 200 people from countries like Iran, Afghanistan, Russia, Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and China to San José, Costa Rica.

During our ongoing research that involved fieldwork in Costa Rica in 2025, we interviewed two families who were on board one of the planes. They had been shackled during the flight.

Alerted that the first deportation from the U.S. was to take place, Costa Rican journalists and human rights activists awaited the arrival at the airport. The Costa Rican agents closed the window blinds of the planes before removing the shackles.

Migrants given no information

As the migrants we interviewed told us — and as documented by Human Rights Watch — none of the people sent to Costa Rica spoke Spanish. They weren’t informed where the flights were headed or where they’d be taken upon arrival. No translators were present when the first plane landed, and only a few were available upon the arrival of the second flight.

U.S. authorities expelled the migrants without giving them the opportunity to apply for asylum. Although some third-country deportations had occurred prior to February 2025, they had typically been carried out on a much smaller scale.

The deportation of non‑citizens to Costa Rica set the stage for 27 bilateral agreements later signed by the Trump administration with governments across Latin America, Africa and Central Asia. What initially appeared to be an exceptional measure had, within a year, become a preferred approach to migration management.

‘Border spectacle’

In 2025, the U.S. deported approximately 675,000 people. Among them, around 15,000, or two per cent of the total, were sent to third countries.

Given the relatively low numbers involved, the objective is not the removal of large populations of unwanted migrants. Instead, these deportations function as what American migration scholar Nicholas De Genova terms “the border spectacle of migrant victimization.”

Such spectacles are designed to generate fear. They encourage some asylum-seekers already in the country to leave and aim to deter others from attempting to cross into the U.S. altogether.

The principle rationale for this border regime was made explicit by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in July 2025: “The further away, the better, so they can’t come back across the border.”

This statement wasn’t just rhetoric — it reflected U.S. policy.

Creating uncertainty about where migrants might be sent — whether Eswatini, South Sudan, Rwanda, Costa Rica or Cameroon — was central to the strategy. It served both to deter would-be migrants in their home countries and to pressure those already in the U.S. to pursue what the administration called “self-deportations.”

Why do Global South states sign on?

To push countries in the Global South to accept deportation agreements for non-nationals, the U.S. relies on four forms of pressure: direct payments, visa restrictions, tariff threats and conditions on foreign aid.

Ghana, for example, secured the lifting of consular restrictions in August 2025 after agreeing to co-operate on deportations.

When Costa Rica signed its third-country deportation agreement in March 2026, President Rodrigo Chaves stated that he was “helping the economically powerful brother of the North” in order to avoid American tariffs on Costa Rican free-trade zones.

Eswatini agreed to receive deportees in exchange for financial transfers and improvements in its bilateral relationship with the U.S. Rwanda, for its part, capitalized symbolically on the model by incorporating it into its regional diplomatic strategy.

Taking on costs

Yet these negotiations are deeply one-sided. While the countries in questions may achieve short‑term gains, they also take on additional, uncompensated costs.

As we learned through our interviews of migrants in Costa Rica, for example, 85 migrants of the approximated 200 received in February 2025 remained in the Central American country. That’s because they could not return to their countries of origin for fear of persecution, imprisonment or forced military recruitment.

Some later resumed their journey to the U.S. and successfully claimed asylum there. Others required access to medical care, work permits and other forms of assistance.

Beyond granting temporary residency permits with limited rights, Costa Rica lacks the resources to ensure the safety and security of these migrants and to adequately address their needs.

The Trump administration’s reduction in international humanitarian aid has further undermined Costa Rica’s refugee protection regime.

For migrants, this state of prolonged waiting marked by legal uncertainty has resulted in psychological distress. Several interviewees reported panic attacks, depression and insomnia.

Beyond the United States

This emerging border regime is not uniquely American. In March 2026, the European Parliament endorsed the so-called return hubs mechanism, which opens the door to offshoring asylum processing.

Italy, for example, has had migrant detention hubs in Albania for more than a year.

Canada has reconfirmed its own Safe Third Country Agreement with the U.S.

Canada also passed Bill C-2 and Bill C-12 in 2025, legislation that substantially restricts access to asylum. What’s more, it reduced its refugee resettlement targets by 30 per cent for the 2026–28 period.

This doesn’t constitute a replication of the U.S. model, but it does reflect a convergence. Different mechanisms are increasingly aligned in the same direction: the progressive erosion of the right to asylum.

Mobilization

It’s therefore important to ask whether some refugee claimants deported to the U.S. may subsequently face third‑country deportations to other states.

In March 2026, more than 30 human rights organizations issued a joint statement calling for an end to chain deportations to Costa Rica. It explicitly accused the Costa Rican state as being complicit in — and directly responsible for — American violations of its asylum law and its international obligations under the United Nations’ 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, protests recently erupted against the anticipated deportation of 1,100 Afghans from the U.S. to the country.

UN human rights experts have also expressed alarm about the risk of torture, enforced disappearance or arbitrary deprivation of life in some third countries.

Across the globe, migration scholars, human rights organizations and allies must do more than voice concern — they need to co-ordinate, organize and actively resist this emerging border regime before it becomes entrenched.

Guillermo Candiz receives funding from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC)

Tanya Basok receives funding from Social Science and Humanities Research Council

– ref. ‘The farther away, the better’ is the problematic logic behind U.S. third-country deportations – https://theconversation.com/the-farther-away-the-better-is-the-problematic-logic-behind-u-s-third-country-deportations-281687

May 6, 2026

Alaska’s near-record landslide tsunami sent a wave 1,580 feet up the fjord walls – and left clues for building a warning system

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Michael E. West, Director of the Alaska Earthquake Center and State Seismologist, University of Alaska Fairbanks

The Tracy Arm landslide sent a tsunami wave far up the opposite side of the fjord near South Sawyer Glacier. John Lyons/U.S. Geological Survey

On the evening of Aug. 9, 2025, passengers on the Hanse Explorer finished taking selfies and videos of the South Sawyer Glacier, and the ship headed back down the fjord. Twelve hours later, a landslide from the adjacent mountain unexpectedly collapsed into the fjord, initiating the second-highest tsunami in recorded history.

We conduct research on earthquakes and tsunamis at the Alaska Earthquake Center, and one of us serves as Alaska state seismologist. In a new study with colleagues, we detail how that landslide sent water and debris 1,580 feet (481 meters) up the other side of the fjord – higher than the top floor of the Taipei 101 skyscraper – and then continued down Tracy Arm. The force of the water stripped the fjord’s walls down to bare rock.

An illustration compares the height of the tsunami's reach to some of the world's tallest buildings — The Tracy Arm landslide generated a tsunami that sent a wave so high up the opposite fjord wall that it would have overtopped some of the world’s tallest buildings. Here’s how it compares to other large tsunamis around the world.
Steve Hicks/University College London

It was just after 5 o’clock in the morning on a dreary day, and fortunately, no ships were nearby. In the months after, some cruise lines started avoiding Tracy Arm. However, the conditions that led to this event are not at all unique to this fjord.

Landslides are common in the coastal mountains of Alaska where rapid uplift, caused by tectonic forces and long-term ice loss, converges with the erosive forces of precipitation and moving glaciers. But a curious pattern has emerged in recent years: Multiple major landslides have occurred precisely at the terminus of a retreating glacier.

Though the mechanics are still poorly understood, these mountains appear to become unstable when the ice disappears. When the landslide hits the water, the momentum of millions of tons of rock is transferred into tsunami waves.

Two illustrations of Tracy Arm and the glacier's extent over time. — Maps show how the glacier has retreated over the years, moving past the section of mountain that collapsed (outlined in white on the right) in the days prior to the slide. The map on the right shows the height the tsunami reached on the fjord walls.
Planet Labs

This same phenomenon is playing out from Alaska to Greenland and Norway, sometimes with deadly consequences. Across the Arctic, countries are trying to come to terms with this growing hazard. The options are not attractive: avoid vast swaths of coastline, or live with a poorly understood risk. We believe there is an obvious role for alert systems, but only if scientists have a better understanding of where and when landslides are likely to occur.

Signs that a landslide might be coming

The Tracy Arm landslide is a powerful example.

The landslide occurred in August, when warm ocean waters and heavier precipitation favor both glacier retreat and slope failure. The glacier below the landslide area had experienced rapid calving – large chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the water – and it had retreated more than a third of a mile in the two months prior. Heavy rain had been falling. Rain enters fractures in the mountain and pushes them closer to failure by increasing the water pressure in cracks.

Most provocative are the thousands of small seismic tremors that emanated from the area of the slide in the days prior to the mountainside collapsing.

We believe that this combination of signs would have been sufficient to issue progressive alerts to any ships in the vicinity and homes and businesses that could have been harmed by a tsunami at least a day prior to the failure – had a monitoring program existed.

Escalating alerts are used for everything from terrorism and nuclear plant safety to avalanches and volcanic unrest. They don’t remove the risk, but they do make it easier for people to safely coexist with hazards.

For example, though people are still killed in avalanches, alert systems have played an essential role in making winter backcountry travel safer for more people. The collapse at Tracy Arm demonstrates what could be possible for landslides.

What an alert system could look like

We believe that the combination of weather and rapid glacier retreat in early August 2025 was likely sufficient to issue an alert notifying people that the hazard may be temporarily elevated in a general area. On a yellow-orange-red scale, this would be a yellow alert.

In the hours prior to the landslide, the exponential increase in seismic events and telltale transition to what is known as seismic tremor – a continuous “hum” of seismic energy – were sufficient to communicate a time-sensitive warning for a specific region.

Seismic data from the closest monitoring station to the landslide, about 60 miles (100 kilometers) away, shows the “hum” of seismic energy increasing just ahead of the landslide, indicated by the tall yellow spike shortly after 5 a.m. Source: Alaska Earthquake Center.

These observations, recorded as a byproduct of regional earthquake monitoring, warranted an “orange” alert noting immediate concern. The signs were arguably sufficient to recommend keeping boats and ships out of the fjord.

Our research over the past few years has demonstrated that once a large landslide has started, it is possible to detect and measure the event within a couple of minutes. In this amount of time, seismic waves in the surrounding area can indicate the rough size of the landslide and whether it occurred near open water.

A monitoring program that could quickly communicate this would be able to issue a red alert, signaling an event in progress.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s tsunami warning program has spent decades fine-tuning rapid message dissemination. A warning system would have offered little help for ships in the immediate vicinity, but it could have provided perhaps 10 minutes of warning for those who rode out the harrowing tsunami farther away.

An animation showing the tsunami’s reach up the fjord walls after the landslide, as well as the large cresting wave as it heads down Tracy Arm. Credit: Shugar et al., 2026.

There is no landslide monitoring system operating yet at this scale in the U.S. Building one will require cooperation across state and federal agencies, and strengthened monitoring and communication networks. Even then, it will not be fail-proof.

Understanding risk, not removing it

Alert systems do not remove the risk entirely, but they are a better option than no warning at all. Over time, they also build awareness as communities and visitors get used to thinking about these hazards.

Many of the most alluring places on Earth come with significant hazards. Arctic fjords are among them. The same processes that create this hazard – glacier retreat, steep terrain, dynamic geology – are also what make these landscapes so compelling. The mix of glaciers, ice-choked waters and steep mountains is exactly what draws people to these places. People will continue to visit and experience them.

The last view of Tracy Arm, taken from the Hanse Explorer motoring away from the South Sawyer glacier, before a landslide from a mountain just out of view on the left crashed into the fjord. The landslide generated a tsunami that sent a wave nearly 1,600 feet (about 490 meters) up the mountain on the right.

The question is not whether these places should be avoided altogether, but how to help people make more informed decisions. We believe that stronger geophysical and meteorological monitoring, coupled with new research and communication channels, is the first step.

On Aug. 9, visitors unknowingly passed through a landscape on the cusp of failure. An alert system might have given tour companies and people in the area the information they needed to make more informed choices and avoid being caught by surprise.

Michael West is part of a cooperative effort between the Alaska Earthquake Center, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Landslide Hazards Program to improve the understanding of large deep-seated landslides in Alaska. This effort receives financial support from the USGS.

Ezgi Karasozen is part of a cooperative effort between the Alaska Earthquake Center, the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys, and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Landslide Hazards Program to improve the understanding of large deep-seated landslides in Alaska. This effort receives financial support from the USGS.

– ref. Alaska’s near-record landslide tsunami sent a wave 1,580 feet up the fjord walls – and left clues for building a warning system – https://theconversation.com/alaskas-near-record-landslide-tsunami-sent-a-wave-1-580-feet-up-the-fjord-walls-and-left-clues-for-building-a-warning-system-282017

May 6, 2026

Using diesel generators to power the AI revolution would kill hundreds of Americans a year

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Peter Adams, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University

Diesel generators sit outside a data center in Ashburn, Va. Amanda Andrade-Rhoades for The Washington Post via Getty Images

With U.S. electricity demand starting to rise quickly and expected to continue rising, largely because of the power needed for data centers that process artificial intelligence, people are looking for almost any potential solution.

And people are warning that the full projected demand may not actually develop, which could make massive investments in power plants unnecessary, raising Americans’ electricity rates even more.

U.S. Secretary of Energy Chris Wright is among those who have been promoting what might seem to be an attractive idea: “We have 35 gigawatts of backup generators that are sitting there,” he told an audience of natural gas industry leaders in December 2025. He was referring to diesel-fired engines at hospitals, office complexes, corporate campuses and even data centers to provide electricity if the grid goes down.

That amount of power would be a significant step toward meeting the nation’s expected energy needs, without needing new long-term investments in power plants or transmission lines. But it’s also vital to know, as Wright went on to note, that “emissions rules or whatever” mean those generators can’t just be turned on and left running when there’s not a power outage or other emergency.

As an environmental engineer who studies air pollution from the energy system, I believe this proposal is concerning. Those emissions rules are in place because diesel-powered generators are among the dirtiest sources of energy, emitting fine particulate matter and related chemicals. That is a pollutant whose total emissions from all sources are estimated to cause about 100,000 premature deaths every year in the U.S. And in fact, emissions regulations on backup generators are less stringent than other power sources because they are intended only to run in emergency situations.

If Wright’s idea took hold, diesel fumes would pour into the nation’s air, often near major metropolitan areas that already have air pollution problems. To see more closely what would happen, John Allen, a research assistant at Carnegie Mellon University, and I projected the effects on public health and air quality of running backup diesel generators at data centers.

Simulating the emissions of diesel generators

Comprehensive data is hard to nail down about locations of data centers and which ones have how many diesel generators on site. Nobody has yet made a detailed proposal for which generators might be switched on, or for how long, so we did an exploratory analysis.

We started with an online database of locations of data centers. We also found documentation suggesting there is at least 35 gigawatts of diesel-powered generating capacity at data centers across the U.S., so we allocated that amount, which Wright had mentioned, proportionally to each data center’s size.

We looked at a scenario where these generators ran continuously throughout the year, generating 310 terawatt-hours of electricity. The generators might be used less – Wright himself talked about running them for only “a few hours per year.” But once they’re allowed to be turned on for regular power generation, people might get used to having that electricity available.

We assumed that all diesel generators are relatively new and comply with the Environmental Protection Agency’s most recent and stringent standards, which took full effect in 2015.

We compared the air pollution created from the diesel generators with a scenario where that same amount of power – 310 terawatt-hours – came from the existing mix of power plants in regional electrical grids. This could happen if utility companies built more generation capacity of the same types that already exist in the region or built new transmission lines to deliver more power from elsewhere.

Because no air quality model is perfect, we used three different computer simulations, each of which has been published in scholarly research journals, to simulate what would happen to the diesel pollution and how people downwind would be affected.

Diesel is dirtier

We found that using diesel generators rather than grid electricity would cause significant amounts of fine particulate matter pollution that would be dangerous to people’s health. The exact results varied with each simulation and with a range of assumptions about emissions from diesel generators. But in general, we found that using backup diesel generators this way would cause about 500 more premature deaths per year in the U.S. compared with getting the same electricity from the central grid.

In a scenario where diesel generators were somewhat dirtier than the most recent standards, one air quality model had more than 800 additional people dying prematurely each year nationwide.

In the counties that would be hardest hit by the diesel generators’ pollution, the concentrations of fine particulate matter would increase by 0.25 to 2 micrograms per cubic meter of air, depending on the location and other assumptions for our calculations. This might not sound like a lot, but most urban areas in the U.S. already have fine particulate air pollution that’s close to the EPA limit of 9 micrograms per cubic meter. Adding that much more pollution risks tipping those communities beyond federal standards.

The Clean Air Act requires states to adjust their emissions to meet standards, so upping pollution from backup generators would require other cuts in emissions, such as at power plants and transportation.

Smoke billows from the top of a building labeled 'Sheraton.' — A diesel generator malfunction on a hotel roof in Denver in 2015 sent black smoke into the sky. Firefighters determined there was no fire.
Andy Cross/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Inspection and maintenance challenges

The results concern us, but reality might be even worse. We assumed that diesel generators would meet the most recent Tier 4 EPA emissions standards, but they may be older or exempt for other reasons.

For all our simulations, we assumed inspections and maintenance would keep emissions controls functioning properly at all generators. Modern diesel particulate filters are effective at reducing emissions, though not eliminating them entirely. When those filters fail, emissions skyrocket. Monitoring and maintenance at all of the generators, if they were running continuously, would be a logistical nightmare for regulators and the owners of the generators, and likely expensive as well.

Historically, centralized power plants that have thorough on-site monitoring are the most likely to have emissions control equipment running correctly to reduce emissions verifiably. Shifting to smaller generator units in a wide range of locations creates more potential points of failure and makes it harder to figure out that something has gone wrong, and where.

In our analysis, we compared backup diesel generators with the current electrical grid, where 60% of generation is still from fossil fuels. Increasing generation from renewable energy sources, such as solar panels and wind power, could help meet the rising demand for power without the additional emissions of dangerous air pollution.

Peter Adams has received research funding from various federal organizations, including EPA, NASA, NSF, and DOE as well as private philanthropic organizations.

– ref. Using diesel generators to power the AI revolution would kill hundreds of Americans a year – https://theconversation.com/using-diesel-generators-to-power-the-ai-revolution-would-kill-hundreds-of-americans-a-year-280892

May 6, 2026

Fire is transforming the US West’s public lands – research shows overlooked cost to recreation

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Kyle Manley, Postdoctoral research fellow, University of Colorado Boulder

Large-scale wildfires seem to turn visitors away, while prescribed burning may have the opposite effect. Helen H. Richardson/MediaNews Group/The Denver Post via Getty Images

Colorado’s two largest fires on record, the Cameron Peak and East Troublesome fires, burned hundreds of thousands of acres across some of the state’s most visited landscapes in 2020.

The fires scorched trails, campgrounds and beloved ecosystems in and around Rocky Mountain National Park and the Arapahoe and Roosevelt national forests.

More than five years later, the scars remain stark: blackened hillsides, closed trails and bare slopes where forests once stood. According to our recent research, which has not yet been peer reviewed, the fires caused significant and lasting declines in visitation at the burned sites.

A sign says readers are entering a burned area with hazards. — The East Troublesome Fire burned nearly 200,000 acres. Years later, the area is still recovering.
Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Even after the 2020 fires, Rocky Mountain National Park attracted 4.2 million visitors in 2024, generating US$862 million in economic output in local gateway communities such as Estes Park and Grand Lake. Rocky Mountain National Park is a significant contributor to the nearly 1 billion annual visits and $700 billion in spending that public lands generate nationwide as outdoor recreation continues to grow. It also supports a variety of important social values beyond the economy, including mental health and well-being, cultural and spiritual connection, and the sense of place that binds people to landscapes.

But these landscapes are changing fast. Wildfires are affecting our public lands at an accelerating scale and increasing intensity. Yet how fire affects recreation has remained poorly understood.

That’s the question I set out to answer with an interdisciplinary team of researchers. As a scientist who studies the benefits nature provides to people and how those benefits are affected by climate change, I wanted to know whether fire is eroding one of the most recognized and valued benefits of nature: recreation.

Tracking visitation across burned landscapes

Our first challenge was gathering data about visits to these outdoor areas.

A handful of monitored public lands track visitor counts, but those counts can tell us only so much about how fires affect recreation. Wildfires often cross boundaries, for example from a national park into a national forest, and span dispersed remote areas where no one is monitoring visitation.

Alternatively, every time someone logs a hike on AllTrails, posts a nature photo to Flickr, reports a bird sighting on eBird or simply carries a phone into the backcountry, they leave a precise digital trace of where and when they spent time outdoors. We trained a visitation model on the on-site counts that do exist at monitored sites, using millions of these digital traces, alongside other recreation drivers such as weather, land cover and site characteristics, as predictors.

Across Colorado and California, this approach let us track visitation in burned areas across hundreds of wildfires and prescribed burns for years before and after each fire, even in the remote, unmonitored landscapes where most fires burn. But changes in visitation can have many causes, including weather, broader recreation trends, even pandemic effects. So we statistically paired each burned site with a very similar unburned site elsewhere on public lands. This let us measure not just what happened after each fire, but also what we could expect would have happened without it. The gap between those two is how fire actually affected recreation.

We found that it’s not simply fire itself that drives people away, but a confluence of the type and severity of a fire, the ecosystem that burned and the social values connected to the fire-impacted landscape.

Wildfires that empty trails – and ones that don’t

In Colorado, the average wildfire reduced visitation to burned sites by 8% in the year of the fire. Those declines never recovered to prefire levels for the five-year postfire period we tracked.

As fires grew larger and burned more intensely, recreational losses sharpened. Visitation dropped 15% to 20% at sites burned at higher severity. These declines lasted years. Take the Cameron Peak Fire, for example. The Arapaho and Roosevelt national forests typically see about 8 million visits a year. Our model estimates that the area burned in the Cameron Peak Fire drew nearly 500,000 visits annually before the fire. Applying our 15% to 20% average declines estimated for moderate- to high-severity wildfires, that translates to roughly 70,000 to 100,000 fewer trips annually, losses our analysis finds persist for years.

Two adults and two children gather together in front a selfie-stick with mountains behind them. — A family poses for a selfie in front of the Gore Range overlook in Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado. The park saw 4.2 million visitors in 2024.
Helen H. Richardson/The Denver Post via Getty Images

But these postfire recreational losses were largely concentrated in forested landscapes. Wildfires that occurred in grasslands, such as the southeastern Colorado Cherry Canyon Fire in 2020, by contrast, seemed to barely register with visitors. Visitation at these grassland-dominated burn sites showed essentially no change. This pattern reveals something important. People’s recreational responses to fire are not just about the physical damage and accessibility impacts. They reflect the particular relationships people hold with different landscapes. Grasses recover within a season or two, and the wide-open vistas that draw people to those landscapes remain intact, even after a fire.

Forests are different. The towering canopies, shaded trails and old-growth character that people value may take decades or centuries to return, if they return at all in a changing climate.

In California, our analysis reveals how these human-nature relationships also vary across regions, with much sharper and more persistent losses than in Colorado. Californian wildfires reduced visitation by 18% in the first year on average, and high-severity forest fires produced losses of 33% that showed no recovery five years after the fire. California’s fires tend to be significantly larger, more severe and more concentrated in forested landscapes.

However, small fires in California actually increased visitation by 8%. This suggests that after years of megafires, a small burn may barely register. Californians have grown accustomed to a fire-shaped landscape, and a modest fire scar may not be enough to keep them off the trails.

Prescribed fire tells a different story

As wildfire intensifies, land managers are responding by expanding prescribed fire programs. They are intentionally setting lower-intensity fires to clear out the dead trees, dry brush and accumulated debris built up from over a century of fire suppression that can feed catastrophic wildfires.

Current prescribed fire planning tends to focus on reducing fire suppression costs and protecting properties, as well as managing ecosystems by reducing fuel loads and improving wildlife habitat. But managers are scaling up these programs without knowing how prescribed fire affects the recreationists who visit these landscapes, a gap our analysis sets out to fill.

A VOX video on how decades of stopping forest fires made them worse.

In Colorado, we found that on average prescribed fire actually increased visitation by about 8% in the year of the fire. This increase may reflect improved trail conditions, enhanced wildlife habitat that attracts birders and hunters, or positive public perceptions of proactive management.

In California, prescribed fire on average decreased visitation by about 3%. Crucially, in stark contrast to wildfire, impacts were short-lived, with visitation returning to prefire levels within three years in both states.

Beyond their direct effects on recreation, prescribed burns also reduce the likelihood of future extreme fires – the very fires that drive the largest and longest-lasting recreation declines.

Why this matters beyond fire

Some of the Colorado communities that are most dependent economically on recreation experienced the steepest visitation declines in the period we studied. These are towns such as Grand Lake, Durango and Gunnison, where shops, hotels, restaurants and seasonal workers rely on a steady flow of visitors, and where sales tax from those visitors funds the infrastructure and daily life of the community. Persistent declines in visitation threaten the long-term viability of these places.

The implications run beyond fire. Calls to consider less tangible benefits of nature, such as recreation, into climate impact assessments, extreme events research and conservation planning have grown recently. Turning those calls into action requires evidence that can help land managers make decisions. Our work provides some of that evidence for fire and a framework that can be used for other disturbances, such as floods and droughts. Without accounting for these less tangible values of nature, increasingly extreme climate impacts will keep eroding the experiences, livelihoods and connections that sustain the well-being of millions of Americans.

Read more of our stories about Colorado.

Kyle Manley receives funding from the CIRES Visiting Fellows Program, funded by NOAA cooperative agreement NA22OAR4320151.

– ref. Fire is transforming the US West’s public lands – research shows overlooked cost to recreation – https://theconversation.com/fire-is-transforming-the-us-wests-public-lands-research-shows-overlooked-cost-to-recreation-279831