Comment Bad Bunny a porté l’activisme sur la scène du Super Bowl

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Belinda Zakrzewska, Assistant Professor of Marketing, University of Birmingham

Le show de mi-temps du Super Bowl signé Bad Bunny n’a pas seulement battu des records d’audience. À travers une mise en scène chargée de symboles, le rappeur portoricain a transformé un spectacle grand public en manifeste culturel, articulant mémoire coloniale, identité et activisme.


Après plusieurs jours de controverse – au cours desquels Donald Trump s’était plaint du choix des artistes, avait déclaré qu’il n’assisterait pas à l’événement, et qu’une programmation alternative « 100 % américaine » serait mise en avant –, le rappeur portoricain Bad Bunny est monté sur scène lors du très attendu spectacle de mi-temps du Super Bowl, dimanche 8 février.

Les attentes étaient élevées, comme en témoigne le nombre inédit de téléspectateurs. Le show de Bad Bunny a généré plus de 135,4 millions de vues, surpassant les 133,5 millions de Kendrick Lamar en 2025 et les 133,4 millions de Michael Jackson en 1993.




À lire aussi :
Bad Bunny is the latest product of political rage — how pop culture became the front line of American politics


Les médias ont principalement présenté l’événement comme une célébration de la diversité, suscitant en retour une réaction hostile chez les partisans de Donald Trump et certains commentateurs conservateurs. Les critiques visaient Bad Bunny non seulement pour son opposition ouverte à l’administration Trump, mais aussi au motif qu’il ne serait « pas un artiste américain » (comprendre : « états-unien »), malgré le fait que Porto Rico est un territoire des États-Unis. Sa performance a montré comment l’authenticité peut se construire à travers un activisme anticolonial.

Si l’authenticité est souvent vue comme quelque chose de réel, vrai ou sincère, elle repose en réalité sur une qualité relationnelle qui peut être liée au comportement d’une personne de trois façons : par la connexion aux personnes ou aux lieux ; par la conformité aux conventions ou leur remise en cause ; et par la cohérence entre le message et les actions. Lors de la mi-temps du Super Bowl, Bad Bunny a incarné ces trois dimensions.

L’authenticité comme connexion

L’authenticité s’est manifestée notamment par la présence de canne à sucre sur scène, une culture qui a façonné les économies coloniales des Caraïbes. Les plantations appartenaient aux colonisateurs et reposaient sur l’exploitation violente des peuples autochtones et des Africains réduits en esclavage. En mettant la canne à sucre au centre du décor, la performance a rappelé les fondements de la richesse coloniale et a réhabilité un symbole d’oppression en tant que vérité historique plutôt que comme mémoire idéalisée.

La présence de l’icône portoricaine Ricky Martin a renforcé ce sentiment de connexion lorsqu’il a interprété Lo Que Le Pasó A Hawaii, de Bad Bunny. Par ses paroles, la chanson met en garde les Portoricains contre la perte de leur identité culturelle face aux pressions d’assimilation à l’influence états-unienne. La performance de Martin a souligné ce message, en présentant la préservation culturelle comme une forme essentielle de résistance anticoloniale.

Lady Gaga a ajouté une dimension symbolique forte. Sa robe bleu clair renvoyait à la version originale de 1895 du drapeau portoricain, avant que sa teinte ne soit assombrie pour s’aligner sur celle du drapeau des États-Unis. Elle portait un hibiscus rouge – emblème national de fierté et de résistance – ainsi que des fleurs blanches, évoquant ensemble les couleurs du drapeau. Elle incarnait ainsi le respect, la participation et la solidarité plutôt que la séparation ou l’effacement.

L’authenticité comme conformité

Les artistes naviguent souvent entre conformité et transgression, et Bad Bunny a parfaitement maîtrisé cet équilibre. En tant qu’artiste portoricain évoluant dans une industrie qui pousse souvent à abandonner ses origines, il a au contraire créé un espace culturel hybride : un spectacle de mi-temps du Super Bowl en espagnol. Il a ainsi agi au sein du système tout en remettant en cause l’idée que l’anglais doive dominer et que les figures grand public doivent correspondre à un modèle culturel étroit.

L’artiste a également bousculé le récit dominant qui réduit l’« Amérique » aux États-Unis, en reconnaissant l’ensemble du continent américain. Après avoir déclaré « God Bless America », il a énuméré tous les pays du continent, du sud au nord.

En citant les pays, Bad Bunny a inversé la hiérarchie géopolitique traditionnelle. Ce geste évoquait l’œuvre América Invertida de l’artiste uruguayen Joaquín Torres-García et son idée selon laquelle « le Sud est notre Nord », remettant en cause l’idée que la légitimité culturelle ou politique doive venir du « Nord ».

L’authenticité comme cohérence

Enfin, la cohérence s’est manifestée par des clins d’œil à l’activisme de longue date de Bad Bunny. L’explosion d’un lampadaire avant l’interprétation d’El Apagón renvoyait directement à son clip de 2022, qui prend la forme d’un documentaire dénonçant la négligence des infrastructures et la privatisation de l’électricité par des entreprises états-uniennes. Ce moment reliait le divertissement aux réalités coloniales vécues à Porto Rico.

La brève apparition d’El Sapo Concho, mascotte de son dernier album, a ajouté une autre dimension symbolique. Presque disparu en raison des perturbations écologiques liées à l’exploitation coloniale des ressources, ce crapaud portoricain est devenu un symbole de survie face aux dommages structurels. Sa présence dans le show rappelait que l’impact du colonialisme est autant environnemental que culturel.

De la même façon, lorsque Bad Bunny a remis un Grammy à une version plus jeune de lui-même, il renforce son message : « Si je suis ici, c’est parce que j’ai toujours cru en moi. » Dans un contexte où les populations issues de nations colonisées font face à la discrimination et à la marginalisation, beaucoup ont vu la culture des colonisateurs comme un moyen d’ascension sociale. Son geste a ainsi réaffirmé la confiance en soi comme un acte de résistance.

« This is America »

À la fin du spectacle, un panneau lumineux affichait « The only thing more powerful than hate is love » (La seule chose plus puissante que la haine, c’est l’amour). Bad Bunny tenait alors un ballon de football portant l’inscription : « Together, We Are America. » (Ensemble, nous sommes l’Amérique.)

Cette image proposait un idéal panaméricain fondé sur la solidarité plutôt que sur la domination. À travers des symboles de résilience collective, l’artiste présentait ainsi l’authenticité comme une forme d’activisme anticolonial ancrée dans l’amour, la mémoire et la communauté.

Ces choix visuels étaient intentionnels et s’inscrivaient dans des années de prises de position publique, de musique et d’engagement. Chaque élément renforçait un récit cohérent de résistance, démontrant que l’authenticité n’est pas seulement une performance, mais le résultat d’un activisme anticolonial constant.

En imbriquant histoire, symbolismes et convictions personnelles à chaque instant de sa performance, Bad Bunny a démontré que l’art peut devenir un vecteur d’action politique et culturelle, fondé sur l’amour, la tolérance et l’inclusion.

The Conversation

Flavia Cardoso a reçu des financements du gouvernement chilien (Fondecyt) et de la Fondation Luksic.

Belinda Zakrzewska et Jannsen Santana ne travaillent pas, ne conseillent pas, ne possèdent pas de parts, ne reçoivent pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’ont déclaré aucune autre affiliation que leur poste universitaire.

ref. Comment Bad Bunny a porté l’activisme sur la scène du Super Bowl – https://theconversation.com/comment-bad-bunny-a-porte-lactivisme-sur-la-scene-du-super-bowl-275881

Inondations : l’aménagement du territoire est-il responsable ?

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Luc Aquilina, Professeur en sciences de l’environnement, Université de Rennes 1 – Université de Rennes

Les inondations qui touchent le Sud-Ouest de la France provoquées par la tempête Nils pourraient alimenté à nouveau le débat sur le rôle l’aménagement du territoire dans la survenue de ces événements. Les inondations sont pourtant des phénomènes complexes et le rôle des aménagements reste difficile à estimer.


Depuis plusieurs années, l’Europe est frappée par des inondations majeures aux bilans humains terribles : 243 morts en juillet 2021 en Allemagne, en Belgique, au Luxembourg et aux Pays-Bas, 17 morts en mai 2023 en Italie du Nord, 27 morts en septembre 2024 lors de la tempête Boris en Europe Centrale, de l’Allemagne à la Roumanie, et 237 morts en octobre 2024 dans le sud de Valence. Plus près de nous, les inondations de la Vilaine de ce mois de janvier 2026 et celles de l’année dernière ont ravivé pour les habitants le spectre des inondations du passé.

Ces évènements frappent les esprits et font la une des médias, surtout s’ils se déroulent en Europe. Très vite, des causes liées à l’aménagement du territoire sont invoquées. En Espagne, l’extrême droite a condamné les écologistes qui ont prôné l’arasement des barrages. Vérification faite, il ne s’est agi que de la suppression de « barrières » peu élevées et le lien avec les barrages n’est pas attesté. En Bretagne, à l’inverse, suite à la crue de la Vilaine début 2025 et à l’inondation de plusieurs quartiers de Rennes et de Redon, plusieurs coupables ont été rapidement désignés dans les médias. Le changement climatique d’abord, puis le remembrement des territoires ruraux et le drainage des parcelles agricoles qui ont accompagné la révolution verte des années 1960 et 1970 ont été pointés du doigt.

Les scientifiques de l’eau soulignent le rôle des aménagements passés sur les sécheresses et les tensions autour de la ressource en eau. Pour autant, l’attribution des causes à des événements exceptionnels comme les crues intenses s’avère difficile. Faut-il chercher un seul coupable, ou bien plusieurs ? Changement climatique et modification des usages des sols contribuent à la genèse des inondations, mais leurs implications respectives dans ces évènements varient selon le type d’inondation ainsi qu’au cours du temps.

Il est difficile de déterminer les causes des crues

Isoler la part de responsabilité du changement climatique dans la survenue d’un événement climatique extrême est ce qu’on appelle un processus d’attribution. La science de l’attribution, relativement récente, est nécessaire pour quantifier les impacts du changement climatique dans des processus complexes et variables. Un exemple récent est l’étude menée suite aux pluies torrentielles d’octobre 2024 en Espagne, qui a montré que ce type d’épisode pluvieux présente jusqu’à 15 % de précipitations supplémentaires par rapport à un climat sans réchauffement. En d’autres termes, environ une goutte d’eau sur six tombée lors de cet épisode peut être imputée au changement climatique.

Si l’attribution des pluies est aujourd’hui de mieux en mieux maîtrisée, celle des crues reste moins bien déterminée. On confond souvent l’attribution de la pluie et celle de la crue, alors qu’elles ne sont pas équivalentes. Entre le moment où la pluie tombe et celui où la rivière déborde, il se passe beaucoup de choses au niveau du bassin versant : selon le degré d’humidité et la nature du sol et du sous-sol ou bien la manière dont il a été aménagé, il peut agir comme tampon ou accélérer les flux d’eau. Deux bassins versants différents auront des réponses également différentes pour un même volume de pluie, et un même volume de pluie tombant sur un même bassin versant peut avoir des conséquences très différentes selon le moment de l’année. La survenue d’une crue dépend donc de la combinaison de deux dés : la pluie qui tombe sur le bassin versant et la capacité de ce bassin à l’absorber.

Le changement climatique et les aménagements perturbent l’absorption des sols

Les études d’attribution des pluies montrent avec certitude que le réchauffement climatique — et donc les activités humaines qui en sont la cause — intensifient les pluies fortes et les rendent de plus en plus fréquentes. Si nos futurs étés seront plus secs, les hivers seront eux plus humides, notamment dans le nord de la France. Qu’en est-il du deuxième dé, la capacité d’absorption des bassins versants ? Le changement climatique l’affecte également, en modifiant l’humidité des sols au fil des saisons. Mais cette capacité dépend aussi largement des transformations opérées par certaines activités humaines.

C’est le cas par exemple des barrages, conçus pour stocker l’eau lors des saisons humides et qui ont la capacité de tamponner la puissance des crues. Mais d’autres phénomènes sont impliqués, comme l’urbanisation, qui imperméabilise les sols en remplaçant champs et prairies par du béton et de l’asphalte. Ces surfaces imperméables réduisent fortement l’infiltration et favorisent le ruissellement. Même si l’urbanisation reste marginale à l’échelle des grands bassins versants, elle peut jouer un rôle majeur localement, notamment en zones périurbaines, où les petits cours d’eau sont souvent canalisés ou recouverts.

Les aménagements agricoles comptent également. Le remembrement, qui a fait disparaître des milliers de haies et fossés au profit de grandes parcelles plus facilement exploitables pour des machines agricoles, a profondément modifié la circulation de l’eau. En parallèle, d’autres transformations ont réduit la capacité du paysage à retenir l’eau lors des pluies fortes, comme la pose de drains en profondeur dans les sols agricoles qui vise à évacuer l’excédent d’eau des terres trop humides durant l’hiver. La création de digues et de canaux pour limiter l’expansion des rivières, le creusement des cours d’eau et la rectification de leurs berges les ont recalibrées pour les rendre linéaires. Ces différents aménagements ont des effets importants. Ils modifient le cycle de l’eau continental en accélérant globalement les flux vers la mer. Les niveaux des nappes ont déjà été affectés par ces modifications. Dans les vastes marais du Cotentin, nous avons montré que le niveau moyen des nappes a chuté d’environ un mètre depuis 1950, alors que les aménagements des siècles précédents avaient déjà diminué ces niveaux. Le changement climatique va renforcer cette diminution des niveaux de nappe au moins sur une grande partie du territoire hexagonal.

D’un bassin à l’autre, des effets différents

Ces facteurs jouent différemment selon la surface des bassins versants et leur localisation : l’urbanisation a un effet très fort sur les crues des petits bassins versants côtiers de la Côte d’Azur, qui ont une surface inférieure à 10 km2, mais un effet moindre sur le bassin versant de la Vilaine, qui compte 1 400 km2 à Rennes après la confluence avec l’Ille. À l’inverse, les pratiques agricoles ont un effet plus important sur les crues du bassin de la Vilaine que sur ceux de la Côte d’Azur.

Aujourd’hui, il est difficile de quantifier précisément la part relative de ces facteurs dans l’occurrence des crues observées. En amont des cours d’eau, certaines transformations peuvent ralentir la propagation des crues en augmentant des capacités de stockage locales, par exemple dans les sols, les zones humides ou les plaines inondables, tandis qu’en aval, l’accélération des flux et leur addition tendent à dominer. Chacun des aménagements décrits influence la manière dont un bassin versant absorbe ou accélère l’eau, mais l’addition de leurs effets crée une interaction complexe dont nous ne savons pas précisément faire le bilan.

Lors d’événements exceptionnels comme la crue de Valence, ce sont avant tout les volumes de pluie qui déclenchent la crue et ses conséquences, le changement climatique pouvant intensifier ces précipitations. Les aménagements du territoire influencent de manière secondaire la façon dont l’eau s’écoule et se concentre dans les bassins versants. Il n’en reste pas moins que ces deux effets jouent un rôle de plus en plus important dans les événements de moindre ampleur, dont les impacts sont néanmoins importants et dont l’occurrence a déjà augmenté et va encore s’accentuer dans le futur. Pour deux degrés de réchauffement, l’intensité des crues décennales (d’une ampleur observée en moyenne une fois tous les 10 ans) augmentera potentiellement de 10 à 40 % dans l’Hexagone, et celle des crues centennales (observées en moyenne une fois tous les siècles) de plus de 40 %.

Une vie en catastrophes ?

Ces événements ont provoqué des prises de position politique virulentes. Certains, en particulier à droite de l’échiquier politique, ont remis en question les politiques récentes de restauration de l’état naturel des cours d’eau, de protection des zones humides et de destruction des barrages. Elles ont conduit à des appels à la suppression de l’Office français de la biodiversité lors des manifestations agricoles, proposition reprise par le sénateur Laurent Duplomb devant le Sénat le 24 janvier 2024.

Les aménagements les plus récents, défendus par de nombreuses structures territoriales, visent à redonner au cycle de l’eau, et en particulier aux rivières, des espaces plus larges et à recréer ou protéger des zones humides. Tous ces aménagements conduisent à ralentir les flux et donc luttent contre les inondations, tout en préservant la biodiversité à laquelle notre santé est liée. Les zones humides sont par exemple les meilleurs ennemis des moustiques tigres, en permettant le développement de leurs prédateurs. Bien qu’ils exigent de concéder des terres agricoles aux milieux naturels, ces aménagements nourrissent les nappes qui restent le meilleur réservoir pour le stockage de l’eau des saisons humides.

Remettre en question les politiques de recalibration des cours d’eau, de remembrement et de drainage, tout comme l’imperméabilisation des zones urbaines, est une nécessité imposée par l’adaptation au changement climatique. Il s’agit de limiter ou éviter les tensions entre les besoins des activités humaines et les besoins des écosystèmes qui pourraient en faire les frais. Les inondations catastrophiques ne sont qu’en partie liées aux aménagements et ne peuvent pas justifier à elles seules les politiques de retour à l’état naturel des cours d’eau, qui sont en revanche une réponse aux sécheresses estivales à venir. Pour autant, ces inondations majeures sont là pour nous alerter sur les effets du changement climatique. Les étés vont devenir plus secs et les ressources vont manquer, mais les événements extrêmes vont également se multiplier. Une vie en catastrophes nous attend si nous ne transformons pas nos modes de consommation et de production. Tel est le message porté par les inondations. Sera-t-il mieux entendu que les appels des hydrologues ?

The Conversation

Luc Aquilina est co-titulaire de la chaire Eaux et territoires de la fondation de l’Université de Rennes qui reçoit des fonds d’Eau du Bassin Rennais, Rennes Métropole et du Syndicat Mixte Eau 50.

Pierre Brigode a reçu des financements de l’Université de Rennes, du Centre national de la recherche scientifique et de l’Agence nationale de la recherche.

ref. Inondations : l’aménagement du territoire est-il responsable ? – https://theconversation.com/inondations-lamenagement-du-territoire-est-il-responsable-274443

Trump’s EPA decides climate change doesn’t endanger public health – the evidence says otherwise

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jonathan Levy, Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University

Rising global temperatures are increasing the risk of heat stroke on hot days, among many other human harms. Ronda Churchill/AFP via Getty Images

The Trump administration took a major step in its efforts to unravel America’s climate policies on Feb. 12, 2026, when it moved to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding – a formal determination that six greenhouse gases that drive climate change, including carbon dioxide and methane from burning fossil fuels, endanger public health and welfare.

But the administration’s arguments in dismissing the health risks of climate change are not only factually wrong, they’re deeply dangerous to Americans’ health and safety.

As physicians, epidemiologists and environmental health scientists, we’ve seen growing evidence of the connections between climate change and harm to people’s health. Here’s a look at the health risks everyone face from climate change.

Health risks and outcomes related to climate change.
Health risks and outcomes related to climate change.
World Health Organization

Extreme heat

Greenhouse gases from vehicles, power plants and other sources accumulate in the atmosphere, trapping heat and holding it close to Earth’s surface like a blanket. Too much of it causes global temperatures to rise, leaving more people exposed to dangerous heat more often.

Most people who get minor heat illnesses will recover, but more extreme exposure, especially without enough hydration and a way to cool off, can be fatal. People who work outside, are elderly or have underlying illnesses such as heart, lung or kidney diseases are often at the greatest risk.

Heat deaths have been rising globally, up 23% from the 1990s to the 2010s, when the average year saw more than half a million heat-related deaths. Here in the U.S., the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome killed hundreds of people.

Climate scientists predict that with advancing climate change, many areas of the world, including U.S. cities such as Miami, Houston, Phoenix and Las Vegas, will confront many more days each year hot enough to threaten human survival.

Extreme weather

Warmer air holds more moisture, so climate change brings increasing rainfall and storm intensity and worsening flooding, as many U.S. communities have experienced in recent years. Warmer ocean water also fuels more powerful hurricanes.

Increased flooding carries health risks, including drownings, injuries and water contamination from human pathogens and toxic chemicals. People cleaning out flooded homes also face risks from mold exposure, injuries and mental distress.

A man carries boxes out of a house that flooded up to its second story.
Flooding from hurricanes and other extreme storms can put people at risk of injuries during the cleanup while also triggering dangerous mold growth on wet wallboard, carpets and fabric. This home flooded up to its second flood during Hurricane Irma in 2017.
Sean Rayford/Getty Images

Climate change also worsens droughts, disrupting food supplies and causing respiratory illness from dust. Rising temperatures and aridity dry out forests and grasslands, making them a setup for wildfires.

Air pollution

Wildfires, along with other climate effects, are worsening air quality around the country.

Wildfire smoke is a toxic soup of microscopic particles (known as fine particulate matter, or PM2.5) that can penetrate deep in the lungs and hazardous compounds such as lead, formaldehyde and dioxins generated when homes, cars and other materials burn at high temperatures. Smoke plumes can travel thousands of miles downwind and trigger heart attacks and elevate lung cancer risks, among other harms.

Meanwhile, warmer conditions favor the formation of ground-level ozone, a heart and lung irritant. Burning of fossil fuels also generates dangerous air pollutants that cause a long list of health problems, including heart attacks, strokes, asthma flare-ups and lung cancer.

Infectious diseases

Because they are cold-blooded organisms, insects are directly influenced by temperature. So with rising temperatures, mosquito biting rates rise as well. Warming also accelerates the development of disease agents that mosquitoes transmit.

Mosquito-borne dengue fever has turned up in Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Arizona and California. New York state just saw its first locally acquired case of chikungunya virus, also transmitted by mosquitoes.

A world map shows where mosquitos are most likely to transmit the dengue virus
As global temperatures rise, regions are becoming more suitable for mosquitoes to transmit dengue virus. The map shows a suitability scale, with red areas already suitable for dengue transmissions and yellow areas becoming more suitable.
Taishi Nakase, et al., 2022, CC BY

And it’s not just insect-borne infections. Warmer temperatures increase diarrhea and foodborne illness from Vibrio cholerae and other bacteria and heavy rainfall increases sewage-contaminated stormwater overflows into lakes and streams. At the other water extreme, drought in the desert Southwest increases the risk of coccidioidomycosis, a fungal infection known as valley fever.

Other impacts

Climate change threatens health in numerous other ways. Longer pollen seasons increase allergen exposures. Lower crop yields reduce access to nutritious foods.

Mental health also suffers, with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress following disasters, and increased rates of violent crime and suicide tied to high-temperature days.

A older man holds a door for a woman at a cooling center.
New York and many other cities now open cooling centers during heat waves to help residents, particularly older adults who might not have air conditioning at home, stay safe during the hottest parts of the day.
Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

Young children, older adults, pregnant women and people with preexisting medical conditions are among the highest-risk groups. Lower-income people also face greater risk because of higher rates of chronic disease, higher exposures to climate hazards and fewer resources for protection, medical care and recovery from disasters.

Policy-based evidence-making

The evidence linking climate change with health has grown considerably since 2009. Today, it is incontrovertible.

Studies show that heat, air pollution, disease spread and food insecurity linked to climate change are worsening and costing millions of lives around the world each year. This evidence also aligns with Americans’ lived experiences. Anybody who has fallen ill during a heat wave, struggled while breathing wildfire smoke or been injured cleaning up from a hurricane knows that climate change can threaten human health.

Yet the Trump administration is willfully ignoring this evidence in proclaiming that climate change does not endanger health.

Its move to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which underpins many climate regulations, fits with a broader set of policy measures, including cutting support for renewable energy and subsidizing fossil fuel industries that endanger public health. In addition to rescinding the endangerment finding, the Trump administration also moved to roll back emissions limits on vehicles – the leading source of U.S. carbon emissions and a major contributor to air pollutants such as PM2.5 and ozone.

It’s not just about endangerment

The evidence is clear: Climate change endangers human health. But there’s a flip side to the story.

When governments work to reduce the causes of climate change, they help tackle some of the world’s biggest health challenges. Cleaner vehicles and cleaner electricity mean cleaner air – and less heart and lung disease. More walking and cycling on safe sidewalks and bike paths mean more physical activity and lower chronic disease risks. The list goes on. By confronting climate change, we promote good health.

To really make America healthy, in our view, the nation should acknowledge the facts behind the endangerment finding and double down on our transition from fossil fuels to a healthy, clean energy future.

This article includes material from a story originally published Nov. 12, 2025.

The Conversation

Jonathan Levy receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Aviation Administration, the City of Boston, the Masschusetts Office of the Attorney General, and the Mosaic Foundation.

Howard Frumkin has no financial conflicts of interest to report. He is a member of advisory boards (or equivalent committees) for the Planetary Health Alliance; the Harvard Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment; the Medical Society Consortium on Climate Change and Health; the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education; the Yale Center on Climate Change and Health; and EcoAmerica’s Climate for Health program, and chairs the National Academy of Medicine Committee on the Roadmap for Transformative Action to Achieve Health for All at Net-Zero Emissions—all voluntary unpaid positions.

Jonathan Patz receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with the Medical Society Consortium for Climate and Health, and its affiliate Healthy Climate Wisconsin.

Vijay Limaye is affiliated with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

ref. Trump’s EPA decides climate change doesn’t endanger public health – the evidence says otherwise – https://theconversation.com/trumps-epa-decides-climate-change-doesnt-endanger-public-health-the-evidence-says-otherwise-275619

Colorectal cancer is increasing among young people, James Van Der Beek’s death reminds – cancer experts explain ways to decrease your risk

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Christopher Lieu, Professor of Medical Oncology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus

Actor James Van Der Beek died from colon cancer at age 48. Andrew Toth/Getty Images

An increasing number of people are dying of colorectal cancer at a young age, including those as young as 20. Actor James Van Der Beek, who was diagnosed with colorectal cancer in 2023, died at age 48 on Feb. 11, 2026, bringing the disease back into the limelight.

The Conversation U.S. asked gastrointestinal oncologist Christopher Lieu and cancer researcher Andrea Dwyer to explain what’s known about early-onset colon cancer and what young people can do to protect themselves.

Why are more young people getting colorectal cancer?

Researchers have identified a number of factors associated with increasing numbers of young people developing colorectal cancer, but there is no one clear answer that explains this trend.

Lifestyle factors like ultra-processed foods and alcohol, as well as lack of exercise, have been linked to early-onset colorectal cancer. However, these are correlations that aren’t proven to be the cause of colorectal cancer in young adults.

Many researchers are focusing on the gut microbiome, which is an ecosystem of microorganisms in your gut that helps your body digest food and carry out other important functions. When the microbes in the gut are out of balance – a condition called dysbiosis – this causes a disruption that allows for inflammation and negative health effects, including increased cancer risk.

What increases your risk of developing colorectal cancer?

Beyond genetics, several lifestyle factors can increase your risk of developing colorectal cancer.

For example, someone’s diet plays a role in cancer risk. Eating a lot of red meat and processed foods and not enough dietary fiber can increase your risk of colorectal cancer. Alcohol also causes cancer – even having less than one drink a day can increase your cancer risk.

Smoking, obesity and lack of exercise are other factors that increase cancer risk.

Colorectal cancer is rising among young people.

What’s the survival rate for young people with colon cancer?

There is a lot of debate among researchers on whether there are differences in survival rates between those with early-onset colorectal cancer survival and those who develop the disease after age 50.

Finding cancer at an early stage can lead to five-year survival rates as high as 80% to 90%. When cancer is detected at an advanced stage where it has spread to other parts of the body, survival rates are closer to 10% to 15%.

One study found that young patients with metastatic colon cancer had a slightly lower survival rate compared with those age 50 or older.

What are early symptoms of colorectal cancer?

The most common signs and symptoms for early-onset colorectal cancer are blood in the stool, abdominal pain and a change in bowel habits, or any combination of these conditions. Unexplained anemia, or low red blood cell levels, is another potential symptom. These are warning signs that people should not ignore.

Having these symptoms does not necessarily mean you have colorectal cancer, but they are worth discussing with a physician. In some cases, your doctor may request a colonoscopy for further evaluation.

How does colon cancer screening work?

The first step is to have a conversation with your health care team about which test is right for you. Understanding what your risk category is helps guide screening, prevention and lifestyle changes to reduce your likelihood of colorectal cancer.

People with an average risk for colorectal cancer typically have no personal or significant family history of colorectal cancer, hereditary cancer, precancerous polyps or inflammatory bowel disease. They have several options for screening, including stool tests that check for blood and abnormal cells, as well as imaging scans to visualize the colon and rectum. Screening is recommended to begin at age 45 and should continue at regular intervals until age 75.

People with a high risk of colon cancer typically have a personal or family history of colorectal cancer, hereditary cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. They may also have several lifestyle risk factors. Colonoscopy is the only recommended screening test for those with high risk, and earlier and more frequent screening may be necessary.

How can you reduce your risk of colon cancer?

Communication and action are key. Talk to your health care team about your personal risk based on your age, family history and any signs and symptoms to ensure you’re matched with the screening exam and test best for you.

Take charge of your health. There are lifestyle factors you can control to reduce your personal risk of colorectal cancer. These include regular physical activity; a diet high in fruit, vegetables and fiber, and low in processed meats; and maintaining a healthy weight. Moderating or eliminating alcohol and tobacco use can also reduce your colorectal cancer risk.

Share information with loved ones and your health care team. Knowing your personal and family history of polyps or colorectal cancer and communicating it with your doctor can help ensure you get the right test at the right time. Sharing your personal history could save the lives of your children, siblings and parents.

The Conversation

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. Colorectal cancer is increasing among young people, James Van Der Beek’s death reminds – cancer experts explain ways to decrease your risk – https://theconversation.com/colorectal-cancer-is-increasing-among-young-people-james-van-der-beeks-death-reminds-cancer-experts-explain-ways-to-decrease-your-risk-275886

Why forcing Ukraine into an election could misfire for Trump

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jonathan Este, Senior International Affairs Editor, Associate Editor, The Conversation

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.


Before he sent his war machine into Ukraine nearly four years ago, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, talked of the need to rid the country of the “neo-Nazi cabal” which was holding it hostage and perpetrating a “genocide” of Russian speakers in eastern Ukraine.

Putin has doubled down on this regularly during the conflict, refusing to recognise Ukraine’s sitting president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as a legitimate negotiating partner and repeatedly calling for elections. He seems to have found a receptive ear in Donald Trump, who has repeated this call several times, usually after a phone chat with the Russian leader.

Now it’s being reported that Zelensky is planning for elections and a referendum on the Trump peace proposal, after the US insisted he do both by May 15 or lose US security guarantees. Zelensky has repeatedly pointed out that the Ukrainian constitution bars elections while martial law is in effect.

It’s easy to see why. As it stands, 20% of Ukraine’s territory is occupied by Russia. Do the people living on that land get a vote? How about the millions of displaced people – either in Ukraine or in the enforced diaspora? How to organise ballots for the hundreds of thousands of troops on active duty? The logistics are mind-boggling.

But it’s not just logistics. Stefan Wolff, an expert in international security at the University of Birmingham, and Tetyana Malyarenko of the University of Odesa present five reasons why holding a poll and referendum are a problem, given the present circumstances.

On the face of it, they argue, it feels as if the US president is once again coming up with a plan that favours Russia over Ukraine. But given the impossibility of organising these votes under the present circumstances, let alone providing for what would happen if, as seems likely, the people vote for Zelensky and against the Trump peace deal, this might actually play into the hands of Kyiv and its allies. Apart from anything else, the process will buy them some time to come up with a new strategy that will take into account Washington’s role as the most unreliable of partners.




Read more:
Five reasons Trump’s plan for Ukrainian elections and a peace referendum will only prolong the war


Having said that, the phrase “if the people vote for Zelensky” is doing some heavy lifting here. The fact is that, four years into an existential struggle, Ukrainians are exhausted and morale is taking a beating in the face of relentless Russian bombardment. Zelensky, who was voted into power with 74% of the vote in 2019 on a platform of fighting corruption has seen some of his closest political allies embroiled in massive corruption scandals.

The fact that the most recent scandal, which saw his chief of staff resign, related to allegations of graft involving Ukraine’s biggest energy supplier was particularly damaging, given that many Ukrainians are living without power in the coldest winter in a decade, thanks to Russian bombing.

So Zelensky’s reelection is not a foregone conclusion. In fact, two of his close associates – Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the former chief of Ukraine’s armed forces and now ambassador to the US, and Kyrylo Budanov, who the Ukrainian president recently appointed as his chief of staff – would both be popular candidates. Neither has said they would run for office, but what politician ever does say that – until they do?

Jennifer Mathers, an expert in Russian and eastern European politics at Aberystwyth University, takes us through the possible challengers.




Read more:
Ukraine: if elections are held this spring, who might be the next president?


The Epstein files

To Washington, where members of Congress have started to sift through some of the 3 million documents from the “Epstein files” released by the Department of Justice at the end of January. Observers have commented that, unlike in Europe, where the fallout has included considerable political splashback for some important people, reaction in the US – so far at least – has been comparatively muted.

Of course, the unredacted files have only just been made available to US lawmakers. So it’s hard to gauge how people are going to react when big names begin to be linked with sleazy acts – whether that might be sexual, political or business-related.

Releasing the files is a gamble for the US Department of Justice and the attorney-general, Pam Bondi, writes Katie Pruszynski, an analyst of US politics at the University of Sheffield. While the potential for scandal is huge, the US public is having to digest so many other stories. This year alone, the US has conducted a raid on Venezuela and abducted its president. There have been threats against Greenland and Canada. The activities of ICE and other immigration agencies in US cities, particularly in Minneapolis where two people have been shot dead, have also rightly dominated headlines.

On top of that, millions of people have seen their health insurance premiums skyrocket after the subsidies established under Obamacare lapsed on January 1. People may simply not have the mental bandwidth to take it all in.

But all this might change once the unredacted files are made public. The key thing Republicans will be hoping for is that any furore surrounding the Epstein scandal will die down before the midterm elections in November.

Meanwhile, as Pruszynski notes, Epstein’s victims – many of whose names were not redacted, despite the US Congress passing a law to that effect – are still waiting for justice.




Read more:
Epstein files: why the Trump administration is taking a big gamble by releasing millions of documents


The release of victims’ names raises an interesting side issue: who decides what information is released and what is redacted? Matthew Mokhefi-Ashton explains the competing legal principles which balance the public’s right to know with people’s right to privacy.




Read more:
Epstein files: who decides what information is released to the public?


Hard times in Havana

When the US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, was taking questions after the raid on Caracas on January 3, he appeared to relish the idea of the US turning its attention to Cuba, commenting that: “If I lived in Havana, and I was in the government, I’d be concerned – at least a little bit.” His boss appeared to rule out direct intervention, at least for now, saying: “Cuba is ready to fall … I don’t think we need any action. Looks like it’s going down. It’s going down for the count.”

He may not be far off the mark, given that Cuba is fast running out of oil. The situation there is so parlous that at least one air carrier, Air Canada, has cancelled all flights to Cuba because it can’t be sure that its aircraft would be able to refuel. This is a disaster. Cuba is heavily dependent on tourism for the foreign currency is so desperately needs.

Since Trump returned to power a year ago, the US has made it nigh on impossible for Cuba to source enough fuel to meet its energy needs. Now he is essentially saying the communist government of Miguel Díaz-Canel must negotiate a deal (on American terms) or else.

But whatever Rubio, who has nursed a career-long obsession with his parents’ home country of Cuba, may want to see, achieving regime change on the Caribbean island will not be easy, writes Nicolas Forsans of University of Essex. Forsans sketches out what a US deal with Cuba that falls short of replacing the government might look like.




Read more:
The US is starving Cuba of fuel – here’s what a deal between them could look like



Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.


The Conversation

ref. Why forcing Ukraine into an election could misfire for Trump – https://theconversation.com/why-forcing-ukraine-into-an-election-could-misfire-for-trump-275866

How Iran’s current unrest can be traced back to the 1979 revolution

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Mehmet Ozalp, Professor of Islamic Studies, Head of School, The Centre for Islamic Studies and Civilisation, Charles Sturt University

The recent unrest in Iran, with the third mass protests in the past six years, has left the theocratic regime wounded but not out.

Iran is no stranger to such unrest. In 1979, similar circumstances led to the Iranian revolution. However, Iranians soon became disappointed that the revolution did not deliver what they had been promised. So while the ideology of the revolution collapsed, the regime remains in place.

To understand this, we need to go back to the emergence of modern Iran.




Read more:
Iran’s long history of revolution, defiance and outside interference – and why its future is so uncertain


Democracy or monarchy – whose choice is it?

The recent popular unrest reflects the Iranian people’s desire for self-determination, freedom and progress. The fight for self-determination goes back to the late 19th century and the rise of the Persian Constitutional Revolution.

In 1906, this push succeeded in forcing Qajar Shah to instate a constitution and one of the first parliaments in the Muslim world.

Later, in the turbulent aftermath of the first world war, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi led a military coup establishing modern Iran. He was an authoritarian leader, in keeping with the trend of the 1920s and 30s. At the same time, he also tried to modernise Iran with a series of reforms and developments.

During the second world war, Pahlavi was deposed with the Anglo-Soviet invasion of Iran in 1941. Iran was too important geopolitically – for the war in Russia against the Nazis and Indian Ocean against the Japanese – with a constant and free supply of oil for the British war machine.

This importance did not wane after the war. Now, the Cold War dominated geopolitics and Muslim countries found themselves in the middle of it. Iran and Turkey were key countries where communist Soviet expansion efforts were intensified.

In response, the United States provided both countries with economic and political support in return for their membership in the democratic western block. Turkey and Iran accepted this support and became democratic in 1950 and 1951, respectively.

Later in 1951, Mohammad Mosaddeq’s National Front became the first democratically-elected Iranian government. Mosaddeq was a modern, secular-leaning, progressive leader who was able to gain the broad support of both the secular elite and the Iranian ulama (Islamic scholars).

He was helped by a growing public disdain for Pahlavi monarchy and rising Iranian anger at British exploitation of their oil fields. Iranians were only receiving 20% of the profits.

Mosaddeq made the bold move to address this issue by nationalising the British-owned Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC). This did not work out in his favour, as it attracted British and US economic sanctions, crippling the Iranian economy.

In 1953, once again, Iranian people were denied self-determination. The Mosaddeq government was replaced in a military coup organised by the CIA and British intelligence. The shah was returned to power and the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company became BP, British Petroleum, with a 50-50 divide of profits.

Tanks on the streets of Tehran, 1956.
Wikicommons

This intervention sent the unintended message that a democratically elected government would be toppled if it did not fit with Western interests. This narrative continues to be the dominant discourse of Islamist activists today, in Iran and beyond.

The Islamic Revolution

Between 1953 and 1977, the shah relied heavily on the US in his efforts to modernise the army and Iranian society, and transform the economy through what he called the White Revolution.

But it came at a hefty cost. Wealth was unequally distributed, with a large underclass of peasants migrating to urban centres. The economy could not keep up with the growing population, unplanned urbanisation and lack of an open economy.

Having tasted democracy for a brief period during 1951–53, many Iranians wanted democratic rights and economic progress. This uprising resulted in large-scale political suppression of dissent.

Disillusioned religious scholars, such as Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, were alarmed at the top-down imposition of a Western lifestyle, believing Islam was being completely removed from society.

In a 1978 interview with a US news program, Khomeini characterised the shah’s regime as one that deprived Iranians of independence and freedom, stating that “we don’t have the true independence, we are suffering […] we want the liberty of our people.”




Read more:
World politics explainer: the Iranian Revolution


What revolution promised but could not deliver

Ironically, Iranian protesters say almost the same things about the current regime created by Khomeini: that it is the cause of their suffering and lack of freedoms.

The revolution promised true independence, freedom, a more Islamic social and political order, and greater economic prosperity. The failure to deliver on these promises is at the heart of the popular unrest in Iran today.

The 1979 Islamic Revolution ended Iran’s strategic alignment with the US and the West, leading to decades of political and economic isolation. While the Islamic Republic maintained its ideological stance of “neither East nor West”, sustained Western sanctions gradually pushed Iran closer to Russia and China.

The 45 years of a theocratic regime have been equally or even more oppressive than the shah’s rule. People’s freedoms and rights have regressed significantly. While strict public dress codes for women remain in law and are still enforced — sometimes harshly, as seen in the 2022 protests following the death of Mahsa Amini — compliance has loosened over time, with many women pushing the boundaries in major urban centres.

The most important premise of Islamism – making society more religious through political power – has also failed. Nearly two-thirds of Iranians today were born after the 1979 revolution. Yet, a 2020 GAMAAN survey found state-driven Islamisation has not produced a more religious society. Identification with organised religion appears to have declined, particularly among younger people.

Khomeini and his supporters promised economic prosperity and to end the gap between rich and poor. Today, the Iranian economy is in poor shape, despite the oil revenues that hold it back from the brink of collapse. People are unhappy with high unemployment rates, hyper-inflation and never-ending sanctions. They have little hope for the country’s economic fortunes to turn.

As a result, Iranians have lost hope in the ruling elite’s ability to ensure a brighter future.

Will the theocratic regime collapse any time soon?

So, the main ideology of the revolution has collapsed. What about the regime itself?

For any regime to collapse, including the current one in Iran, four key forces and factors, or a combination of them, have to exert sufficient force: popular mass protests, an army coup, external interventions and division among the ruling elite.

Iran has seen many mass protests in the past 40 years. While these did not bring down the regime, their frequency is increasing.

The November 2019 protests, triggered by a sudden fuel price hike, rapidly spread across the country. The 2022–23 protests, sparked by the death of Mahsa Amini in morality police custody, evolved into a sustained nationwide movement under the slogan “woman, life, freedom”. Most recently, the 2025–26 protests have been driven primarily by a severe economic downturn.

But protests are not sufficient to cause a collapse of the regime. They are usually met with countrywide internet blackouts and violent crackdowns leading to hundreds of deaths. This happened again in the recent unrest, with the death toll reaching at least 5,000.

International interventions

Iran has been under extensive economic sanctions for decades, yet these have failed to bring about major political change or weaken the Islamic Republic’s hold on power. In the aftermath of the revolution, Iraq — backed politically and materially by United States and its allies — invaded Iran in 1980 in a bid to contain and possibly topple the new regime before it consolidated. After eight years of devastating war, this effort also failed to dislodge the Islamic Republic.

Other countries have launched short military interventions in the past, with the last one by the United States and Israel in June 2025 targeting the army headquarters and nuclear facilities. These did not lead to a regime change.

It seems anything short of a full-scale war or land invasion is unlikely to lead to a regime change in Iran. And we know from the experience in Iraq and Afghanistan that such interventions don’t end well.

Could Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) stage a coup? It seems highly unlikely. The IRGC is structurally oriented toward preserving and reshaping the system from within, not overthrowing it. Created as a parallel force to prevent coups, the IRGC is intentionally kept fragmented, bound by layered chains of command, and vertically loyal to the supreme leader, making unified action very difficult.

Then, there is the potential for a leadership struggle within the regime itself. For now, this is not a factor, but it could be soon if the elderly Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei dies.

Khamenei, who succeeded Khomeini in 1989, is Iran’s longest-serving leader. His power comes from being part of the original revolution, drawing respect within the leadership and supporters in the government.

He is 86 years old and has health issues. When he goes, there will be many vying for the role. Whoever becomes leader is likely to purge those who supported others, leading to political persecution and instability at the top.

It is very hard to predict when and if the current Islamic Republic will collapse. Iran may continue as is, but moderate over time. Such a trajectory is more likely to emerge through greater integration with the international community rather than continued isolation through sanctions.

Hard social, political and economic realities have an uncanny ability to test and smooth ideologies. If the regime stays hardline and unwilling to evolve, change is inevitable, and will probably occur at the least expected moment.

The Conversation

Mehmet Ozalp is the Executive Director of ISRA Academy.

ref. How Iran’s current unrest can be traced back to the 1979 revolution – https://theconversation.com/how-irans-current-unrest-can-be-traced-back-to-the-1979-revolution-273445

Counter-drone technologies are evolving – but there’s no surefire way to defend against drone attacks

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jamey Jacob, Regents Professor of Aerospace Engineering and Executive Director, Oklahoma Aerospace Institute for Research and Education, Oklahoma State University

A Mexican law enforcement officer demonstrates a drone jammer. AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo

When the Federal Aviation Administration closed the airport in El Paso, Texas, and the airspace around it on Feb. 10, 2026, the cause was, ironically, the nearby use of a technology that could be key to keeping airports and airspace open and safe.

According to news reports, Customs and Border Protection officials used a Department of Defense anti-drone laser weapon to target what they identified as a drone crossing the border from Mexico. The FAA closed the El Paso airport and airspace out of concern that the weapon inadvertently posed a threat to air traffic in the area.

The targeted drone turned out to be a party balloon, though U.S. officials claim that drug cartels based in Mexico have flown drones at the U.S.-Mexico border. The episode highlights the need for counter-drone technologies, the state-of-the-art systems used by the U.S. military, and the challenges to safely and effectively countering drones, which are also known as uncrewed aircraft systems.

I am an aerospace engineer and director of the Counter-UAS Center of Excellence at Oklahoma State University, where we develop and evaluate technologies to detect, identify and counter drone threats. The military laser weapon CBP that personnel used near El Paso is an example of one of three categories of counter-drone technologies: directed energy weapons. The other two are radio frequency jamming and kinetic, or physical, weapons like missiles and nets.

The emerging threat

Starting in 2015, the ISIS terrorist group modified commercial off-the-shelf drones to drop grenades and mortars on U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria, who had little way to combat the threat. This started the trend of modifying consumer drones for military purposes that continues to this day on the Russian-Ukrainian front lines.

While military bases ostensibly have some protective capabilities, critical U.S. infrastructure such as airports and power plants have few methods to track, let alone defend against, drones. For example, in 2018, traffic at London Gatwick International Airport in the U.K. was shut down for three days because of an unidentified drone in the airport’s airspace. Hundreds of flights were canceled, affecting over 100,000 passengers.

Sites such as civilian and military airports, power plants and stadiums are vulnerable to drone flights, both from malicious and negligent operators. Drone flight over open stadiums such as those hosting upcoming FIFA World Cup soccer matches are banned by the FAA. But the ban wouldn’t prevent an errant civilian drone or a drone used in a terrorist attack from entering a stadium and potentially causing serious harm to spectators.

A drone and a small airplane in the air near each other
A drone flies near a small airplane in a test at Oklahoma State University.
Jamey Jacob

On June 1, 2025, Ukrainian forces deployed more than 100 “kamikaze” drones deep in Russian territory in an attack labeled Operation Spiderweb that damaged a significant portion of Russia’s bomber fleet. There is little stopping something like this from happening in the U.S.

To address this threat, companies are evaluating numerous ways to track, identify and, most importantly, defeat drones and protect critical U.S. infrastructure. At present, however, there is no one-size-fits-all solution.

Counter-drone technologies

Radio frequency waves that both track and jam drones have become widely used in the Russia-Ukraine war. Like all remote control devices, drones use radio frequencies to control flight and monitor video coming from the drone camera. Detectors can track these radio frequency signals to determine a drone’s location.

Devices that emit radio frequency signals can be used to block, or jam, communications between drones and their operators or send false, or spoofed, signals. Jamming or spoofing a drone typically causes it to enter into a “return to home” mode and leave the defended area. Radio frequency systems are helpful in situations where a low-impact response is required, because they prevent drones from completing their intended mission without causing physical damage to them.

However, this doesn’t necessarily work if a drone is operating in a “run silent” mode by not transmitting information back to a remote operator. Similarly, jamming GPS can cause a drone to lose its ability to navigate using the satellite system, but this also blocks GPS signals for other users. Drones can also navigate without GPS, with less accurate techniques such as following terrain with cameras or the dead reckoning approach commonly used by pilots.

Directed energy systems, on the other hand, use high-energy lasers or microwave beams to disable drones. These systems work by directing a concentrated beam of energy toward an incoming drone. A laser or microwave can heat components rapidly until the drone becomes inoperative. A laser can also disable a drone’s camera, disabling its surveillance capability. Additionally, because these systems use energy beams, they can engage multiple drones at once.

However, fast-moving drones may be difficult for the weapons to target, and the cost of such systems makes them prohibitively expensive for widespread use.

Kinetic systems involve physically intercepting drones to neutralize them. This category includes everything from net-carrying interceptor drones to traditional projectile weapons, such as firearms and missiles. Kinetic systems physically disable or capture drones, making them particularly useful in scenarios where it is necessary to quickly remove drones from sensitive areas or when the drone presents an immediate threat.

However, because a damaged aircraft can crash in unpredictable locations, these systems may be more effective in battlefields where falling debris is less likely to cause unwanted damage on the ground.

The U.S. military uses several counter-drone systems to defend against small drones.

Swiss cheese safety

Together, these three types of counter-drone technologies – radio frequency, directed energy and kinetic – provide a comprehensive tool kit for addressing the diverse threats posed by unauthorized drones. However, there is no single ideal solution to counter these threats.

To maximize safety, the Swiss cheese model is often the best approach. In this analogy, each defensive strategy is a slice of the familiar holey cheese. While some threats may pass through a hole in one layer, the next layer can capture what passes through. This way, a drone making it through the weaknesses in one system can be defeated by the next slice of cheese.

The Conversation

Jamey Jacob receives funding from the Depts. of Defense and Homeland Security to evaluate Counter-UAS capabilities and UAS threats. He is affiliated with AUVSI, the Association of Unmanned Vehicle Systems International (AUVSI).

ref. Counter-drone technologies are evolving – but there’s no surefire way to defend against drone attacks – https://theconversation.com/counter-drone-technologies-are-evolving-but-theres-no-surefire-way-to-defend-against-drone-attacks-229595

EPA rescinds 2009 endangerment finding, clearing way for Trump to shred more US climate rules – but serious court challenges await

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Gary W. Yohe, Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies, Wesleyan University

The administration is also loosening auto emission standards.
Alex Kent/Getty Images

In 2009 the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency formally declared that greenhouse gas emissions, including from vehicles and industry, endanger public health and welfare. The decision, known as the endangerment finding, was based on years of evidence, and it has underpinned EPA actions on climate change ever since.

The Trump administration is now tearing up that finding as it tries to roll back climate regulations on everything from vehicles to industries.

“This is as big as it gets,” EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in announcing with President Donald Trump on Feb. 12, 2026, that the administration had “terminated” the endangerment finding. Zeldin argued that the finding had “no basis in law.” Trump, smiling next to him, talked about the benefits of fossil fuels and said the finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare “had no basis in fact. None whatsoever.”

An airplane flying over a packed highway with San Diego in the background.
Transportation is the nation’s leading source of emissions, yet the federal government aims to roll back vehicle standards and other regulations written to help slow climate change.
Kevin Carter/Getty Images

There’s no question that the EPA’s decision will be challenged in court. The legal question over the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases will be debated, just as it was in 2009. The administration’s claim that the finding was scientifically wrong, however, has no basis in fact.

The world just experienced its three hottest years on record, evidence of worsening climate change is stronger now than ever before, and people across the U.S. are increasingly experiencing the harm firsthand.

Several legal issues have already surfaced that could get in the EPA’s way. They include evidence from emails submitted in a court case that suggest political appointees sought to direct the scientific review that the administration has used to defend its plan, at the exclusion of respected scientific sources. On Jan. 30 a federal judge ruled that the Department of Energy violated the law when it handpicked five researchers to write the climate science review. The ruling doesn’t necessarily stop the EPA, but it raises questions.

To understand what happens now, it helps to look back at history for some context.

The Supreme Court started it

The endangerment finding stemmed from a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA.

The court found that various greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, were “pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act,” and it gave the EPA an explicit set of instructions.

The court wrote that the “EPA must determine whether or not emissions from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”

But the Supreme Court did not order the EPA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Only if the EPA found that emissions were harmful would the agency be required, by law, “to establish national ambient air quality standards for certain common and widespread pollutants based on the latest science” – meaning greenhouse gases.

The Supreme Court justices seated for a formal portrait.
The Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts in 2007 included seven justices appointed by Republican presidents. Front row, left to right: Anthony M. Kennedy (appointed by Ronald Reagan), John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford), John Roberts (George W. Bush), Antonin Scalia (Reagan) and David Souter (George H.W. Bush). Standing, from left: Stephen Breyer (Bill Clinton), Clarence Thomas (George H.W. Bush), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Clinton) and Samuel Alito Jr. (George W. Bush).
AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite

The EPA was required to follow formal procedures – including reviewing the scientific research, assessing the risks and taking public comment – and then determine whether the observed and projected harms were sufficient to justify publishing an “endangerment finding.”

That process took two years. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson announced on Dec. 7, 2009, that the then-current and projected concentrations of six key greenhouse gases in the atmosphere – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride – threatened the public health and welfare of current and future generations.

Challenges to the finding erupted immediately.

Jackson denied 10 petitions received in 2009-2010 that called on the administration to reconsider the finding.

On June 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the endangerment finding and regulations that the EPA had issued under the Clean Air Act for passenger vehicles and permitting procedures for stationary sources, such as power plants.

This latest challenge is different.

It came directly from the Trump administration without going through normal channels. It was, though, entirely consistent with both the conservative Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 plan for the Trump administration and President Donald Trump’s dismissive perspective on climate risk.

Trump’s burden of proof

To legally reverse the 2009 finding, the agency was required to go through the same evaluation process as before. According to conditions outlined in the Clean Air Act, the reversal of the 2009 finding must be justified by a thorough and complete review of the current science and not just be political posturing.

That’s a tough task.

Energy Secretary Chris Wright has talked publicly about how he handpicked the five researchers who wrote the scientific research review. A judge has now found that the effort violated the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires that agency-chosen panels providing policy advice to the government conduct their work in public.

All five members of the committee had been outspoken critics of mainstream climate science. Their report, released in summer 2025, was widely criticized for inaccuracies in what they referenced and its failure to represent the current science.

Scientific research available today clearly shows that greenhouse gas emissions harm public health and welfare. Importantly, evidence collected since 2009 is even stronger now than it was when the first endangerment finding was written, approved and implemented.

Map shows many ares with record or near record warm years.
Many locations around the world had record or near-record warm years in 2025. Places with local record warmth in 2025 are home to approximately 770 million people, according to data from Berkeley Earth.
Berkeley Earth, CC BY-NC

For example, a 2025 review by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine determined that the evidence supporting the endangerment finding is even stronger today than it was in 2009. A 2019 peer-reviewed assessment of the evidence related to greenhouse gas emissions’ role in climate change came to the same conclusion.

The Sixth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a report produced by hundreds of scientists from around the world, found in 2023 that “adverse impacts of human-caused climate change will continue to intensify.”

Maps show most of the US, especially the West, getting hotter, and the West getting drier.
Summer temperatures have climbed in much of the U.S. and the world as greenhouse gas emissions have risen.
Fifth National Climate Assessment

In other words, greenhouse gas emissions were causing harm in 2009, and the harm is worse now and will be even worse in the future without steps to reduce emissions.

In public comments on the Department of Energy’s problematic 2025 review, a group of climate experts from around the world reached the same conclusion, adding that the Department of Energy’s Climate Working Group review “fails to adequately represent this reality.”

What happens now that the EPA has dropped the endangerment finding

As an economist who has studied the effects of climate change for over 40 years, I am concerned that the EPA’s rescinding the endangerment finding will lead to faster efforts to roll back U.S. climate regulations meant to slow climate change.

It will also give the administration cover for further actions that would defund more science programs, stop the collection of valuable data, freeze hiring and discourage a generation of emerging science talent.

Cases typically take years to wind through the courts, but both the Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists expect to file lawsuits quickly once the rescission is published in the Federal Register.

Unless a judge issues an injunction, I expect to see an accelerating retreat from U.S. efforts to reduce climate change. For example, consider the removal in early February of the climate science chapter from a new “Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence” that advises judges. Republican state attorneys general had complained to the Federal Judicial Center of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine that the manual “treated human influence on climate as fact.” But it is fact. That is not just my opinion. The National Academies itself said so in 2020 and again in 2025.

I see no scenario in which a legal challenge doesn’t end up before the Supreme Court. I would hope that both the enormous amount of scientific evidence and the words in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution would have some significant sway in the court’s considerations. It starts, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union,” and includes in its list of principles, “promote the general Welfare.

This article, originally published Feb. 2, 2026, has been updated with EPA rescinding the endangerment finding.

The Conversation

Gary W. Yohe 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. EPA rescinds 2009 endangerment finding, clearing way for Trump to shred more US climate rules – but serious court challenges await – https://theconversation.com/epa-rescinds-2009-endangerment-finding-clearing-way-for-trump-to-shred-more-us-climate-rules-but-serious-court-challenges-await-274194

Trump says climate change doesn’t endanger public health – evidence shows it does, from extreme heat to mosquito-borne illnesses

Source: The Conversation – USA (3) – By Jonathan Levy, Professor and Chair, Department of Environmental Health, Boston University

Rising global temperatures are increasing the risk of heat stroke on hot days, among many other human harms. Ronda Churchill/AFP via Getty Images

The Trump administration took a major step in its efforts to unravel America’s climate policies on Feb. 12, 2026. It moved to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, a formal determination that greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide and methane from burning fossil fuels, endanger public health and welfare. But the administration’s arguments in dismissing the health risks of climate change are not only factually wrong, they’re deeply dangerous to Americans’ health and safety.

As physicians, epidemiologists and environmental health scientists, we’ve seen growing evidence of the connections between climate change and harm to people’s health.

Here’s a look at the health risks everyone face from climate change.

Health risks and outcomes related to climate change.
Health risks and outcomes related to climate change.
World Health Organization

Extreme heat

Greenhouse gases from vehicles, power plants and other sources accumulate in the atmosphere, trapping heat and holding it close to Earth’s surface like a blanket. Too much of it causes global temperatures to rise, leaving more people exposed to dangerous heat more often.

Most people who get minor heat illnesses will recover, but more extreme exposure, especially without enough hydration and a way to cool off, can be fatal. People who work outside, are elderly or have underlying illnesses such as heart, lung or kidney diseases are often at the greatest risk.

Heat deaths have been rising globally, up 23% from the 1990s to the 2010s, when the average year saw more than half a million heat-related deaths. Here in the U.S., the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat dome killed hundreds of people.

Climate scientists predict that with advancing climate change, many areas of the world, including U.S. cities such as Miami, Houston, Phoenix and Las Vegas, will confront many more days each year hot enough to threaten human survival.

Extreme weather

Warmer air holds more moisture, so climate change brings increasing rainfall and storm intensity and worsening flooding, as many U.S. communities have experienced in recent years. Warmer ocean water also fuels more powerful hurricanes.

Increased flooding carries health risks, including drownings, injuries and water contamination from human pathogens and toxic chemicals. People cleaning out flooded homes also face risks from mold exposure, injuries and mental distress.

A man carries boxes out of a house that flooded up to its second story.
Flooding from hurricanes and other extreme storms can put people at risk of injuries during the cleanup while also triggering dangerous mold growth on wet wallboard, carpets and fabric. This home flooded up to its second flood during Hurricane Irma in 2017.
Sean Rayford/Getty Images

Climate change also worsens droughts, disrupting food supplies and causing respiratory illness from dust. Rising temperatures and aridity dry out forests and grasslands, making them a setup for wildfires.

Air pollution

Wildfires, along with other climate effects, are worsening air quality around the country.

Wildfire smoke is a toxic soup of microscopic particles (known as fine particulate matter, or PM2.5) that can penetrate deep in the lungs and hazardous compounds such as lead, formaldehyde and dioxins generated when homes, cars and other materials burn at high temperatures. Smoke plumes can travel thousands of miles downwind and trigger heart attacks and elevate lung cancer risks, among other harms.

Meanwhile, warmer conditions favor the formation of ground-level ozone, a heart and lung irritant. Burning of fossil fuels also generates dangerous air pollutants that cause a long list of health problems, including heart attacks, strokes, asthma flare-ups and lung cancer.

Infectious diseases

Because they are cold-blooded organisms, insects are directly influenced by temperature. So with rising temperatures, mosquito biting rates rise as well. Warming also accelerates the development of disease agents that mosquitoes transmit.

Mosquito-borne dengue fever has turned up in Florida, Texas, Hawaii, Arizona and California. New York state just saw its first locally acquired case of chikungunya virus, also transmitted by mosquitoes.

A world map shows where mosquitos are most likely to transmit the dengue virus
As global temperatures rise, regions are becoming more suitable for mosquitoes to transmit dengue virus. The map shows a suitability scale, with red areas already suitable for dengue transmissions and yellow areas becoming more suitable.
Taishi Nakase, et al., 2022, CC BY

And it’s not just insect-borne infections. Warmer temperatures increase diarrhea and foodborne illness from Vibrio cholerae and other bacteria and heavy rainfall increases sewage-contaminated stormwater overflows into lakes and streams. At the other water extreme, drought in the desert Southwest increases the risk of coccidioidomycosis, a fungal infection known as valley fever.

Other impacts

Climate change threatens health in numerous other ways. Longer pollen seasons increase allergen exposures. Lower crop yields reduce access to nutritious foods.

Mental health also suffers, with anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress following disasters, and increased rates of violent crime and suicide tied to high-temperature days.

A older man holds a door for a woman at a cooling center.
New York and many other cities now open cooling centers during heat waves to help residents, particularly older adults who might not have air conditioning at home, stay safe during the hottest parts of the day.
Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images

Young children, older adults, pregnant women and people with preexisting medical conditions are among the highest-risk groups. Lower-income people also face greater risk because of higher rates of chronic disease, higher exposures to climate hazards and fewer resources for protection, medical care and recovery from disasters.

Policy-based evidence-making

The evidence linking climate change with health has grown considerably since 2009. Today, it is incontrovertible.

Studies show that heat, air pollution, disease spread and food insecurity linked to climate change are worsening and costing millions of lives around the world each year. This evidence also aligns with Americans’ lived experiences. Anybody who has fallen ill during a heat wave, struggled while breathing wildfire smoke or been injured cleaning up from a hurricane knows that climate change can threaten human health.

Yet the Trump administration is willfully ignoring this evidence in proclaiming that climate change does not endanger health.

Its move to rescind the 2009 endangerment finding, which underpins many climate regulations, fits with a broader set of policy measures, including cutting support for renewable energy and subsidizing fossil fuel industries that endanger public health. In addition to rescinding the endangerment finding, the Trump administration also moved to roll back emissions limits on vehicles – the leading source of U.S. carbon emissions and a major contributor to air pollutants such as PM2.5 and ozone.

It’s not just about endangerment

The evidence is clear: Climate change endangers human health. But there’s a flip side to the story.

When countries work to reduce the causes of climate change, they help tackle some of the world’s biggest health challenges. Cleaner vehicles and cleaner electricity mean cleaner air – and less heart and lung disease. More walking and cycling on safe sidewalks and bike paths mean more physical activity and lower chronic disease risks. The list goes on. By confronting climate change, we promote good health.

To really make America healthy, in our view, the nation should acknowledge the facts behind the endangerment finding and double down on our transition from fossil fuels to a healthy, clean energy future.

This article includes material from a story originally published Nov. 12, 2025.

The Conversation

Jonathan Levy receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, the Federal Aviation Administration, the City of Boston, the Masschusetts Office of the Attorney General, and the Mosaic Foundation.

Howard Frumkin has no financial conflicts of interest to report. He is a member of advisory boards (or equivalent committees) for the Planetary Health Alliance; the Harvard Center for Climate, Health, and the Global Environment; the Medical Society Consortium on Climate Change and Health; the Global Consortium on Climate and Health Education; the Yale Center on Climate Change and Health; and EcoAmerica’s Climate for Health program, and chairs the National Academy of Medicine Committee on the Roadmap for Transformative Action to Achieve Health for All at Net-Zero Emissions—all voluntary unpaid positions.

Jonathan Patz receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. He is affiliated with the Medical Society Consortium for Climate and Health, and its affiliate Healthy Climate Wisconsin.

Vijay Limaye is affiliated with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

ref. Trump says climate change doesn’t endanger public health – evidence shows it does, from extreme heat to mosquito-borne illnesses – https://theconversation.com/trump-says-climate-change-doesnt-endanger-public-health-evidence-shows-it-does-from-extreme-heat-to-mosquito-borne-illnesses-275619

Ukraine: if elections are held this spring, who might be the next president?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jennifer Mathers, Senior Lecturer in International Politics, Aberystwyth University

Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, is under intense pressure from the US to take his country to the polls as early as this spring. Donald Trump is demanding elections as a condition for American security guarantees for Ukraine against any future Russian invasion.

Zelensky has faced persistent calls from Russian president, Vladimir Putin, and at times from Trump as well, to hold an election. His term expired in 2024, but the country’s constitution forbids elections during wartime. So to schedule a poll will also mean a constitutional change to enable it.

But if the US president gets his way and elections are held later this year, whoever wins and becomes Ukraine’s next president will be faced with the task of managing a country at war and perhaps steering the nation towards an uncertain peace.

It is hard to predict who might stand for the presidency – under the current circumstances, no one is declaring their candidacy. But it’s reasonable to assume that Zelensky would put himself forward for a second term. If so, he cannot be expecting to coast to victory as he did in 2019 when he won more than 74% of the popular vote.

While Zelensky has been celebrated in the west as a hero for his wartime leadership, his popularity has been damaged by a series of corruption scandals. In November 2025, several government officials and business leaders with close connections to Zelensky – including the justice minister and a former prime minister – were accused of stealing US$100 million (£73 million) from Ukraine’s energy sector by Ukraine’s anti-corruption agencies.

Just a few months earlier, in July, widespread protests erupted against a new law that would place those same anti-corruption agencies under the control of an official appointed by Zelensky. This move was widely seen as an attempt to enable the president to stop any inconvenient investigations in their tracks and shield his associates from prosecution.

Zelensky acted quickly to distance himself from both of these scandals. He reversed the controversial legislation in the summer and has called for the resignation of serving officials named in the energy corruption investigation. But these events have tarnished his reputation at home.

According to surveys conducted by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology, trust in Zelensky dropped from 74% in May 2025 to 59% in December. Although incumbents in other countries might look with envy at these figures, only 26% “completely” trust him and would like to see him continue as president. The rest indicated that they would prefer a change at the top of Ukraine’s political leadership. That said, a recent poll had his support at 30.9%, with only one other potential candidate within touching distance.

That potential candidate is Valerii Zaluzhnyi, whose is often described as a potential leader and whose support was measured at 27.7% in the poll mentioned above. Currently Ukraine’s ambassador to the UK, Zaluzhnyi owes his high profile to his former position as head of Ukraine’s armed forces. He served in that role from 2021 until Zelensky replaced him in February 2024.

The official reason Zelensky gave for the dismissal was the need for new ideas in the military, but there was a suspicion that Zaluzhnyi, widely regarded as a war hero for leading the resistance to Russia’s mass invasion, was becoming too popular. Indeed, a poll conducted in July 2025 found that 73% of Ukrainians said they trusted him, making him the country’s most trusted public figure. Zaluzhnyi has refused to be drawn on whether he might stand for the presidency, but there is widespread speculation that he is simply biding his time.

Another possible candidate whose reputation was built by his wartime leadership is Kyrylo Budanov. Recently appointed by Zelensky as his chief of staff, Budanov led Ukraine’s military intelligence since 2020 and is credited with its effective use of drones to strike targets deep into Russian territory as well as Russian-occupied Ukraine. Like Zaluzhnyi, Budanov has not indicated that he would stand for elected office. Unlike Zaluzhnyi, Budanov has not made a breakthrough in the polls.

Veteran political rivals

A few veterans of past presidential campaigns might throw their hats into the ring again, although neither is likely to be a front runner.

Petro Poroshenko was Ukraine’s president before Zelensky, serving from 2014 until 2019. Since 2021 he has been fighting charges of treason and, more recently, has been placed under sanction by Zelensky.

Charges against him focus on alleged pro-Russian political and economic interests, such as his connection with the now-banned Party of the Regions and his slowness to sell off his assets in Russia and Russian-occupied Ukraine. He denies any wrongdoing and has called the sanctions “politically motivated” and “unconstitutional”.

Yulia Tymoshenko was a leading figure in Ukraine’s 2004 Orange Revolution. She is a former prime minister, leader of the “Fatherhood” political party and a populist politician who has a strong following among rural voters, especially older women.

But she has recently been charged with offering bribes to lawmakers in what has been reported as an attempt to undermine the ruling Servant of the People Party. She denies the charges. She is only polling in the single digits.

Problems with a wartime election

It is important to remember that Moscow demands fresh elections in Ukraine as a condition of any peace deal. It is unlikely that Russia expects a pro-Russian candidate to be successful and take the country in a more Russia-friendly direction. But the entire process of holding fair elections in Ukraine anytime soon is fraught with difficulties that would offer opportunities for Russia to exploit.

For example, the organisational challenge of creating accurate electoral registers that include the millions of displaced Ukrainians – many of them living abroad – would invite challenges to the fairness of the election and the legitimacy of the results.

The political divisions that inevitably come to the surface during election campaigns would provide ideal grounds for stirring up dissension and dissatisfaction – a well-established practice undertaken by the Russian security services – and thereby undermining the solidarity of Ukrainian society.

So regardless of who becomes Ukraine’s next president, if the election goes ahead in the coming months as Donald Trump is demanding, the winner in a broader sense may be Russia.

The Conversation

Jennifer Mathers 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. Ukraine: if elections are held this spring, who might be the next president? – https://theconversation.com/ukraine-if-elections-are-held-this-spring-who-might-be-the-next-president-275702