MIL Submissions Engine

July 3, 2025

Experiencing extreme weather and disasters is not enough to change views on climate action, study shows

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Omid Ghasemi, Research Associate in Behavioural Science at the Institute for Climate Risk & Response, UNSW Sydney

Climate change has made extreme weather events such as bushfires and floods more frequent and more likely in recent years, and the trend is expected to continue. These events have led to human and animal deaths, harmed physical and mental health, and damaged properties and infrastructure.

Will firsthand experience of these events change how people think and act about climate change, making it seem immediate and local rather than a distant or future problem?

Research so far has offered a mixed picture. Some studies suggest going through extreme weather can make people more likely to believe in climate change, worry about it, support climate policies, and vote for Green parties. But other studies have found no such effects on people’s beliefs, concern, or behaviour.

New research led by Viktoria Cologna at ETH Zurich in Switzerland may help to explain what’s going on. Using data from around the world, the study suggests simple exposure to extreme weather events does not affect people’s view of climate action – but linking those events to climate change can make a big difference.

Global opinion, global weather

The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, looked at the question of extreme weather and climate opinion using two global datasets.

The first is the Trust in Science and Science-related Populism (TISP) survey, which includes responses from more than 70,000 people in 68 countries. It measures public support for climate policies and the extent that people think climate change is behind increases in extreme weather.

The second dataset estimates how much of each country’s population has been affected each year by events such as droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms. These estimates are based on detailed models and historical climate records.

Public support for climate policies

The survey measured public support for climate policy by asking people how much they supported five specific actions to cut carbon emissions. These included raising carbon taxes, improving public transport, using more renewable energy, protecting forests and land, and taxing carbon-heavy foods.

Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much). On average, support was fairly strong, with an average rating of 2.37 across the five policies. Support was especially high in parts of South Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania, but lower in countries such as Russia, Czechia and Ethiopia.

Exposure to extreme weather events

The study found most people around the world have experienced heatwaves and heavy rainfall in recent decades. Wildfires affected fewer people in many European and North American countries, but were more common in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America.

Cyclones mostly impacted North America and Asia, while droughts affected large populations in Asia, Latin America and Africa. River flooding was widespread across most regions, except Oceania.

Do people in countries with higher exposure to extreme weather events show greater support for climate policies? This study found they don’t.

In most cases, living in a country where more people are exposed to disasters was not reflected in stronger support for climate action.

Wildfires were the only exception. Countries with more wildfire exposure showed slightly higher support, but this link disappeared once factors such as land size and overall climate belief were considered.

In short, just experiencing more disasters does not seem to translate into increased support for mitigation efforts.

Seeing the link between weather and climate change

In the global survey, people were asked how much they think climate change has increased the impact of extreme weather over recent decades. On average, responses were moderately high (3.8 out of 5) suggesting that many people do link recent weather events to climate change.

Such an attribution was especially strong in Latin America, but lower in parts of Africa (such as Congo and Ethiopia) and Northern Europe (such as Finland and Norway).

Crucially, people who more strongly believed climate change had worsened these events were also more likely to support climate policies. In fact, this belief mattered more for policy support than whether they had actually experienced the events firsthand.

What does this study tell us?

While public support for climate policies is relatively high around the world, even more support is needed to introduce stronger, more ambitious measures. It might seem reasonable to expect that feeling the effects of climate change would push people to act, but this study suggests that doesn’t always happen.

Prior research shows less dramatic and chronic events like rainfall or temperature anomalies have less influence on public views than more acute hazards like floods or bushfires. Even then, the influence on beliefs and behaviour tends to be slow and limited.

This study shows climate impacts alone may not change minds. However, it also highlights what may affect public thinking: helping people recognise the link between climate change and extreme weather events.

In countries such as Australia, climate change makes up only about 1% of media coverage. What’s more, most of the coverage focuses on social or political aspects rather than scientific, ecological, or economic impacts.

Many stories about disasters linked to climate change also fail to mention the link, or indeed mention climate change at all. Making these connections clearer may encourage stronger public support for climate action.

Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science. He was a member of the TISP consortium and a co-author of the dataset used in this study.

– ref. Experiencing extreme weather and disasters is not enough to change views on climate action, study shows – https://theconversation.com/experiencing-extreme-weather-and-disasters-is-not-enough-to-change-views-on-climate-action-study-shows-260308

July 3, 2025

État du climat en 2024 : les voyants toujours au rouge malgré le ralentissement des émissions mondiales

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Christian de Perthuis, Professeur d’économie, fondateur de la chaire « Économie du climat », Université Paris Dauphine – PSL

Malgré le ralentissement des émissions globales de gaz à effet de serre (GES), les voyants du climat restent dans le rouge, nous rappelle le rapport Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024 récemment publié. Ce rapport permet également d’identifier trois leviers d’action à mettre en œuvre pour stabiliser le stock atmosphérique de GES à l’origine du réchauffement global.

L’univers virtuel des réseaux sociaux est celui de l’immédiateté. Un utilisateur de TikTok y navigue en moyenne 95 minutes chaque jour, avec à la clé plusieurs centaines de clics. En politique, la vague populiste surfe sur ce courant d’informations en continu qui submerge notre quotidien.

Dans ces mondes virtuels, on prend les décisions en fonction des aléas du moment, quitte à revenir rapidement en arrière en cas de réactions inattendues. Une telle soumission aux humeurs du court terme n’est pas compatible avec l’action face au réchauffement planétaire et à la dégradation de la biodiversité.

Le premier antidote à la tyrannie de l’immédiat doit être la science. C’est pourquoi le Groupe intergouvernemental d’experts sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC) joue un rôle si structurant en matière d’action climatique. Depuis 1990, le GIEC a publié six rapports d’évaluation. Ces rapports fournissent des balises précieuses, documentant l’état des connaissances scientifiques sur le système climatique, les impacts et les adaptations possibles face au réchauffement, les leviers d’atténuation pour le stabiliser.

Chiffres-clés du changement climatique en 2024.
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024, Fourni par l’auteur

Le temps de navigation entre deux balises tend cependant à augmenter. De cinq ans entre le premier et le second rapport du GIEC, il est passé à neuf ans entre les deux derniers rapports. Pour éviter que les décideurs ne se perdent en route, un collectif de chercheurs publie chaque année un tableau de bord annuel, reprenant les méthodologies utilisées par le GIEC.

J’ai lu leur rapport sur l’année 2024, rendu public le 17 juin 2025. Voici ce que j’en ai retenu.

Les voyants au rouge, malgré le ralentissement des émissions

Le tableau de bord annuel actualise en premier lieu les informations sur les émissions de CO₂ jusqu’en 2024 (et jusqu’à 2023 pour les autres gaz à effet de serre, GES). Sans surprise, cette actualisation confirme le ralentissement de l’augmentation des émissions mondiales observé depuis 15 ans, principalement provoqué par celles de CO₂.

Ralentissement de la hausse des émissions sur les quinze dernières années.
Fourni par l’auteur

Ce ralentissement est toutefois insuffisant pour stabiliser ou même freiner l’accumulation du stock de GES dans l’atmosphère. Le rythme de croissance de ce stock se maintient, et s’est même accéléré pour le méthane depuis le début des années 2020.

Or c’est ce stock qui est le moteur anthropique du réchauffement climatique. Il joue d’autant plus fortement que les rejets d’aérosols (principalement le dioxyde de soufre), à l’effet refroidissant à court terme pour la planète, se réduisent du fait du resserrement des contraintes sur les polluants locaux, en particulier dans le transport maritime international et en Chine.

Du lundi au vendredi + le dimanche, recevez gratuitement les analyses et décryptages de nos experts pour un autre regard sur l’actualité. Abonnez-vous dès aujourd’hui !

De ce fait, le réchauffement ne connaît pas de répit. Il a franchi pour la première fois la ligne de +1,5 °C en 2024. Les facteurs anthropiques en ont expliqué 1,36 °C, le reste étant attribué à la variabilité naturelle du climat, en particulier l’épisode El Niño de 2024.

Réchauffement des 10 dernières années.
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024, juin 2025, Fourni par l’auteur

Sur les dix dernières années connues, le réchauffement global a atteint +1,24 °C par rapport à l’ère préindustrielle. Sur l’océan, il dépasse désormais 1 °C. Sur terre, il se situe à 1,79 °C, pratiquement à équidistance entre 1,5 et 2 °C.

Sans surprise la poursuite du réchauffement alimente la montée du niveau de la mer, sous l’effet de la dilatation thermique de l’eau et de la fonte des glaces continentales. La hausse du niveau moyen de l’océan est estimée à 22,8 cm depuis le début du siècle dernier. Entre 2019 et 2024, elle a été de 4,3 mm/an, bien au-dessus de la tendance historique (1,8 mm/an).

Quels leviers d’action ?

Pour stabiliser le réchauffement, il faut en premier lieu drastiquement réduire les émissions de carbone fossile. Comme le notait déjà le Global Carbon Budget à l’automne 2024, le budget carbone résiduel pour avoir une chance sur deux de limiter le réchauffement à 2 °C ne représente plus que 28 années des émissions actuelles. Pour viser 1,5 °C, c’est désormais moins de cinq années !

Le tableau de bord montre également l’impact de la réduction des rejets d’aérosols, qui contribue significativement au réchauffement. Moins d’aérosols dans l’atmosphère, c’est certes moins de problèmes sanitaires à terre, mais aussi plus de réchauffement car les aérosols voilent le rayonnement solaire et agissent sur la formation des nuages. Or, comme les aérosols ne séjournent pas longtemps dans l’atmosphère, une réduction de leurs émissions se répercute rapidement sur le volume de leur stock dans l’atmosphère.

Que faire ? Pour contrarier cet impact, la meilleure voie est de réduire les émissions de méthane. Le méthane ayant une durée de séjour dans l’atmosphère plus courte que celle des autres gaz à effet de serre, sa réduction agit nettement plus rapidement sur le réchauffement qu’une réduction équivalente de CO₂ ou de protoxyde d’azote, qui séjourne en moyenne 120 ans dans l’atmosphère.

Le tableau de bord met enfin en avant l’apparition de « rétroactions » climatiques dont les effets s’ajoutent à l’impact direct des émissions anthropiques sur la température. Ainsi, le réchauffement global stimule les émissions de méthane dans les zones humides tropicales et risque, demain, d’accentuer celles résultant de la fonte du permafrost. Conjugué aux épisodes de sécheresses, il accentue également les émissions générées par les mégafeux de forêt et altère la capacité de croissance des arbres et les rend plus vulnérables face aux ravageurs.

Dans les deux cas, ces rétroactions amplifient le réchauffement. Agir contre ces rétroactions, par exemple en adaptant les stratégies de gestion forestière, répond donc à une double logique d’adaptation et d’atténuation du changement climatique.

Feux de forêt, carbonatation du ciment et gaz fluorés

Si le tableau de bord se fixe comme règle de correspondre au plus près aux méthodes des rapports d’évaluation du GIEC, il apporte également des compléments utiles. J’ai particulièrement apprécié ceux concernant les émissions provoquées par les mégafeux, les gaz fluorés et l’absorption du CO₂ atmosphérique par le ciment.

Trois mesures des émissions mondiales de gaz à effet de serre (GES).
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024, Fourni par l’auteur

Dans la figure ci-dessus apparaissent trois façons de comptabiliser les émissions mondiales de GES.

À 55,4 milliards de tonnes (Gt) équivalent CO₂, le premier bâtonnet visualise les émissions de l’année 2023 et la marge d’incertitude associée, calculées suivant les normes retenues par le GIEC.
L’agrégation des données d’inventaires nationaux recueillies sur le site des Nations unies donne des émissions de seulement 47,1 Gt pour la même année. L’écart entre les deux grandeurs est principalement lié à la façon de comptabiliser les émissions liées aux changements d’usage des terres, en particulier à la frontière retenue entre les émissions-absorptions d’origine anthropique et celles d’origine naturelle. Par exemple, le carbone stocké grâce à la replantation d’arbre est clairement d’origine anthropique, mais faut-il également comptabiliser celui résultant de la repousse naturelle d’arbre après des incendies ?
La figure du milieu est une innovation du tableau de bord, qui a élargi les sources et les absorptions de CO₂ prises en compte, pour aboutir à un total d’émissions de 56,9 Gt d’équivalent CO₂ (+1,5 Gt relativement à l’évaluation standard). La prise en compte de la séquestration du carbone par les ouvrages en ciment ( « carbonatation » du ciment) représente un puits de carbone de 0,8 Gt de CO₂. Mais elle est plus que compensée par les émissions de méthane et de protoxyde d’azote par les feux de forêt et la combustion de biomasse (1 Gt d’équivalent-CO₂) et celles provenant des CFC et autres gaz fluorés non couverts par la convention climat (UNFCCC), à hauteur de 1,3 Gt d’équivalent CO₂ en 2023.

L’inertie des stocks de gaz à effet de serre

Sur la période récente, les émissions de gaz fluorés (F-gaz) répertoriées dans le cadre de l’UNFCC, dépassent celles des gaz fluorés dont la régulation a été mise en place par le protocole de Montréal (1987) destiné à protéger la couche d’ozone. Mais cette situation est relativement récente. Quand la lutte pour la protection de la couche d’ozone a démarré, les émissions de CFC et des autres gaz fluorés détruisant cette couche exerçaient un réchauffement équivalent à pratiquement 12 Gt de CO₂, soit la moitié des émissions de carbone fossile de l’époque (22 Gt d’équivalent CO₂).

Evolution des émissions de gaz fluorés.
Indicators of Global Climate Change 2024, Fourni par l’auteur

La diminution spectaculaire des émissions de gaz fluorés réalisée pour protéger la couche d’ozone a ainsi eu un impact majeur sur l’action climatique, malgré le développement de substituts à ces gaz – comme les HFC – pour couvrir les besoins de climatisation et réfrigération. Ce résultat s’observe aujourd’hui dans la diminution de la concentration atmosphérique des CFC, qui contribue à atténuer le réchauffement climatique.

Compte tenu de la durée de séjour des gaz CFC dans l’atmosphère, de l’ordre du demi-siècle, cet effet d’atténuation devrait se prolonger pendant quelques décennies. Une bonne illustration de l’inertie du stock par rapport au flux, qui joue désormais de façon bénéfique pour l’action climatique dans le cas des gaz fluorés.

A l’inverse, cette inertie joue encore à la hausse du thermomètre pour le CO₂ et le méthane, malgré le ralentissement des émissions. D’où les voyants au rouge du tableau de bord. Demain, si on parvient à durablement inverser leur trajectoire d’émission, cette inertie pourra également jouer à sa baisse. Mais pour cela, il faut accélérer la transition bas carbone et ne pas succomber aux sirènes de ceux qui voudraient rétrograder.

Christian de Perthuis ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. État du climat en 2024 : les voyants toujours au rouge malgré le ralentissement des émissions mondiales – https://theconversation.com/etat-du-climat-en-2024-les-voyants-toujours-au-rouge-malgre-le-ralentissement-des-emissions-mondiales-260126

July 3, 2025

How do we define Canadian content? Debates will shape how creatives make a living

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Daphne Rena Idiz, Postdoctoral fellow, Department of Arts, Culture and Media, University of Toronto

What should count as Canadian content (CanCon) in the era of streaming and generative AI (GenAI)?

That’s the biggest unknown at the heart of the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission’s recent (CRTC) public hearing, held in Gatineau, Que., from May 14 to 27.

The debate is about how Canada’s current points-based CanCon system remains effective in the context of global streaming giants and generative AI. Shows qualify as CanCon by assigning value to roles like director, screenwriter and lead actors being Canadian.

The outcome will shape who gets to tell Canadian stories and what those stories are, and also which ones count as Canadian under the law. This, in turn, will determine who in the film and television industries can access funding, tax credits and visibility on streaming services.

It will also determine which Canadian productions big streamers like Netflix will invest in under their Online Streaming Act obligations.

The federal government’s recent announcement that it’s rescinding the Digital Services Tax reveals the limits of Canada’s leverage over Big Tech, underscoring the significance of CanCon rules as parameters around how streaming giants contribute meaningfully to the country’s creative industries.

CanCon: Who gets to decide?

The CRTC’s existing approach to defining CanCon relies on the citizenship of key creative personnel.

The National Film Board argued that this misses the “cultural elements” of Canadian storytelling. These include cultural expression, narrative themes and connection to Canadian audiences. That is, a production might technically count as CanCon by hiring Canadians, without feeling particularly “Canadian.”

It’s worth noting there are varied global regulatory frameworks for defining film nationality. The Writers Guild of Canada supports the CRTC’s view that cultural elements shouldn’t be part of CanCon certification, and argues that attempting to further codify cultural criteria risks reducing Canadian identity to superficial symbols like maple leaves or hockey sticks, and could exclude entire genres like sci-fi or fantasy.

‘Canadianness’ too broad to regulate?

The Writers Guild of Canada argues that while Canadians should expect to see cultural elements in programming, the concept of “Canadianness” is too broad and subjective to be effectively regulated.

Cultural elements are regulated by the 1991 Broadcasting Act as amended by the 2023 Online Streaming Act. Broadcasters and streamers must reflect Canadian stories, identities and cultural expressions.

The acts empower broadcasters and streamers to decide which Canadian stories and content will be developed, produced and distributed through commissioning and licensing powers. This implicitly limits the CRTC’s role to setting rules about which creatives are at the table.

The Writer’s Guild advocates broadening the pool of Canadian key creatives to modernize the CanCon system. It trusts the combined perspectives of a broader pool to make creative decisions about Canadian identity in meaningful ways. Accordingly, it supports the CRTC’s intent to add the showrunner role to the point system since showrunners are the “the chief custodian of the creative vision of a series.”

Battle over Canadian IP

Streaming introduces more players with financial stakes, complicating who controls content and who profits from it. A seismic shift is happening in how intellectual property (IP) is handled.

CRTC has proposed that the updated CanCon definition include Canadian IP ownership as a mandatory element to enable Canadian companies and workers to retain some control over their own IP, and thereby earn sustainable income. For example, in a streaming drama, Canadian screenwriters who retain ownership of the IP could earn ongoing revenue through licensing deals, international sales and royalties each time the series is distributed.

However, the Motion Picture Association-Canada (MPA-Canada), representing industry titans like Netflix, Amazon and Disney, is pushing back against requirements that mandate the sharing of territory or IP.

Without IP rights, Canadian talent and the industry as a whole may be reduced to becoming service providers for global companies.

Fair remuneration, IP rights needed

Our own research highlights how this type of contractual arrangement increases the power asymmetries between producers, distributors and streaming services. We emphasize the critical importance of fair remuneration and IP rights for creators.

Intervenors shared a range of preferences from 100 per cent Canadian IP ownership to none at all. One hundred per cent Canadian IP ownership means Canadian creators like a producer of a streaming series would control the rights to the content. They would receive the majority of profits from licensing, distribution and future adaptations.

Even 51 per cent ownership could give them a controlling stake, but would likely require sharing revenue and decision-making with the streaming service.

AI and CanCon

And then, of course, there’s the question of how generative AI should be considered within the updated CanCon definition. The Writers Guild of Canada has drawn a firm line in the sand: AI-generated material should not qualify as Canadian content.

The guild argues that since current AI tools don’t possess identity, nationality or cultural context, their output cannot advance the goals of the Broadcasting Act, centred on promoting Canadian voices and stories.

The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) raised a different concern around AI. AI, ACTRA argued, “should not take over the jobs of the creators in the ecosystem that we’re in and we should not treat AI-generated performers as if they are a Canadian actor.”

Depending on how the CRTC addresses AI, this could mean that streaming content featuring AI-generated scripts, characters, or performances — even if developed by a Canadian creator or set in Canada — would not qualify as CanCon.

The WGC notes that it has already negotiated restrictions on AI use in screenwriting through its agreement with the Canadian Media Producers Association. These guardrails are being held up as the “emerging industry standard.”

Follow the money

Another contested point is how streamers should pay into CanCon: through direct investment or through more traditional modes of financing. Under the Online Streaming Act, streamers are required to pay five per cent of their annual revenues to certain Canadian funds.

This model echoes previous requirements used to manage decision-making at media broadcasters, some at the much more substantial level of 30 per cent.

But no payments have been made yet, and streamers are appealing this requirement. Streamers prefer investing directly into Canadian content, taking a risk on its commercial potential to benefit from resulting successes.

Research in the European Union and Canada highlight how different stakeholders benefit from different forms of financial obligations, suggesting the industry may be best served by a policy mix.

As Canada rewrites its broadcasting rules, defining Canadian content is a courtroom drama unfolding in real time — and the verdict will have serious ramifications.

MaryElizabeth Luka receives research project funding from peer-adjudicated grants from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and internal grants at University of Toronto, such as the Creative Labour Critical Futures Cluster of Scholarly Prominence.

Daphne Rena Idiz 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. How do we define Canadian content? Debates will shape how creatives make a living – https://theconversation.com/how-do-we-define-canadian-content-debates-will-shape-how-creatives-make-a-living-258013

July 3, 2025

Antarctic research is in decline, and the timing couldn’t be worse

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Elizabeth Leane, Professor of Antarctic Studies, School of Humanities, University of Tasmania

Ice loss in Antarctica and its impact on the planet – sea level rise, changes to ocean currents and disturbance of wildlife and food webs – has been in the news a lot lately. All of these threats were likely on the minds of the delegates to the annual Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting, which finishes up today in Milan, Italy.

This meeting is where decisions are made about the continent’s future. These decisions rely on evidence from scientific research. Moreover, only countries that produce significant Antarctic research – as well as being parties to the treaty – get to have a final say in these decisions.

Our new report – published as a preprint through the University of the Arctic – shows the rate of research on the Antarctic and Southern Ocean is falling at exactly the time when it should be increasing. Moreover, research leadership is changing, with China taking the lead for the first time.

This points to a dangerous disinvestment in Antarctic research just when it is needed, alongside a changing of the guard in national influence. Antarctica and the research done there are key to everyone’s future, so it’s vital to understand what this change might lead to.

Why is Antarctic research so important?

With the Antarctic region rapidly warming, its ice shelves destabilising and sea ice shrinking, understanding the South Polar environment is more crucial than ever.

Ice loss in Antarctica not only contributes to sea level rise, but impacts wildlife habitats and local food chains. It also changes the dynamics of ocean currents, which could interfere with global food webs, including international fisheries that supply a growing amount of food.

Research to understand these impacts is vital. First, knowing the impact of our actions – particularly carbon emissions – gives us an increased drive to make changes and lobby governments to do so.

Second, even when changes are already locked in, to prepare ourselves we need to know what these changes will look like.

And third, we need to understand the threats to the Antarctic and Southern Ocean environment to govern it properly. This is where the treaty comes in.

What is the Antarctic Treaty?

The region below 60 degrees south is governed by the 1959 Antarctic Treaty, along with subsequent agreements. Together they are known as the Antarctic Treaty System.

Fifty-eight countries are parties to the treaty, but only 29 of them – called consultative parties – can make binding decisions about the region. They comprise the 12 original signatories from 1959, along with 17 more recent signatory nations that produce substantial scientific research relating to Antarctica.

This makes research a key part of a nation’s influence over what happens in Antarctica.

For most of its history, the Antarctic Treaty System has functioned remarkably well. It maintained peace in the region during the Cold War, facilitated scientific cooperation, and put arguments about territorial claims on indefinite hold. It indefinitely forbade mining, and managed fisheries.

Lately, however, there has been growing dysfunction in the treaty system.

Environmental protections that might seem obvious – such as marine protected areas and special protections for threatened emperor penguins – have stalled.

Because decisions are made by consensus, any country can effectively block progress. Russia and China – both long-term actors in the system – have been at the centre of the impasse.

What did our report find?

Tracking the amount of Antarctic research being done tells us whether nations as a whole are investing enough in understanding the region and its global impact.

It also tells us which nations are investing the most and are therefore likely to have substantial influence.

Our new report examined the number of papers published on Antarctic and Southern Ocean topics from 2016 to 2024, using the Scopus database. We also looked at other factors, such as the countries affiliated with each paper.

The results show five significant changes are happening in the world of Antarctic research.

The number of Antarctic and Southern Ocean publications peaked in 2021 and then fell slightly yearly through to 2024.
While the United States has for decades been the leader in Antarctic research, China overtook them in 2022.
If we look only at the high-quality publications (those published in the best 25% of journals) China still took over the US, in 2024.
Of the top six countries in overall publications (China, the US, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany and Russia) all except China have declined in publication numbers since 2016.
Although collaboration in publications is higher for Antarctic research than in non-Antarctic fields, Russia, India and China have anomalously low rates of co-authorship compared with many other signatory countries.

Why is this research decline a problem?

A recent parliamentary inquiry in Australia emphasised the need for funding certainty. In the UK, a House of Commons committee report considered it “imperative for the UK to significantly expand its research efforts in Antarctica”, in particular in relation to sea level rise.

US commentators have pointed to the inadequacy of the country’s icebreaker infrastructure. The Trump administration’s recent cuts to Antarctic funding are only likely to exacerbate the situation. Meanwhile China has built a fifth station in Antarctica and announced plans for a sixth.

Given the nation’s population and global influence, China’s leadership in Antarctic research is not surprising. If China were to take a lead in Antarctic environmental protection that matched its scientific heft, its move to lead position in the research ranks could be positive. Stronger multi-country collaboration in research could also strengthen overall cooperation.

But the overall drop in global Antarctic research investment is a problem however you look at it. We ignore it at our peril.

Elizabeth Leane receives funding from the Australian Research Council, the Dutch Research Council, the Council on Australian and Latin American Relations DFAT and HX (Hurtigruten Expeditions). She has received in-kind support from Hurtigruten Expeditions in the recent past. The University of Tasmania is a member of the UArctic, which has provided support for this project.

Keith Larson is affiliated with the UArctic and European Polar Board. The UArctic paid for the development and publication of this report. The UArctic Thematic Network on Research Analytics and Bibliometrics conducted the analysis and developed the report. The Arctic Centre at Umeå University provided in-kind support for staff time on the report.

– ref. Antarctic research is in decline, and the timing couldn’t be worse – https://theconversation.com/antarctic-research-is-in-decline-and-the-timing-couldnt-be-worse-260197

July 3, 2025

We don’t know what happens to the waste we recycle, and that’s a problem

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Faisal Shennib, Environmental Specialist, 24-25 Concordia Public Scholar, PhD Candidate in Individualized Program, Concordia University

There is a glaring lack of tracking for global recycling. Poor waste management is deeply connected to climate change, plastic pollution and global nutrient imbalances globally.

Economies also suffer from the lack of tracking. We extract, process and then landfill and incinerate trillions of dollars of materials per year. Instead, these could be recirculating, creating new jobs and reducing reliance on global trade.

To shift to alternative, circular models, we need better data on local and global waste management.

My research demonstrates that more local waste tracking through digitalization could yield multiple benefits. It could help track hyper-local recycling and reuse, initiatives that are usually considered too small and burdensome to include in national waste tracking efforts.

And compared to national waste tracking, localized waste tracking could also provide more timely and relevant insights on the effectiveness of policies, infrastructure investments and education.

Measuring waste

The units for measuring waste are fairly standard across the world. Quantity of waste is measured by weight (tonnes) and waste performance is the per cent of total waste not sent for landfill and incineration.

However, waste terminology varies across both academia and industry. In some settings, “recycling” may mean that the material was collected for recycling, but not necessarily recycled. A term like “municipal waste” can include waste from offices and businesses — or not. This confusion makes global waste tracking challenging.

Regular global reporting on waste is sorely lacking. The United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) call for global action on waste management, but there have been no figures for global recycling in recent UN SDG reports. This is likely due to the lack of available, reliable data.

Reports on global waste are compiled from sources using a wide variety of formats; a source may represent annual or daily waste, and total waste or waste per capita. Data is often from different years, making it useful for trend analysis but not strict comparisons.

Estimations and incomplete data are common; only 39 per cent of populations in developing countries are served by waste collection services. Double-counting is another risk when data comes from varied sources like waste collectors, processors and local governments.

With all these challenges, global waste reports require years to compile, leading to multiyear gaps in published reports.

Insufficient data

Even nations with consistent reporting are not immune to methodological gaps. The European Union and Canada both require annual reporting on waste, but allow for a wide variety of methods in data sourcing, including estimation.

In the United States, annual waste data is reported by states to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on a voluntary basis. No new nationwide reports have been published since 2018.

Another challenge is that reporting focuses on the weight of waste, but there is a lack of data on its composition. Much of what is collected is not recycled due to contamination, the nature of the material or the lack of a local market.

Waste characterization is the process of determining waste composition, and when reporting waste, this information is often optional. In the U.S., few states provide updated characterization studies to the EPA. The EU and Canada require reporting on composition but don’t specify requirements for how to determine the composition.

Reliable waste characterization requires the waste to be audited: sampled, weighed, separated into categories, and then weighed again. It’s a labour-intensive and cost-prohibitive process, which might explain why American states haven’t provided updated waste characterizations to the EPA since 2018.

Estimating recycling stats

The oft-cited fact that nine per cent of global plastics are recycled comes from a 2022 report. It was calculated in several steps, each with significant uncertainties, including how much plastic was produced globally, how long it was used for, and how much was collected and likely to have been recycled.

The nine per cent figure is very much an estimate, representing global plastic waste in 2019. And now, it is an outdated figure.

Global plastic trade is likely 40 per cent higher than previously estimated. And 40 per cent of textiles exported for reuse and recycling are dumped or incinerated.

In South Korea, for example, a country renowned for its waste policies and programs, reports a 73 per cent recycling rate for plastics, while Greenpeace estimates that the rate is 26 per cent because much of what is collected is not recycled.

In Canada, plastic recycling tracking suffers from the same lack of standardization and transparency as recycling in general.

A much-needed global consensus

Material consumption and management is a global problem requiring international collaboration, commitments and adequate tracking.

Consensus on how to define and measure waste data are important, as well as commitments from nations to regularize reporting. The upcoming United Nations Environment Programme session to develop a global plastics treaty might catalyze these steps, at least for plastics.

To track the quality of waste handled, governments should adopt guidelines for waste characterization, like the UN-Habitat’s Waste Wise Cities Tool. Traceability needs to be integrated into waste management methods. Digital solutions like blockchain and artificial intelligence could improve transparency, automate waste tracking and reduce associated costs.

Faisal Shennib 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. We don’t know what happens to the waste we recycle, and that’s a problem – https://theconversation.com/we-dont-know-what-happens-to-the-waste-we-recycle-and-thats-a-problem-254171

July 3, 2025

Recherche participative en santé : rapprocher les citoyens et les scientifiques au sein de projets de recherche

Source: The Conversation – France in French (3) – By Mélissa Mialon, Inserm, Université Paris Cité

Maladies rares, cancers, VIH, troubles « dys » de l’enfant… dans différents domaines de la santé, la recherche participative permet une collaboration fructueuse entre des scientifiques et des citoyens concernés par la thématique étudiée. Cette approche innovante, qui se développe notamment à l’initiative de l’Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm), ambitionne de rapprocher la société civile et le monde de la recherche académique.

La recherche participative dans le domaine de la santé progresse petit à petit en France. Afin de développer cette manière de faire recherche, l’Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale (Inserm), au travers de son service « Sciences et Société », a organisé une journée sur cette thématique en juin 2024 à Lyon.

L’objectif était de favoriser les interactions entre le monde de la recherche scientifique et la société civile, de présenter des projets de recherche participative déjà en cours à l’Inserm, et de susciter l’émergence de nouveaux projets. Un des ateliers thématiques de la journée portait sur « Comment créer des échanges fructueux entre Sciences et Société ? » Voici quelques-unes des réflexions qui en ont émané.

Impliquer société civile, recherche académique et pouvoirs locaux

La recherche participative est une approche reposant sur l’implication active, à chaque étape du processus de recherche, de citoyens concernés par la problématique explorée. Elle valorise les savoirs issus de l’expérience et vise à créer un dialogue entre les chercheurs et les autres citoyens afin de co-construire des savoirs et des actions.

La recherche participative implique différents acteurs, tels que :

la société civile, en particulier les populations concernées par la question de recherche ;
la recherche académique ;
les pouvoirs publics locaux, afin d’assurer une mise en pratique concrète.

La participation citoyenne s’exerce tout au long du processus de recherche : identification de la problématique, collecte et analyse des données, diffusion des résultats et éventuelle existence du collectif après la fin du projet.

Une approche avec des retombées parfois concrètes

Dans la pratique quotidienne, les savoirs et méthodes des différents acteurs peuvent diverger, ce qui favorise un apprentissage mutuel. Chacun s’enrichit des connaissances et expériences des autres. Cela contribue ainsi à une production de savoirs plus ancrée dans les réalités sociales.

Les retombées de cette approche sont parfois très concrètes. Caroline Huron, chercheuse à l’Inserm, mène ainsi une recherche-action participative avec des enfants dyspraxiques et leurs familles, étudiant par exemple la qualité de vie des parents.

La chercheuse a même créé une association, « Le cartable fantastique », « pour concevoir des ressources pédagogiques adaptées aux enfants dyspraxiques ».

Démocratiser la science

La participation citoyenne répond à certains problèmes (d’environnement, de santé publique, etc.) par des approches transdisciplinaires et inclusives. La diversité des perspectives favorise l’émergence d’idées nouvelles et de solutions inédites.

La recherche participative participe à la démocratisation de la science en rendant le savoir plus accessible et en facilitant l’appropriation des résultats par les acteurs concernés. Elle permettrait ainsi, dans l’idéal, de favoriser l’inclusion des populations marginalisées dans les processus de décision. Inscrite dans une démarche éthique, elle met l’accent sur le bien-être collectif et une science plus ouverte.

Recrutement, engagement, temps : les défis à relever

Mener une recherche participative nécessite une gestion attentive des relations de pouvoir et une réelle volonté de collaboration. Divers défis peuvent ainsi se présenter en cours de route :

le recrutement : un des défis importants en matière de recherche participative concerne le recrutement des citoyens-chercheurs. La recherche participative ne doit pas être élitiste, là où il peut être difficile d’atteindre certains groupes d’individus ;
l’engagement : un autre défi, plus insidieux, est l’épuisement et la démobilisation des citoyens. Lorsqu’on sollicite intensément des participants sans reconnaissance adéquate (financière, symbolique ou professionnelle), cela peut créer une lassitude et réduire leur engagement sur le long terme. Or, parfois, les financements disponibles ne sont pas mobilisables à cette fin, pour des questions juridiques – la recherche participative ne peut pas se traduire en contrat de travail pour le citoyen – ou sont insuffisants pour une indemnisation ;
le temps : les délais et démarches pour l’établissement des conventions, ou encore l’approbation éthique concernant l’aspect participatif des projets, représentent également des barrières à l’implication citoyenne.

En somme, il est nécessaire d’imaginer de nouvelles formes de rapprochement permettant d’aller vers les personnes qui ne connaissent pas la recherche, ou vers les chercheurs qui ne sont pas sensibilisés à la recherche participative, en organisant des formations adéquates sur ce sujet.

Faire connaissance pour faciliter la recherche participative

Il est important que les chercheurs soient accessibles et prennent le temps de découvrir les acteurs de la société civile, pas seulement pour des raisons lucratives (obtention de financements), mais également afin d’être à l’écoute des besoins de chacun. Un des moyens d’apprendre à se connaître passe par l’organisation de rencontres fréquentes, au travers des visites de laboratoire, d’évènements où les associations peuvent se présenter, ou même de ciné-débats.

Ces rencontres multiples doivent se tenir dans des lieux publics, sans hégémonie de savoir (mairies, bibliothèques, maisons de quartier), où chacun se sente légitime d’entrer. Les boutiques des sciences, par exemple, ont vocation à créer ce type de rapprochement. Ces rencontres aussi doivent conduire à une meilleure connaissance et reconnaissance de l’expertise de l’autre, un des piliers nécessaires à la co-construction de projets de recherche participative.

Appels à projets et autres modes de financement

Il faut souligner que les financeurs européens de la recherche incitent à la participation de la société civile dans les projets. En France, plusieurs dispositifs de financement soutiennent cette approche de la recherche : des plates-formes de financement participatif ou bien des services et appels à projets comme au sein de l’Inserm. De plus, des appels à projets sont lancés par des organismes publics comme l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche pour encourager l’implication citoyenne dans la recherche. Toutefois, le financement de ces initiatives demeure souvent limité (en nombre de projets lauréats) et plus modeste que celui des recherches classiques.

Les projets de recherche participative voient parfois le jour à l’initiative des chercheurs : c’est le cas de l’étude sur la constitution d’une cohorte de patients atteints de polypose adénomateuse, une maladie rare qui se caractérise par le développement d’adénomes (ou tumeurs bénignes) dans le côlon, le rectum, puis le duodénum, qui induisent un risque majeur de cancer du côlon.

Ils peuvent aussi émaner des citoyens. Chercheur en neurosciences cognitives, Guillaume Sescousse raconte ainsi une expérience de recherche participative avec des collégiens, à l’initiative d’un de ses amis :

« Mon impact a été plus fort en une journée de recherche participative qu’avec mon dernier article », rapporte-t-il.

On citera aussi les recherches de Marie Préau concernant l’identification de troubles cognitifs qui impactent le quotidien de personnes souffrant d’un cancer du sein, également autour du partage du diagnostic par les personnes séropositives.

Enfin, les projets peuvent être coconstruits, comme pour la recherche participative menée par Caroline Huron avec les familles d’enfants dyspraxiques mentionnée plus haut.

Une dérive possible : minimiser la parole citoyenne

Le premier écueil sur lequel la vigilance des chercheurs ne devrait faiblir à aucun moment est l’instrumentalisation des citoyens. En effet, l’effort et le temps que représente l’apprentissage de l’approche participative peuvent mener l’équipe de recherche à abaisser le degré de participation citoyenne dans la prise de décision.

Cette minimisation de la parole citoyenne est souvent symptomatique d’une hiérarchisation des savoirs à laquelle il faut prêter attention, pour ne pas rompre la confiance des citoyens.

Il apparaît aussi crucial de se soucier de l’appropriation des résultats par la société et donc de leur traduction : la rencontre entre la recherche et la société civile fait inévitablement émerger de nouveaux questionnements, voire une certaine urgence à y répondre. Une relation chercheur – citoyen de qualité, comme précisé plus haut, nécessite du temps. Il est donc d’importance de pérenniser le partenariat pour rapprocher durablement ces deux mondes.

Il existe une pluralité de façons de faire de la recherche participative, et une pluralité de degrés de participation. De ce fait, cette approche peut ne pas revêtir exactement la même définition pour l’ensemble de la communauté scientifique.

Avec les garde-fous énoncés dans cet article, nous imaginons la recherche participative comme l’opportunité unique d’une autre contribution de la science à la société, et de la société à la science.

Elsa Bombrun, ingénieure agronome, a également participé à la rédaction de cet article.

Jean-Michel Escoffre est trésorier de Centre-Sciences. Il a reçu des financements de l’Agence nationale de la recherche, l’Inserm, l’université de Tours, la Région Centre-Val de Loire, la Ligue contre le cancer.

Virginie Hamel a reçu des financements des Fonds de Recherche en Santé du Québec (FRQS).

Claudie Lemercier, Elsa Bombrun, Houda El Azzaoui et Mélissa Mialon 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. Recherche participative en santé : rapprocher les citoyens et les scientifiques au sein de projets de recherche – https://theconversation.com/recherche-participative-en-sante-rapprocher-les-citoyens-et-les-scientifiques-au-sein-de-projets-de-recherche-258100

July 3, 2025

What damage did the US do to Iran’s nuclear program? Why it’s so hard to know

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joshua Rovner, Associate Professor of International Relations, American University

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, describes the U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear sites, which occurred on June 21, 2025, . AP Photo/Alex Brandon

The U.S. Air Force dropped a dozen ground-penetrating bombs, each weighing 30,000 pounds (13,607 kilograms), in a raid on Iran’s nuclear site at Fordo on June 21, 2025. The attack was an attempt to reach the uranium enrichment facility buried deep inside a mountain. The target, President Donald Trump declared, was “completely and totally obliterated.”

Others were less sure. On June 24, the administration canceled a classified intelligence briefing to members of Congress, leading to frustration among those with questions about White House claims. While Defense Intelligence Agency analysts apparently agree that the strikes did real damage, they dispute the idea that the attack permanently destroyed Iran’s enrichment capability. Reports emerged that their initial analysis found that the strikes had only set Iran back a few months.

Such disagreements are unsurprising. Battle damage assessment – originally called bomb damage assessment – is notoriously difficult, and past wars have featured intense controversies among military and intelligence professionals. In World War II, poor weather and the limits of available technology conspired against accuracy.

Battle damage assessment remained a thorny problem decades later, even after radical improvements in surveillance technology. In the first Gulf War in 1990, for example, military leaders argued with CIA officials over the effects of airstrikes against Iraq’s armored forces.

I am a scholar of international relations who studies intelligence and strategy in international conflicts, and the author of “Fixing the Facts: National Security and the Politics of Intelligence.” I know from history that overcoming the challenges of battle damage assessment is especially hard when the target is a facility hidden under hundreds of feet of earth and rock, as is the case at Fordo.

How the U.S. military’s ‘bunker buster’ bomb works.

Tools of the trade

The intelligence community has a number of tools and techniques that can help with challenges like assessing the damage at Fordo. Imagery intelligence such as satellite photography is the obvious starting point. Before-and-after comparisons might reveal collapsed tunnels or topographical changes, suggesting unseen subterranean damage.

More exotic data collection techniques may be able to help infer the underground effects based on particle and electromagnetic emissions from the site. These platforms provide what is called measurement and signatures intelligence. Specialized sensors can measure nuclear radiation, seismographic information and other potentially revealing information from camouflaged facilities. When combined with traditional imagery, measurement and signatures intelligence can provide a more detailed model of the likely effects of the bombing.

Other sources may prove useful as well. Reporting from human intelligence assets – spies or unwitting informers with firsthand or secondhand knowledge – may provide information on internal Iranian assessments. These may be particularly valuable because Iranian officials presumably know how much equipment was removed in advance, as well as the location of previously enriched uranium.

The same is true for signals intelligence, which intercepts and interprets communications. Ideally, battle damage assessment will become more comprehensive and accurate as these sources of intelligence are integrated into a single assessment.

Pervasive uncertainty

But even in that case, it will still be difficult to estimate the broader effects on Iran’s nuclear program. Measuring the immediate physical effects on Fordo and other nuclear sites is a kind of puzzle, or a problem that can be solved with sufficient evidence. Estimating the long-term effects on Iranian policy is a mystery, or a problem that cannot be solved even with abundant information on hand. It’s impossible to know how Iran’s leaders will adapt over time to their changing circumstances. They themselves cannot know either; perceptions of the future are inherently uncertain.

Regarding the puzzle over Fordo, Trump seems to believe that the sheer volume of explosives dropped on the site must have done the job. As White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt put it: “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”

But the fact that Fordo is buried in the side of a mountain is a reason to doubt this commonsense conclusion. In addition, Iran may have moved enriched uranium and specialized equipment from the site in advance, limiting the effects on its nuclear program.

Trump’s instincts might be right. Or the skeptics might be right. Both make plausible claims. Analysts will need more intelligence from more sources to make a confident judgment about the effects on Fordo and on Iran’s broader nuclear efforts. Even then, it is likely that they will disagree on the effects, because this requires making predictions.

News coverage of the attack on Fordo and White House claims of success.

Politicized intelligence

In a perfect world, policymakers and intelligence officials would wrestle with dueling assessments in good faith. Such a process would take place outside the political fray, giving both sides the opportunity to offer criticism without being accused of political mischief. In this idealized scenario, policymakers could use reasonable intelligence conclusions to inform their decision-making process. After all, there are a lot of decisions about Middle Eastern security left to be made.

But we are not in a perfect world, and hopes for a good faith debate seem hopelessly naïve. Already the battle lines are being drawn. Congressional Democrats are suspicious that the administration is being disingenuous about Iran. The White House, for its part, is going on the offensive. “The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump,” Leavitt declared in a written statement, “and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission.”

Relations between policymakers and their intelligence advisers are often contentious, and U.S. presidents have a long history of clashing with spy chiefs. But intelligence-policy relations today are in a particularly dismal state. Trump bears the most responsibility, given his repeated disparagement of intelligence officials. For example, he dismissed the congressional testimony on Iran from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “I don’t care what she said.”

The problem goes deeper than the president, however. Intelligence-policy relations in a democracy are difficult because of the persuasive power of secret information. Policymakers fear that intelligence officials who control secrets might use them to undermine the policymakers’ plans. Intelligence officials worry that the policymakers will bully them into giving politically convenient answers. Such fears led to intelligence-policy breakdowns over estimates of enemy strength in the Vietnam War and estimates of Soviet missile capabilities in the early years of detente.

This mutual suspicion has become progressively worse since the end of the Cold War, as secret intelligence has become increasingly public. Intelligence leaders have become recognizable public figures, and intelligence judgments on current issues are often quickly declassified. The public now expects to have access to intelligence findings, and this has helped turn intelligence into a political football.

What lies ahead

What does all this mean for intelligence on Iran? Trump might ignore assessments he dislikes, given his history with intelligence. But the acrimonious public dispute over the Fordo strike may lead the White House to pressure intelligence leaders to toe the line, especially if critics demand a public accounting of secret intelligence.

Such an outcome would benefit nobody. The public would not have a better sense of the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear effort, the intelligence community would suffer a serious blow to its reputation, and the administration’s efforts to use intelligence in public might backfire, as was the case for the George W. Bush administration after the war in Iraq.

As with military campaigns, episodes of politicizing intelligence have lasting and sometimes unforeseen consequences.

Joshua Rovner is associate professor of international relations at American University, and nonresident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution.

– ref. What damage did the US do to Iran’s nuclear program? Why it’s so hard to know – https://theconversation.com/what-damage-did-the-us-do-to-irans-nuclear-program-why-its-so-hard-to-know-260058

July 3, 2025

Despite claims they’d move overseas after the election, most Americans are staying put

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels, Honorary Reader in MIgration and Politics, University of Kent

Not that many people are preparing to leave the U.S. gerenme/E+ via Getty Images

Based on pronouncements in 2024, you might think now is the time to see U.S. citizens streaming out of the country. Months before the 2024 presidential election, Americans were saying they would leave should candidate Donald Trump win the election. Gallup polling in 2024 found that 21% of Americans wanted to leave the United States permanently, more than double the 10% who had said so in 2011.

And indeed in June 2025, a Vermont legislator announced that she was resigning her seat and moving to Canada because of political concerns and economic opportunities. To be sure, people are moving. Even so, as a scholar of American migration overseas, my research finds that the vast majority of Americans are not about to depart for greener shores.

A western Massachusetts group

In October 2024, I surveyed 68 Americans in western Massachusetts, an area with a slight Democratic majority, asking if they wanted to leave the United States for a lengthy period of time, but not necessarily permanently. Over 90% said no, noting that there were factors limiting their mobility, such as financial obligations or having a partner who would not move, and that there were reasons that made them want to stay, such as owning property and having friends nearby.

Just three respondents indicated they were making plans to move, while an additional 11 said they wanted to move “someday.”

Reality strikes

After the November 2024 election, I interviewed seven of those respondents, two of whom had said prior to the election that they might leave the United States. After the election, they all said they planned to stay.

One who had said she wanted to leave acknowledged her reversal, saying: “I may have flippantly said, ‘Oh, if (Trump) gets voted in … I would leave,’ but I can’t see leaving. Part of it is because of my daughter,” who had recently become a mother. She continued, “It’s never crossed my mind seriously enough to even research it.”

Another told me, “I’m not going to let somebody push me out of what I consider my country and my home because he’s a jerk.”

Others spoke of needing to work several more years in order to receive a pension, or having family responsibilities keeping them in the country. None supported the current administration.

On a national level

In two nationally representative surveys, my colleague Helen B. Marrow, a sociologist of immigration, and I found no significant increase in migration aspiration between 2014 and 2019. We also found that respondents mentioned exploration and adventure much more often than political or economic reasons for wanting to move abroad.

Even though the U.S. passport grants visa-free visitor access to more than 180 countries, U.S. citizens still need residence and work visas. At home, they, like others, have family commitments and financial constraints, or may just not want to leave home. More than 95% of the world’s population do not move abroad – and U.S. citizens are no different.

Relocation coaching

In addition to my academic research on overseas Americans, I am also an international relocation coach. I help Americans considering a move abroad navigate the emotional, practical and professional complexities of relocation, whether they’re just starting to explore the idea or actively planning their next steps.

Many of my clients do not want to live in a United States that no longer aligns with their values, while others are concerned about their safety, particularly, but not only, due to racism or homophobia. They are finding jobs overseas, retiring abroad or acquiring a European citizenship through a parent or grandparent. Most recently, American academics seeking to leave are being courted by European universities.

But most are staying

In February 2025, a national poll found that 4% of Americans said they were “definitely planning to move” to another country.

That same month, I followed up with my seven interviewees from western Massachusetts, including one trans man. They all reiterated their choice to remain in the United States. One person, who might move abroad at some point, told me she hadn’t changed her mind about leaving soon: “Leaving doesn’t necessarily mean anything will be better for me, even if it was a financial possibility.”

Two people said that recent political developments actually meant that they were more committed to remaining in the United States. One told me, “Now, more than ever, individuals need to figure out what small actions can be taken to help our fellow Americans get through this dark period.”

But even those “definitely planning on moving” can have other factors intervene. Two clients of mine who were making serious plans had to stop when family members’ health situations changed for the worse.

So how many people are actually leaving? It is clear that a growing number of Americans are considering a move abroad. But far fewer are conducting serious research, seeking professional consultation or actually moving. Drawing on available data, my own academic research and my coaching experience, my educated estimate is that no more than 1% to 2% of U.S. citizens are actively making viable plans to leave the country. Nor are all of those leaving out of protest; many are still motivated by exploration, adventure, employment or to be with a partner.

Even so, that figure is roughly 3 million to 6 million people – which would be a significant increase over the estimated 5.5 million Americans currently living abroad. As with many migration flows, even the movement of a small percentage of a population can still have the potential to reshape both the United States and its overseas population.

Amanda Klekowski von Koppenfels 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. Despite claims they’d move overseas after the election, most Americans are staying put – https://theconversation.com/despite-claims-theyd-move-overseas-after-the-election-most-americans-are-staying-put-250728

July 3, 2025

Parler des bâtards du Moyen Âge en historiens du XXIᵉ siècle : faut-il cacher ce mot que l’on ne saurait voir ?

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Carole Avignon, Maîtresse de conférences en Histoire du Moyen Age, Université d’Angers

Avant la bataille de Hastings (1066), banquet de Guillaume le Conquérant, appelé aussi Guillaume le Bâtard, le fils naturel de Robert le Magnifique, duc de Normandie. Musée de la Tapisserie de Bayeux/Wikimedia Commons

Au Moyen Âge, le terme « bâtard » ne vaut pas toujours stigmatisation. D’ailleurs, il n’acquiert une pleine valeur d’insulte qu’à partir du XIX^e siècle. Par le passé, les expériences sociales de filiations illégitimes sont bien plus complexes qu’on ne l’imagine aujourd’hui, ainsi que le met en évidence le programme de recherche « Filiations, identité, altérité médiévales ».

C’est l’histoire d’un Live Twitch programmé en avril 2025 par la très respectable émission « De l’eau dans le gaz », proposée par Terre des sciences, acteur reconnu de l’écosystème de la médiation scientifique dans les Pays de la Loire.

Puisque le pari de notre programme de recherche Filiations, identité, altérité médiévales (Fil_IAM), soutenu de 2020 à 2025 par l’Agence nationale de la recherche (ANR), fut de proposer le développement d’un prototype de jeu vidéo pour partager des résultats de recherche, pourquoi ne pas mobiliser en effet le canal de partage d’expériences des gamers, la chaîne Twitch ?

Il fallut toutefois en passer par quelques précautions spécifiques au média en ligne, avec ses stratégies de modération propres à l’univers des réseaux sociaux. Nous avons ainsi évité de laisser le mot « bâtard » dans les titres, il nous a fallu prévenir les auditeurs de s’abstenir de commenter le « live » en utilisant le mot « bâtard »…

Dès que les interlocuteurs n’étaient pas expressément acculturés aux champs de recherche en sciences humaines et sociales, voilà que parler de « bâtards », même au Moyen Âge, suscitait une prévention spontanée, une inquiétude, assez vite résolue certes, mais bel et bien palpable…

Tous les quinze jours, nos auteurs plongent dans le passé pour y trouver de quoi décrypter le présent. Et préparer l’avenir. Abonnez-vous gratuitement dès aujourd’hui !

Cette expérience fait ressortir une forme de malentendu, un hiatus entre les canaux usuels de la connaissance historique (colloques, publications universitaires) et les espaces grand public au sein desquels chercheurs et chercheuses peuvent être conviés à partager leurs recherches.

Cela nous invite à réfléchir aux modes de transmission de la science, à la manière dont peuvent se télescoper les codes et les imaginaires de différentes époques et donc au recul et à la remise en perspective qu’apporte la recherche. Que peut nous apporter au XXI^e siècle la connaissance des logiques de filiation au Moyen Âge ?

Une grille de lecture complexe

L’anecdote montre que la connotation injurieuse du vocable a la peau dure ! Sans doute aussi le très grand public n’est-il pas toujours bien au clair avec ce que faire de l’histoire veut dire. Car, ici, il s’agit d’étudier en historienne ou historien un statut social, celui des « bâtards », des « fils et filles illégitimes », des « enfants naturels », une variable d’identité, fruit d’une construction juridique enracinée dans les enjeux normatifs et politiques des IX^e– XIII^e siècles (celle de l’illégitimité de la filiation).

Il s’agit de considérer les trajectoires sociales de celles et de ceux qui pâtissent des incapacités juridiques et sociales induites qui se déclinent en exclusion du périmètre de l’« hereditas » (incapacité à hériter de ses ascendants – géniteurs non mariés, et à transmettre en dehors des liens construits dans le mariage légitime), exclusion de l’accès aux ordres sacrés de l’Église, de bien des métiers et corporations attachés à l’honorabilité, héritée, de leurs membres, etc.

Mais ce panel d’incapacités ne réduit pas à lui seul la possible grille de lectures de ce que l’illégitimité de la filiation ou « bastardie » a fait aux sociétés médiévales de l’Europe latine.

Depuis 2012, j’anime en tant que médiéviste des programmes pluridisciplinaires de recherche pour explorer ce que la filiation illégitime fait à la parenté et comment s’exprime la bâtardise. Avec une quarantaine de spécialistes d’histoire, d’histoire du droit, de démographie historique, de littérature, de civilisation, de linguistique, nous avons proposé en 2016 un cadre problématique dans Bâtards et bâtardises dans l’Europe médiévale et moderne, aux Presses universitaires de Rennes. Nous y avons abordé ce que la bâtardise nous révèle des sociétés passées, ses régimes juridiques, la place des bâtards dans les sociétés d’Ancien Régime, entre stigmatisation, discrimination et intégration.

Parmi les contributions, celle de la professeure des sciences du langage à l’Université Savoie Mont-Blanc Dominique Lagorgette permettait de dresser un panorama des sens et des usages de « bastards » ainsi que de l’expression souvent associée « fils à putain » dans un corpus de textes du Moyen Âge, littéraires et non littéraires. Il s’agissait d’étudier la manière dont ce mot pouvait parcourir l’échelle axiologique. La conclusion était que « bastard » n’avait pas acquis sa valeur d’insulte avant le XIX^e siècle, « insulte par ricochet, insultant autrui mais blessant le récepteur ».

Entre stigmatisation et épithète d’honneur

Bien sûr, la potentielle connotation sexuelle de l’usage du mot à fin d’invective n’était pas ignorée dans certains contextes d’énonciation. Bien sûr, la « macule » de « géniture », comme pouvait s’exprimer aussi le fait de ne pas être né de parents mariés conformément aux attentes normatives socialement construites du temps, établissait les soubassements d’un discours sur la souillure et la tache.

C’est sur cette tache qu’est construit le titre choisi par la spécialiste de la bâtardise à l’époque moderne, Sylvie Steinberg, quand elle publie en 2016 un ouvrage de référence pour étudier « par-delà droit et théologie […] la dimension vécue des liens entre enfants et parents ».

La « semence maudite » dénoncée dans le Deutéronome (pour ceux qui ne sont pas alors les « bâtards » du Moyen Âge, pas même encore les « fils de prêtres ») est réinterprétée de texte en texte, déployant les champs sémantiques de l’impureté, de la corruption, de l’incomplétude.

De même le « defectus natalium » qui définit une « irrégularité » dans l’accès à l’ordination des prêtres induit-il une « altération » de la qualité de la naissance comme un « vitium » du corps, ou une incomplétude. De même la promotion pastorale de l’honorabilité du mariage canonique a-t-elle pu être portée par le travail sur le langage de la couche (nuptiale) sans souillure, le « thorus immaculatus » de l’Épître aux Hébreux (Hé., 13).

Mais toute mobilisation du terme « bâtard » ne vaut pas stigmatisation au Moyen Âge. Il sait fonctionner comme un titre, presque une épithète d’honneur dans certaines configurations, en particulier dans les groupes nobiliaires. L’ouvrage de Marie-Lise Fieyre sur les bâtards des Bourbon pourra enrichir la recherche sur les bâtards dans les lignages nobiliaires et princiers.

Un besoin d’historicité

Avec le programme Fil_IAM, il s’agit de renouveler les grilles de lecture des bâtardises médiévales, en mobilisant aussi les apports méthodologiques des « disability studies ». Ainsi l’on saisit des scripts d’incapacité, les enjeux des opérations administrativo-politiques de réhabilitation des fils et filles marqués par une altération de la qualité de leur naissance et plus ou moins entravés dans leur insertion sociale selon d’autres variables (groupe social d’appartenance du père, de la mère, genre, place dans la fratrie, etc.).

Le malentendu s’entend : « bâtards » vaut insulte cuisante aujourd’hui, mais les historiennes et historiens peuvent se saisir de cet objet, en tant qu’il pourrait être effectivement la marque d’une insulte, mais, aussi, en tant qu’il pourrait ne pas l’être…

Les malentendus persistants ont eu le mérite de révéler le besoin d’historicité, de dissémination de savoirs historiques, notamment liés aux époques médiévales, auprès de tous les publics.

Le prototype de jeu vidéo Cap ou pas Cap ? Bandes de bâtards a pour objectif d’éclairer quelques-unes des mécaniques sociales des XIII^e– XV^e siècles.

« On teste le jeu CAP OU PAS CAP ? BANDE DE BÂT*RDS ! #2 », ÉchoSciences Pays de la Loire, avril 2025.

Le titre a été pensé en clin d’œil aux défis de cours d’école (puisque le jeu est pensé en particulier pour prolonger quelques séances de cours d’histoire de 5^e), mais aussi pour ouvrir un espace d’interrogations à partager.

Afin de prolonger l’expérience, le programme a également produit une série de podcasts, pour mieux comprendre ce que c’est que faire de l’histoire aujourd’hui, et de l’histoire médiévale en particulier, autour des bâtardes et bâtards du Moyen Âge.

Carole Avignon a reçu des financements de l’Université d’Angers (soutien de la commission recherche pour son premier programme de recherche F-illégitime) et de l’ANR au titre du programme JCJC (pour le programme Fil_IAM: ANR-19-CE41-0004) et au titre du programme ANR SAPS (UA-Class)

– ref. Parler des bâtards du Moyen Âge en historiens du XXIᵉ siècle : faut-il cacher ce mot que l’on ne saurait voir ? – https://theconversation.com/parler-des-batards-du-moyen-age-en-historiens-du-xxi-siecle-faut-il-cacher-ce-mot-que-lon-ne-saurait-voir-257278

July 3, 2025

The rule of law is key to capitalism − eroding it is bad news for American business

Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Robert Bird, Professor of Business Law & Eversource Energy Chair in Business Ethics, University of Connecticut

Something dangerous is happening to the U.S. economy, and it’s not inflation or trade wars. Chaotic deregulation and the selective enforcement of laws have upended markets and investor confidence. At one point, the threat of tariffs and resulting chaos evaporated US$4 trillion in value in the U.S. stock market. This approach isn’t helping the economy, and there are troubling signs it will hurt both the U.S. and the global economy in the short and long term.

The rule of law – the idea that legal rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or political connections − is essential for a thriving economy. Yet globally the respect for the rule of law is slipping, and the U.S. is slipping with it. According to annual rankings from the World Justice Project, the rule of law has declined in more than half of all countries for seven years in a row. The rule of law in the U.S., the most economically powerful nation in the world, is now weaker than the rule of law in Uruguay, Singapore, Latvia and over 20 other countries.

When regulation is unnecessarily burdensome for business, government should lighten the load. However, arbitrary and frenzied deregulation does not free corporations to earn higher profits. As a business school professor with an MBA who has taught business law for over 25 years, and the author of a recently published book about the importance of legal knowledge to business, I can affirm that the opposite is true. Chaotic deregulation doesn’t drive growth. It only fuels risk.

Chaos undermines investment, talent and trust

Legal uncertainty has become a serious drag on American competitiveness.

A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that public policy risks — such as unexpected changes in taxes, regulation and enforcement — ranked among the top challenges businesses face, alongside more familiar business threats such as competition or economic volatility. Companies that can’t predict how the law might change are forced to plan for the worst. That means holding back on long-term investment, slowing innovation and raising prices to cover new risks.

When the government enforces rules arbitrarily, it also undermines property rights.

For example, if a country enters into a major trade agreement and then goes ahead and violates it, that threatens the property rights of the companies that relied on the agreement to conduct business. If the government can seize assets without due process, those assets lose their stability and value. And if that treatment depends on whether a company is in the government’s political favor, it’s not just bad economics − it’s a red flag for investors.

When government doesn’t enforce rules fairly, it also threatens people’s freedom to enter into contracts.

Consider presidential orders that threaten the clients of law firms that have challenged the administration with cancellation of their government contracts. The threat alone jeopardizes the value of those agreements.

If businesses can’t trust public contracts to be respected, they’ll be less likely to work with the government in the first place. This deprives the government, and ultimately the American people, of receiving the best value for their tax dollars in critical areas such as transportation, technology and national defense.

Regulatory chaos also allows corruption to spread.

For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from bribing foreign government officials, has leveled the playing field for firms and enabled the best American companies to succeed on their merits. Before the law was enacted in 1977, some American companies felt pressured to pay bribes to compete. “Pausing” enforcement of the law, as the current presidential administration has done, increases the cost of doing business and encourages a wild west economy where chaos thrives.

When corruption grows, stable and democratic governments weaken, opportunities for terrorism increase and corruption-fueled authoritarian regimes, which oppose the interests of the U.S., thrive. Halting the enforcement of an anti-bribery law, even for a limited time, is an issue of national security.

Legal uncertainty fuels brain drain

Chaotic enforcement of the law also corrodes labor markets.

American companies require a strong pool of talented professionals to fuel their financial success. When legal rights are enforced arbitrarily or unjustly, the very best talent that American companies need may leave the country.

The science brain drain is already happening. American scientists have submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad compared with last year. Nonscientists are leaving too. Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs has witnessed a 50% increase in Americans taking steps to obtain an Irish passport. Employers in the U.K. saw a spike in job applications from the United States.

Business from other countries will gladly accept American talent as they compete against American companies. During the Third Reich, Nazi Germany lost its best and brightest to other countries, including America. Now the reverse is happening, as highly talented Americans leave to work for firms in other nations.

Threats of arbitrary legal actions also drive away democratic allies and their prosperous populations that purchase American-made goods and services. For example, arbitrarily threatening to punish or even annex a closely allied nation does not endear its citizens to that government or the businesses it represents. So it’s no surprise that Canadians are now boycotting American goods and services. This is devastating businesses in American border towns and hurts the economy nationwide.

Similarly, the Canadian government has responded to whipsawing U.S. tariff announcements with counter-tariffs, which will slice the profits of American exporters. Close American allies and trading partners such as Japan, the U.K. and the European Union are also signaling their own willingness to impose retaliatory tariffs, increasing the costs of operations to American business even more.

Modern capitalism depends on smart regulation to thrive. Smart regulation is not an obstacle to capitalism. Smart regulation is what makes American capitalism possible. Smart regulation is what makes American freedom possible.

Clear and consistently applied legal rules allow businesses to aggressively compete, carefully plan, and generate profits. An arbitrary rule of law deprives business of the true power of capitalism – the ability to promote economic growth, spur innovation and improve the overall living standards of a free society. Americans deserve no less, and it is up to government to make that happen for everyone.

Robert Bird 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 rule of law is key to capitalism − eroding it is bad news for American business – https://theconversation.com/the-rule-of-law-is-key-to-capitalism-eroding-it-is-bad-news-for-american-business-254922