Overall Positive: Tim Berners-Lee Talks About the Web’s Current State

Tim Berners-Lee in a rack at the CERN computer center

Maximilian Bryce/CERN

Tim Berners-Lee holds a comprehensive map of the internet on a single page, featuring around 100 blocks linked by various arrows. These blocks encompass blogs, podcasts, group messages, and abstract themes like creativity, collaboration, and clickbait, providing a unique depiction of the digital realm from the innovator of the World Wide Web.

“Most of them are good,” he remarked during our conversation at New Scientist‘s London office, reflecting on the web’s successes and failures. This map serves as a guide for others and a reminder that only a small fraction of the Internet is deemed detrimental to society. The top-left quadrant illustrates Berners-Lee’s concerns, with six blocks marked “Harmful,” including names like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, TikTok, X, and YouTube.

In the last 35 years, Berners-Lee’s creation has evolved from just one user (himself) to approximately 5.5 billion users, constituting about 70% of the global population. It has transformed communication and shopping, making modern life unimaginable without it. However, the list of emerging challenges continues to expand.

Issues like misinformation, polarization, and election interference have become staples of online discourse, contrasting sharply with Berners-Lee’s vision of a collaborative utopia. In his memoir, This is for Everyone, he reflects, “In the early days of the web, joy and wonder were abundant, but today’s online experience can induce just as much anxiety.”

It’s natural for the web’s architect to feel a sense of disappointment regarding humanity’s use of his creation, yet he remains hopeful for the future of the internet. As one of the foremost technology visionaries (with a plethora of accolades and honors), he shares insights on what went awry and how he envisions solutions.

Invention of the Web

The World Wide Web’s origin story hinges on being at the right place and time. In the late 1980s, Berners-Lee was part of the computing and networking sector at a U.S. company. At CERN, the particle physics lab near Geneva, Switzerland, he pondered over better document management methods.

Most systems forced users into rigid organizational structures and strict hierarchies. Berners-Lee envisioned a more flexible approach, permitting users to link documents freely. Hyperlinks existed for internal references, and the Internet was already available for file sharing—why not merge the two concepts? This simple yet transformative idea birthed the World Wide Web.

Although Berners-Lee had harbored the idea since 1989, he ultimately convinced his supportive supervisors to let him pursue it fully. Within months, he created a surge of developments that led to HTML—a programming language for web pages, HTTP—the protocol for transferring them, and the URL, the means to locate them. The final code consisted of just 9,555 lines, marking the web’s emergence by year’s end.The web was born.

“CERN was an extraordinary place to innovate the web,” he states. “Individuals from around the world, driven by a genuine need to communicate and document their experiences, came together there.”

The inaugural website was hosted on Berners-Lee’s work computer, adorned with a “Do Not Turn Off” sign and instructions for engaging with the web. More web servers emerged, leading to exponential growth: “In the first year, it grew tenfold; in the second year, another tenfold; and by the third, yet another tenfold.” He recalls, “Even then, I sensed we were onto something significant.”

Initially, most web pages were crafted by academics and developers, but soon, everyone began using them to share a wide array of content. Within a decade, the landscape blossomed into millions of websites, hundreds of millions of users, and the inevitable rise of dot-com ventures.

The Spice Girls with their website in 1997.

David Corio/Redferns

Despite the web’s immense potential for profit, Berners-Lee believed it should remain free and open to realize its full capabilities. This was a challenge, as CERN had legitimate grounds to claim royalties on the software being developed. Berners-Lee advocated for his superiors to release this technology openly, and by 1993, after much negotiation, the comprehensive source code of the Web was made available, complete with a disclaimer: CERN relinquishes all intellectual property rights to this code—the web will be royalty-free forever.

Early Days

For its initial years, the web flourished. Although there was a notorious stock market crash at the turn of the millennium, largely driven by speculative venture capital rather than the web itself, piracy was rampant, and malware was ever-present, the web was fundamentally open, free, and enjoyable. “People loved the web; they were simply happy,” Berners-Lee recounted in his memoir.

He captured the essence of this era, believing the web held the potential to foster new forms of collaboration among people. He coined the term “intercreativity” to describe the creative synergy of groups rather than individuals. Wikipedia, with around 65 million English pages edited by 15 million contributors, exemplifies what he envisioned for the web. He notably positions it on his map and describes it as “probably the best single example” of his aspirations.

However, the optimistic phase of the web was not to extend indefinitely. For Berners-Lee, the turning point came in 2016, marked by the Brexit vote and the election of Donald Trump. “At that moment, discussions arose about how social media could be manipulated to influence voters against their interests. In essence, the web became an instrument of manipulation driven by larger entities,” he shared.

Traditionally, political movements communicated their messages to the public openly, allowing for critique and discussion. However, by the mid-2010s, social media enabled “narrowcasting,” as Berners-Lee describes it, allowing political messages to be tailored into numerous versions for various audiences. This complicates tracking who communicated what and makes it harder to counter misinformation.

The extent of this microtargeting’s impact on elections remains debated. Numerous studies have tried to quantify how such messaging alters public opinion and voting behavior, generally uncovering only modest effects. Regardless, these trends contribute to Berners-Lee’s broader concerns about social media.

He emphasized that social media platforms are incentivized to maintain user engagement, which leads to the creation of “addictive” algorithms. “People are naturally drawn to things that evoke anger,” he states. “When social media feeds users misinformation, it’s more likely to garner clicks and ensnare users longer.”

Quoting author Yuval Noah Harari, he stipulated that creators of “harmful” algorithms should likewise be held accountable for their recommendations. “It’s particularly essential to undermine systems designed to be addictive,” Berners-Lee argues. He admits that imposing restrictions contradicts his usual free and open philosophy, viewing it as a last resort. Social media can unify individuals and disseminate ideas, yet it also poses unique risks that warrant change, as he specifies in his latest book. “This must evolve somehow.”

Nonetheless, he harbors an optimistic view of the web’s potential trajectory. While social media, despite its captivating nature, represents merely a fragment of the internet landscape, Berners-Lee contends that addressing these issues should be part of a broader strategy aimed at enhancing the web overall, with a focus on reclaiming digital sovereignty.

A Plan for Universal Web Access

To further this goal, Berners-Lee has dedicated the last decade to developing a new framework reinstating control with the individual. Presently, disparate internet platforms manage personal data. For instance, it’s challenging to share a video from Snapchat on Facebook or a post from LinkedIn to Instagram—the user can create this content, yet each company retains ownership.

Berners-Lee’s concept advocates for consolidating data into a singular data repository known as a pod (short for “personal online data store”), which the user controls, rather than having information dispersed across various platforms. This pod can hold everything from family images to medical records, with users determining what to share. This isn’t merely theoretical; he co-founded a company, Inrupt, that aims to bring this vision to life.

Berners-Lee using an early version of website and web browser invented at CERN in 1994

CERN

He is particularly enthusiastic about merging data wallets with artificial intelligence. For example, when searching for running shoes, current AI chatbots require detailed guidance to offer suitable recommendations. However, if an AI accesses a user’s data wallet, it can understand all past measurements, training history, and potentially spending behavior, leading to more accurate suggestions.

Berners-Lee advocates that AI should serve users, not large tech corporations. His goal isn’t to create individual AIs but to establish safeguards within software. Data wallets are part of the solution, along with an idea that AI should adhere to a kind of digital Hippocratic oath to avoid causing harm. He envisions AI acting as “your personal assistant,” providing tailored support.

While recommending appropriate running shoes may not address the web’s most pressing challenges, Berners-Lee possesses an exceptional ability to envision potential before others. Data wallets might seem mundane today, yet just decades ago, hyperlink-based document management systems were equally obscure. His passion for bettering the world drives him, as he believes enhancing the data ecosystem is crucial to achieving that goal.

All these developments suggest Berners-Lee envisions a fundamental shift for the web. He believes we must transition from an “attention economy,” dominated by competing clicks, to an “intention economy,” where users express their needs and companies—and AI—strive to fulfill them. “This is more empowering for the individual,” he asserts.

Such a transformation could redistribute power from tech giants to users. Some might think such a reversal unlikely, especially with the ongoing trends of tech dominance and the pervasive “doomscrolling” culture. However, Berners-Lee has a proven history of spotting opportunities others miss, and ultimately, he is the architect of the roadmap.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com

OpenAI Discusses Share Sale Talks to Determine Pricing for Elon Musk’s SpaceX

OpenAI is reportedly discussing the sale of shares held by current and former employees, a move that could value the company at an astonishing $50 trillion, surpassing Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

As the deal advances, the valuation of the ChatGPT developer is expected to rise by nearly two-thirds from its current $300 million (£22.5 billion).

Currently, Musk’s Rocket Company is valued at $3.5 trillion and is nearing a price tag of $400 million with new investments.

According to Bloomberg, which first reported on the talks, existing investors such as Thrive Capital approached OpenAI about acquiring shares from employees. Other backers of the San Francisco-based OpenAI include SoftBank, which led the $300 million funding round, and Microsoft.

Both OpenAI and Thrive Capital have chosen not to comment on the matter.

Tech startups frequently organize employee stock sales to boost motivation among staff and attract investors.

OpenAI faces competitive challenges from Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta in retaining key personnel, and employee stock sales could serve as incentives for retention. Facebook’s parent company has been actively recruiting OpenAI employees to develop its “Superintelligence” unit.

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman noted that despite Meta offering a staggering $100 million (£74 million) signing bonus, “none of our top talent” has left.

Another competitor, HumanAI, founded by former OpenAI employees, is reportedly in talks to raise funds that would value the company at $170 billion. Funding is crucial for AI startups aiming to leverage expensive computer chips and data center resources to train more advanced models that enhance their products.

This report emerges as Altman mentioned that OpenAI is set to unveil an upgraded version of its ChatGPT model. He shared a screenshot on Sunday that appeared to showcase the latest AI model, GPT-5, on social media.

OpenAI also launched two new open models recently, which intensify competition against Meta and China’s DeepSeek, offering open AI models that can be freely downloaded and customized.

“This model is the outcome of a multi-billion dollar research initiative aimed at making AI accessible to the widest audience possible,” Altman stated.

However, OpenAI primarily operates on a “closed” model, meaning you’ll need to pay for an enhanced version of ChatGPT or subscribe to integrate that model into your business.

Skip past newsletter promotions

OpenAI operates as a profitable nonprofit organization and is still engaged in negotiations to transition into a for-profit model, amidst ongoing tensions with Microsoft.

In a June interview with the New York Times podcast, Altman acknowledged, “There certainly are points of tension in deep partnerships, and we are experiencing some of that.”

In March, a U.S. judge dismissed a request for a preliminary injunction by Musk to halt the shift toward an open commercial model. Musk, co-founder of OpenAI in 2019, left the organization the same year, criticizing it for deviating from its founding mission of advancing artificial intelligence for the greater good, rather than for profit.

Additionally, OpenAI is advancing its hardware segment after acquiring the startup IO, founded by iPhone designer Sir Jony Ive, in a $6.4 billion deal. Altman reportedly informed employees that OpenAI is developing a 100 million AI “people” intended to become integral to users’ daily experiences.

Although Altman describes the prototype as “the most exciting technology the world has ever seen,” mass production of the unknown IO device isn’t expected to commence until 2027.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump Announces Talks with China to Finalize TikTok Sale, Claims Deal is “Nearly Complete”

Donald Trump announced plans to begin discussions with China regarding the TikTok deal on either Monday or Tuesday.

The US President indicated that the US has “mostly” finalized a deal to sell the TikTok short-video application.

“I think we’ll start on Monday or Tuesday… I may talk to President Xi or one of his representatives, but we’re mostly set with the deal,” Trump shared with reporters on Air Force One last Friday.

Trump also mentioned the possibility of visiting Xi Jinping in China, or that Chinese officials might come to the US.

Last month, both leaders exchanged invitations to visit each other’s countries.


Last month, Trump extended the deadline for the China-based ordinance to September 17th, concerning the sale of TikTok’s US assets, which is a popular social media platform with 170 million users in the United States.

Earlier this spring, there was a deal in motion to create a new US-based company for TikTok, predominantly owned by American investors, but it was stalled after China indicated disapproval, coinciding with the announcement of high tariffs on Chinese goods.

Trump stated on Friday that the US needs to secure a transaction that has likely been authorized by China.

When asked about his confidence in Beijing’s willingness to finalize the deal, he responded: “I’m not confident, but I think so. President Xi and I have a good relationship. I believe that benefits them.”

Trump’s June extension marks his third executive order aimed at delaying the ban or sale of TikTok, providing an additional 90 days to identify potential buyers or risk the app being banned in the US.

His first executive order, which granted TikTok a temporary respite, was issued on his first day in office, just three days after the Supreme Court upheld the ban. He issued a second executive order in April, with deadlines for sale or ban initially set for June 19th. TikTok will now be available until September.

In a statement released on the same day, TikTok expressed gratitude towards Trump and J.D. Vance, saying, “We appreciate President Trump’s leadership,” and noted that TikTok seeks to reach an agreement to “continue collaborating with Vice President Vance’s office.”

Democratic Senator Mark Warner, vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused Trump of sidestepping the law in an effort to enforce it.

With a report by Dara Kerr

Source: www.theguardian.com

If TED Talks Get Shorter, What Does It Reveal About Our Attention Span?

Name: Ted Talks

Year: Ted was established in 1984.

And has Ted been sharing ideas ever since? Ted – an abbreviation for Technology, Entertainment, Design – is a non-profit media organization based in the U.S. that hosts its annual conference…

Yes, and they offer motivational online talks. With the powerful tagline “Ideas change everything.”

So, what about them? They are concise.

A lecture? Above all? Historically speaking.

How brief are they? Just 6 minutes.

Who do you refer to? That’s Elif Shafaq.

Turkish and British authors? She’s a novelist, essayist, public speaker, and activist. She spoke at the Hay Festival in Wales.

What did she say? When she first delivered a Ted Talk, she was allowed 19 minutes, but after a decade, the limit was reduced to a strict 13.

Why? That’s what she asked Ted.

And what did Ted reply? According to Shafaq, Ted responded:

How did that make her feel? “It’s disheartening. We can’t engage for more than a few minutes,” she noted, pointing out that we live “in the age of hyperinformation.”

Is it too much to handle? Exactly. “We’re unable to process so much information,” she added. “In the long run, we may lose compassion, leading to fatigue, decreased morale, and paralysis.”

My goodness, sounds severe. Is it true our attention spans have diminished? The absence of longitudinal studies means we can’t be certain, but the public appears to believe so.

Do tell me more. But let’s continue along that line. Research from King’s College London in 2022 found that 49% of individuals think their attention spans are decreasing, while 50% say they can’t stop checking their phones…

Probably young people. Not just them; it’s also a challenge for middle-aged individuals. Moreover, 50% believe the typical adult attention span today is merely 8 seconds.

Sorry, what were we discussing again? The short attention span.

Oh yes, I figured as much. But how about books? Are they getting shorter too? Interestingly, a 2015 survey suggested books are now 25% longer than they were 15 years ago.

I can relate, but something is changing. Nonetheless, this year’s longlist for the international booker prize features eight books with fewer than 200 pages.

What about movies? Surely they’re getting longer? The simple answer is: No. A slightly longer explanation: likely due to marketing strategies, as studios aim to increase ticket sales.

Wait, so it seems our attention is waning while films are getting longer? Very astute. Someone should address this in a Ted Talk.

Say: “Can I make a difference in just 13 minutes?”

Don’t say: “Hurry, you’re running out of time.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Invest in Talks with SoftBank for OpenAI deal

SoftBank, Japan’s Investment Group, is in talks to invest up to $25 billion (£2 billion) in Openai, making it the largest financial backer of the startup behind ChatGPT.

According to the Financial Times, the potential investment could range from $15 billion to $25 billion in the San Francisco-based company.

Other investors, including TikTok’s parent company, Bytedance, and British chip designer Arm, have already supported Openai and recently participated in a fundraising round that valued the company at $157 billion. Microsoft, currently the largest shareholder of Openai, also joined the round.

Last week, Openai and SoftBank announced the formation of Stargate in collaboration with Oracle, which Donald Trump called “the largest AI infrastructure project in history.” The partnership aims to build AI system data centers with an initial investment of $100 billion.

Multiple sources familiar with the matter quoted by FT said that SoftBank’s potential investment includes a commitment from a Japanese company to Stargate. Elon Musk, the wealthiest person in the world and a prominent figure in the Trump administration, has claimed that Stargate’s supporters may not actually have the funds.

Sam Altman, the CEO of Openai, refuted Musk’s claims on his social media platform X, stating, “This is a great opportunity for the company. I understand that it may not always align with your company’s interests, but in your new role, I hope you will consider it.”

Openai faced competition this month from Chinese rival Deepseek, whose latest chatbot topped the Apple Free App Store charts and impacted AI-related stocks on Monday.

Altman initially acknowledged the competition from Deepseek, stating that “having new competitors keeps things lively,” but later claimed that the Chinese company may be using Openai technology to develop competing products.

The proposal for SoftBank’s investment in Openai, led by CEO Masayoshi Son, is reportedly under review by senior executives and the board of Openai. However, it has not been confirmed.

Skip past newsletter promotions

Both Openai and SoftBank have declined to comment on the matter.

Source: www.theguardian.com

Trump alleges that Microsoft is in talks to purchase Titoku

Donald Trump has implied that Microsoft is in discussions with Tactoku and he is hoping for a bidding war on apps.

In response to whether Microsoft was considering acquiring an app, the US President stated, “I will say Jesus,” and added, “I have a lot of interest in Tiktok. Tactoku is of great interest.”

Microsoft, Tiktok, and Bytedance did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comments outside of regular business hours following the US President’s remarks on Air Force 1 on Monday.


The reported remarks mark the second attempt to acquire Tiktok. During his first term, Trump had ordered Tactoku to divest its US operations citing national security concerns.

Microsoft emerged as a top bidder in 2020, but the negotiations quickly fell apart, and Trump’s push for the sale ended a few months later.

Tactoku, with approximately 170 million American users, faced an injunction from the Chinese owners to either comply with national security measures or face a ban on January 19. Shortly before this, the app was temporarily taken offline earlier this month.

Upon taking office on January 20, Trump signed a presidential order to delay the enforcement of the injunction by 75 days.


Last week, Trump revealed that he had discussed the purchase of Tactoku with multiple parties and would likely make a decision on the fate of the popular app within 30 days.

The US President had previously stated that he would be open to a sale of the Social Media App to the CEO of Tesla if interested, although Elon Musk has not publicly responded to Trump’s offer.

Recently, on Sunday, AI startup Perplexity AI proposed a merger with Tiktok. The US government informed Reuters on Sunday that it had invested in the future of the new company.

In 2021, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella described Tiktok as “the oddest thing I’ve worked on.”

He mentioned to the US government, “There are specific requirements and then just disappear.”

Source: www.theguardian.com

Tennessee legislator outlaws geoengineering, talks about ‘chemtrails’

The Tennessee House of Representatives passed a bill on Monday aimed at preventing geoengineering, the deliberate modification of the atmosphere to address global warming.

The bill, which has already been approved by the state Senate, includes various technological interventions. These range from theoretical concepts like solar modulation to practical methods like cloud seeding, which is used to enhance precipitation.

Most geoengineering options are still theoretical and untested. Federal researchers have only taken preliminary steps towards feasibility studies, and atmospheric scientists emphasize the lack of evidence for large-scale implementation.

On the surface, Tennessee’s bill seeks to restrict experimentation and deployment of such technologies.

However, discussions among lawmakers around the proposal blur the lines between fact and fiction, with some suggesting ongoing solar geoengineering projects and expressing fears and misunderstandings that trace back to “chemtrail” conspiracy theories.

“This will be my wife’s favorite bill of the year. She has been concerned about this for a long time. It’s been happening for years,” said Republican Sen. Frank Knisley during a public hearing on the bill last month. “If you look up, one day it will be clear. The next day it will look like angels playing tic-tac-toe. They are everywhere. There’s a photo with an X in it. They denied any involvement for years.”

None of the six Senate sponsors responded to requests for comment. Nicely, who voted in favor of the bill, also did not respond after the House vote. Republican Rep. Monty Fritz, the bill’s House sponsor, only agreed to an in-person interview, which could not be arranged before the vote by NBC News.

The chemtrail theory posits that planes are not leaving contrails but rather spraying government-created chemicals for control purposes. It is a collection of unsubstantiated ideas.

Various conspiracy theories related to chemtrails have emerged recently, with believers claiming that contrails are actually aerosols designed to manipulate weather and climate. Republican Sen. Steve Sutherland, one of the bill’s sponsors, mentioned the chemtrail theory while presenting his case for the bill to reporters, as reported by the Tennessee Lookout, a nonprofit news outlet.

“We are witnessing significant changes,” said Justin Mankin, a climate scientist at Dartmouth College. The challenge arises from the fact that the entire chemtrail conspiracy accommodates various technologies with distinct goals, making it challenging to separate them. ”

Besides Tennessee, other states like Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and South Dakota have introduced or are contemplating similar anti-geoengineering legislation.

This trend indicates a blend of conspiracy theories, confusion, and genuine environmental concerns gaining ground in public awareness and among certain Republican circles.

“People in states like Tennessee, Pennsylvania, and New Hampshire fear that the chemtrail theory is factual,” Mankin explained. “By enacting legislation, policymakers are legitimizing conspiracy theories instead of relying on science to disprove them adequately.”

Josh Horton, a senior fellow studying solar geoengineering policy at the Harvard Kennedy School, mentioned that as far as he knows, Tennessee is the first state to pass such a bill in both chambers of the legislature.

If the governor signs the bill, it would prohibit the deliberate release of chemicals into the atmosphere for the purpose of influencing temperature, weather, or sunlight intensity.

The bill suggests that the “federal government” or its agents have implicated in geoengineering experiments by intentionally spraying chemicals into the atmosphere.

A White House official clarified that the government is not involved in outdoor solar radiation control testing or implementation. They mentioned engaging in limited research activities like modeling, measurement, monitoring, and laboratory studies.

The vote in Tennessee on Monday evening sparked controversy.

Democratic Rep. John Ray Clemons playfully attached an amendment to the bill suggesting that geoengineering could endanger Sasquatch habitat. His amendment did not pass.

“It’s fitting that this bill is on the calendar on April 1,” quipped Rep. Beau Mitchell, another Democrat.

The bill’s House sponsor, Fritz, cited federal funding for aerosol research as proof of the government’s intentions.

“There is intent and a plan,” he asserted. “Some individuals looking into solar radiation modification are aiming to reflect sunlight from Earth by injecting chemicals, compounds, substances, and devices into the upper atmosphere. I believe so.”

It is not surprising that lawmakers are grappling with the complexities of geoengineering. The term is broad and poorly defined, encompassing many speculative ideas from scientists brainstorming ways to combat global warming.

“It’s not fully fleshed out. It doesn’t exist,” Horton remarked. “There is jargon everywhere.”

Solar geoengineering, which the Tennessee bill seeks to prohibit, falls under this broad category. It includes activities like stratospheric aerosol injection, an unproven theory aimed at cooling the planet by injecting particles into the stratosphere from high-altitude aircraft.

Other geoengineering methods like ocean cloud brightening, cirrus thinning, and using ice cubes to absorb heat are not covered in the bill.

Tennessee’s bill also outlaws weather modification, including cloud seeding, a practice used for decades in Western states to enhance rainfall.

While some states regulate cloud seeding efforts to boost snowfall in mountainous regions, most other forms of geoengineering remain unregulated. “The Wild West of the regulation world,” Mankin noted.


The committee hearings on the bill led to a mix of truth, insinuations, and fiction.

The bill’s sponsor, Dr. Dennis Sibley, testified before both chambers of the legislature and insinuated that the federal government was releasing chemicals into the atmosphere.

“There’s no denying that weather modification is happening in our state,” Sibley stated, adding, “I am opposed to the intentional use of particulate aerosols or heavy metals to block sunlight.”

She referenced a 2023 White House Report as evidence, portraying a concept paper on geoengineering research without detailing an actual program.

Sibley did not respond to requests for comment.

During the hearing, lawmakers conflated contrails with “chemtrails,” questioning whether cloud seeding caused wildfires in Western states or if geoengineering led to higher cancer rates.

Republican Rep. Bud Hulsey even speculated if geoengineering was responsible for the decline of honey bees.

“Exactly—that’s why the bees are disappearing,” replied testimonial support David Perry, who claimed to have been a licensed healthcare provider for four decades. “Their ecosystem is impacted by these aerosols.”

There is no evidence to support Perry’s assertions. A Tennessee chiropractor with the same name mentioned during the testimony did not provide a response to requests for comment. Bees face real threats like pest pressure, habitat loss, and insecticide exposure.

“All these concepts—weather modification, chemtrails, contrails, and geoengineering—are getting muddled and intertwined,” Horton explained after reviewing recent congressional testimony.

Democratic State Sen. Heidi Campbell voted against the bill.

“It’s alarming how conspiracy theories resonate so strongly here,” Campbell expressed, also pointing out that the bill diverts attention from the primary climate issue.

Mankin and Houghton concurred that important discussions are warranted on guiding and regulating solar geoengineering research, a controversial topic among many scientists.

“Is the Tennessee Legislature the appropriate venue for this deliberation?” Horton wondered. “Probably not.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com

Climate talks will only meet minimum requirements after hottest year in human history

UN Secretary-General António Guterres said on Wednesday that the era of fossil fuels “must end” and that science suggests there is no way to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) without eliminating fossil fuel use. It has been shown that it is impossible to contain, he added.

“Whether we like it or not, the phasing out of fossil fuels is inevitable.” he wrote to x. “Let’s hope it’s not too late.”

The COP28 climate summit was controversial from the start. The host country, the UAE, is rich in oil resources, and the conference chairman, Sultan Al Jaber, is the CEO of the UAE’s national oil company ADNOC.

At the beginning of the conference, Al-Jabbar addressed criticism at an online event in late November, claiming there was “no science” to support the need to phase out fossil fuels to curb global warming. I took a bath. As first reported by the Guardian.

The incident comes amid waning confidence that oil companies are working to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Big oil and gas companies have previously signaled they would do their part to transition to clean energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but over the past year they have walked back many of those claims. Critics have accused the industry of “greenwashing,” even as companies ramp up exploration and hundreds of new oil and gas projects are approved around the world.

Throughout the meeting, which culminated in extension negotiations, critics questioned how much could have been accomplished on fossil fuels when it was held in Dubai and led by Al Jaber. These concerns came to the forefront when it became clear that the final deal did not commit to phasing out fossil fuels.

Although the phrases “migration” and “phasing out” are similar, there are important differences between them. Phasing means that their use in the energy system is eventually eliminated, whereas “transition” represents a compromise, meaning that their use is reduced but still continues .

Nate Hartmann, a former State Department official and founder and director of the University of Maryland Center for Global Sustainability, said an open question heading into the meeting is whether world leaders will seriously discuss the future of fossil fuels. He said that.

“There was a risk that it could have been an exercise to avoid problems,” he said.

But Hartmann said countries should “transition” away from fossil fuels in an equitable manner, triple the amount of renewable energy installed by 2030 and step up leaks of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. He said the final agreement he is seeking makes clear that: World leaders actually envisioned a future without fossil fuels.

“The results show that this issue was not only substantively discussed, but also highlighted in the document. There are good and strong elements,” said Hartmann, who attended the 21st COP this year. Told. “Sending this kind of signal about the transition away from fossil fuels is going to be important.”

Still, the agreement is not legally binding, and its critics, especially leaders of poor developing and island nations that are disproportionately affected by climate change, argue that it does not eliminate fossil fuels. , says it is not enough to keep global temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius. Global warming.

Many climate scientists and activists have expressed frustration that calls for the “phasing out” of fossil fuels have been significantly weakened.

“While the COP28 consensus rightly emphasizes nature as a solution, it is unfortunate that it does not recognize the need to phase out the use of fossil fuels,” said the nonprofit National Wildlife Refuge. said Mustafa Santiago Ali, the federation’s executive vice president for conservation and justice. he said in a statement Wednesday.

Emotions were further heightened when the draft agreement was published earlier this week.goa I wrote it on Monday’s X. “COP28 is now on the brink of complete failure.”

Over the past 30 years, countries have finally realized that in order to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by around 2050 and avoid the worst consequences of climate change, countries need to transition away from fossil fuels. It was first agreed upon at the United Nations Summit.

It was hailed as a major milestone, as it merely touched on an issue that had been an issue at previous COP meetings.

“The fact that the phasing out of fossil fuels is now at the center of the international scene is in itself unimaginable five years ago, and is a huge step forward,” said the director of the Stockholm Environmental Research Institute and senior scientist. Michael Lazarus said. , based in Seattle. “That means fossil fuels now have an expiration date, an expiration date. We are at a point where we can envision a transition away from fossil fuels.”

Lazarus said the consensus nature of international processes – in which all countries participating in the deliberations have a de facto veto – makes global progress difficult.

“People talk about how it’s just words and not actions, but the arguments that come out of these international conferences have incredible resonance and have the power to change the conversation,” Lazarus said. Told. “Unless we have a sense of global action to phase out fossil fuels and reduce emissions across the board, countries will not have the same incentives to act in the ways they need to.” I guess.”

Source: www.nbcnews.com