Search the archive.

DO AI COMPANIES need to pay for the training data that powers their generative AI systems? The question is hotly contested in Silicon Valley and in a wave of lawsuits levied against tech behemoths like Meta, Google, and OpenAI. In Washington, DC, though, there seems to be a growing consensus that the tech giants need to cough up.

Today, at a Senate hearing on AI’s impact on journalism, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle agreed that OpenAI and others should pay media outlets for using their work in AI projects. “It’s not only morally right,” said Richard Blumenthal, the Democrat who chairs the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law that held the hearing. “It’s legally required.”

House Agriculture Committee Chairman Glenn Thompson is turning his attention to winning over Republicans and a few more Democrats to his farm bill as he envisions a potential floor debate in September. But getting the legislation signed into law is still as elusive as ever.

In a best-case scenario, lawmakers could feasibly work out a deal in a lame duck session. But depending on the outcome of the election, experts say, the bill could easily get punted to the next Congress. Feasibly, a Republican Congress and White House could use the budget reconciliation process to pass much of Thompson's bill with little or no Democratic support.

House Republicans’ new farm bill proposal is drawing opposition from a coalition of left- and right-wing groups that agree on little else.

The proposed version of the $1.5 trillion omnibus unveiled last week by House Agriculture Committee Chair Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.) includes several priorities of big agribusiness — proposals that frustrated both right-aligned groups such as the Heritage Foundation and left-leaning ones including the Environmental Working Group amid progressives’ and populists’ broader dislike of what they see as crony capitalism at the U.S. farmstand.

TOLEDO, Iowa — Iowa’s U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley is pessimistic when it comes to the prospects of passing a new Farm Bill yet this year.

Grassley, speaking Monday to The Gazette, said Republicans and Democrats on the Senate Agriculture Committee can’t seem to reach an agreement on spending priorities. The sprawling package that’s reauthorized every five years supports several key farm and safety net programs, like crop insurance, as well as agriculture research, rural development, conservation, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits — once called food stamps — and more.

A partisan fight over federal food support programs is posing a major challenge to both chambers as they try to craft a mammoth farm bill ahead of an early fall deadline.

Congress has just four months until a Sept. 30 deadline to finish work on the bill, after both parties agreed to kick the can last year on the bill.

WASHINGTON — Republicans moved their long-awaited new farm bill through the U.S. House Agriculture Committee last week, despite opposition from most Democrats about cuts in SNAP payments and nutritional benefits that could stall further advancement.

The massive $1.5 trillion legislation would set policy and funding levels for key food, agriculture and conservation programs for the next five years. After a marathon markup Thursday, the GOP-authored bill cleared the committee after midnight Friday, 33-21, with four Democratic votes.

Forest protection, once the “forgotten” climate solution, has become an integral pillar of climate discussions. But while attention has largely focused on forests like those of the Amazon and Indonesia, the climate doesn’t hinge just on what happens in the tropics. It also depends on the boreal; the temperate rainforests of the Pacific; the conifer forests of the Rockies; the Northeastern coastal forests; the Southern wetland forests. These forests in North America are being lost or stripped of carbon rich mature trees right under our noses and need to remain standing and intact if we are going to achieve a climate-safe, sustainable future. As the Biden administration looks to act on its to reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by at least 50% by 2030, it needs to embrace a bold new vision for forest protection that looks at how we can protect the climate-critical forest resources in our own backyard. 

North America’s forests, the homelands of Indigenous communities and havens of rich biodiversity, are some of the most carbon-dense areas on Earth. These forests are part of the global forest respiratory system that, each year, absorbs one-third of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. They are also gatekeepers of vast stores of carbon locked safely out of the atmosphere in their soils and biomass. The Canadian boreal forest alone stores twice as much carbon as the world’s oil reserves, while U.S. forests collectively absorb the equivalent of about 12 percent of the nation’s annual carbon pollution. Their sentry stands between us and climate catastrophe. 

This Committee has a very important job ahead of us – passing the next Farm Bill with strong, bipartisan support, and it’s our job to make sure it supports our farmers, our families, and our environment.

Our farmers have a critical job to do as well – growing food, fiber and fuel for our country and our world while also protecting our land and water. This is nothing new for those of us in Michigan, where protecting the Great Lakes is part of our DNA.

In his book, The Coming Famine, Julian Cribb writes that the wars of the 21st century will involve failed states, rebellions, civil conflict, insurgencies and terrorism. All of these elements will be triggered by competition over dwindling resources, rather than global conflicts with clearly defined sides. More than 40 countries experienced civil unrest following the food price crisis in 2008. The rapid increase in grain prices and prevailing food insecurity in many states is linked to the outbreak of protests, food riots and the breakdown of governance. Widespread food insecurity is a driving factor in creating a disaffected population ripe for rebellion. Given the interconnectivity of food security and political stability, it is likely food will continue to act as a political stressor on regimes in the Middle East and elsewhere. Addressing Insecurity Improving food and water security and encouraging resource sharing is critical to creating a stable and secure global environment. While food and water shortages contribute to a rising cycle of violence, improving food and water security outcomes can trigger the opposite and reduce the potential for conflict. With the global population expected to reach 9 billion by 2040, the likelihood of conflict exacerbated by scarcity over the next century is growing. Conflict is likely to be driven by a number of factors and difficult to address through diplomacy or military force. Population pressures, changing weather, urbanization, migration, a loss of arable land and freshwater resources are just some of the multi-layered stressors present in many states. Future inter-state conflict will move further away from the traditional, clear lines of military conflict and more towards economic control and influence.

A growing number of studies of environmental stressors and social conflict posit that future wars will be fought over diminishing resources (Miguel et al. 2004; Burke et al. 2009;O ’ Loughlin et al. 2012; Scheffran et al. 2012 ). Building on insights from these studies, as well as other suggestive accounts (e.g. Brinkman and Hendrix 2011 ;Hendrix and Brinkman 2013 ; Messer and Cohen 2006 ;Prunier 2008 ), the present study demonstrates empirically, for the first time, the existence of a systemic relationship between conflict on the one hand, and food (in) security on the other, both globally and locally. Specifically, highly disaggregated cropland-based measures of food insecurity are shown to produce a significant effect on the incidence of inter and intra-state armed conflict worldwide. Unlike the majority of previous studies, which rely primarily on country-level indicators (Miguel et al. 2004 ; Burke et al. 2009 ; Scheffran et al. 2012 ;Buhaug 2010 ) or focus specifically on sub-Saharan Africa (Miguel et al. 2004 ; Burke et al. 2009;O ’ Loughlin et al. 2012;Buhaug 2010; Fjelde and Hultman 2014 ), the present approach uses geographic factors to estimate the regional sub-state distribution of conflict globally. Two agricultural output measures, the percent of cropland in a given region and the amount of cropland per capita within agricultural regions, are used to proxy for the demand and supply aspects of food security, respectively (Barrett 2010 ). Using logistic regression (i.e., logit) models, these measures are then paired with a large number of political, economic, and climatic indicators in order to estimate the direct effects of food security on violent conflict. Evidence suggests that conflict occurs in areas with higher access to, but lower availability of, food resources. Together these findings imply that food insecurity produces an independent effect on contemporary social and political conflict. While relatively little research directly addresses the relationship between food insecurity and conflict specifically, numerous studies have implied that such a relationship exists. For instance, in their analysis of the relationship between climate variability and conflict in Sub-Saharan Africa, Burke et al. found that B [t]emperature variables are strongly related to conflict incidence over our historical panel ^ (2009 , 20,670. See also Miguel et al. 2004 ; Koubi et al. 2012 ). They further hypothesize that, B [t]emperature can affect agricultural yields both through increases in crop evapotranspiration (and hence heightened water stress in the absence of irrigation) and through accelerated crop development...reducing African sta- ple crop yields by 10 % – 30 % per °C of warming ^ (ibid. 20,672). Somewhat more cautiously, O ’ Loughlin et al. conclude that, B [o]ur study and other studies question the evidence that climatic variability is uniformly driving up the risk of conflict in sub-Saharan Africa, ^ while also noting that B the positive association between instability and temperature may result from the harmful effects of high temperatures on food products such as maize ^ (2012, 18,347). While these conclusions were supported by subsequent studies (Raleigh and Kniveton 2012; Hendrix and Salehyan 2012 ;Hsiangand Meng 2014 ), other scholars question the validity of these findings and show that the incidence of conflict is primarily related to political and economic conditions (e.g. Buhaug 2010 ). In common with all these studies, however, is the insight that a major mechanism by which climate change increases the likelihood of conflict is through its effects on food supplies.

The first field hearing for the 2018 farm bill takes place Thursday in Manhattan, Kan. — a town just 130 miles from where I was born and raised. It’s a fitting location given the crucial role that farmers, lawmakers and political leaders from the Midwest have played in addressing hunger and promoting national security.

That’s because the farm bill won’t impact just American growers and consumers. It will also have an enormous impact on the world’s hungry people — and help stabilize an increasingly unstable world.

Climate change is an existential threat to humans and global biodiversity, as was reinforced in the sixth assessment report (1) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as well as Conferences of the Parties of the IPCC (Glasgow, UK; November 2021) and the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (Montreal, Canada; December 2022). But these gatherings also implicitly highlight severe shortcomings in how conservation scientists and policymakers are addressing the climate change threat.

Research in climate change ecology and conservation is still dominated by attempts to understand how species are vulnerable to the altered abiotic conditions driven by climate change alone (e.g., rising temperature) (2). This threat is undoubtedly important. But we argue that other facets of climate disruption could have vastly greater impacts—in particular, the ways in which climate-altered human societies, demographics, and economies interact with natural ecosystems and species. Unfortunately, these human dimensions of climate change ecology have received scant attention. Broad-scale assessment of the scale of biodiversity responses to climate change (3) are therefore underestimating the problem—potentially on a massive scale—when only incorporating direct, abiotic impacts.

Topsoil is crucial to agriculture. The first step-creating and conserving healthy soil-is the foundation of a sustainable agriculture. It is closely linked to the next two steps-conserving water and protecting its quality, and managing organic wastes and farm chemicals so they don’t pollute. How well agriculture manages soil, water, and organic wastes will determine its future health. Conserving healthy soil by guarding it against erosion or other forces that would degrade it is the most basic step. This step has as its corollary actively building soil health, because soil used for agricultural purposes today is not as healthy as it could be. It is both less diverse and less active biologically. Without healthy topsoil, the world cannot begin to feed its billions. Although American popular culture discourse in recent years has speculated on the fate of life on earth in case of alien invasion, asteroid bombardments, or rampaging killer viruses, the slow loss of quality soil is more of a threat to life on the planet than any of these scenarios.

The diversity of plant and animal species in the world as a whole are the most essential units of Earth’s life-support systems.

One of the major reasons for defining the importance of biodiversity hotspots on earth. Biodiversity acts as the building block of all life on Earth. A myriad of diverse species creates an intricate system for biological interaction & a balanced ecosystem where life is made possible. The grand species  Without species and a balanced ecosystem, for instance, there would be no food to eat, no diversity in genes, no air to breathe, or no water to drink. It, therefore, means that without biodiversity, humans would equally be non-existent because biodiversity hotspots are vital for human survival. The map of hotspots extends extraordinarily beyond the map of the natural areas that most benefit human populations.

Civilization, and even the fate of our species, is utterly dependent on proper global ecosystem functioning. Ecosystem functioning, including primary productivity, the biogeochemical cycles, and the network of trophic mutualistic and antagonistic species interactions that compose the food chains, is the fabric of life—a fabric that is translated by humans as ecosystem services (e.g. [28,39]). The vast literature on the biodiversity–ecosystem function relationship and the significance thereof in terms of services to humanity has focused its attention on the consequences of changes in the diversity of (mostly) plant species or genetic variants on four major types of ecological processes: (i) provisioning, such as crop yield, fodder yield, wood production, medicines and medicine models; (ii) regulating, such as biocontrol, pollination and nutrient cycling; (iii) support services such as primary productivity; and (iv) cultural services, such as inspiration, and education (see a classic review in [40]; also [39]). Biodiversity–ecosystem function studies focused on animals are more limited, but some reviews make such relationship evident too, including services such as crop pollination and pest control, seed dispersal, litter decomposition, carbon cycling, carrion and dung removal, soil erosion control, animal forage provisioning, and zoonosis risk regulation (see reviews in [30,41]). What all this implies, in practical terms, is that the millions of years of plant and phytoplankton cumulative photosynthesis; the tens of millions of soil organisms that transform dirt into fertile soil, decompose the bodies of dead organisms and contribute to nutrient recycling; the wild and domesticated plants, animals (both terrestrial and aquatic) and fungi that for millennia have fed and currently feed the human population (i.e. we all eat biodiversity); the communities of animals that maintain plant reproduction and genetic diversity, as well as those animals that regulate the abundance of disease hosts and vectors; the thousands of plants, fungi, other microorganisms and animals that have provided and continue to provide medicine or medicine models; the physical protection due to ecosystem ‘structures’ such as mangroves and coral reefs from extreme weather events; and the increasingly appreciated significance of the inspirational, educational and emotional benefit derived from our contact with biodiversity constitute the life-support systems for humanity (see a recent review in [18]). In a different perspective, ecosystem services have been examined in economic terms (see a major review in [42]), and several researchers have attempted to calculate the value of nature's services in a variety of ways. Among these would be the cost of infrastructure that needs to be developed to substitute for the services of, for example, protective coastal ecosystems, and the price of water treatment plants that can play the role of wetlands in filtering contaminants [43]. Similarly, one estimate is that without mangroves flood damage in tropical coastal areas would increase by more than 16% or $US82 billion annually. However, we emphasize that the fundamental value of ecosystems in the intersection culture–ecosystem functioning lies in that the value of our life-supporting systems ‘is essentially incalculable’ [18]. This short review makes it evident that humanity cannot survive in the absence of biodiversity and ecosystem functioning, which, as we have discussed above, we are increasingly degrading. Furthermore, the prospect of Homo sapiens being present when the normal recovery times following a mass extinction occur is simply unrealistic. Finally, it is imperative to appreciate that all these aspects of human dependence on biodiversity—the intersection between human culture and ecosystem services—occur at the level of the populations of the myriad species and functional groups present where human populations are present. Therefore, it is crucial that we examine the impact of the human enterprise on the myriad populations of plants, animals, fungi and microorganisms.

A devastating fact of climate collapse is that there may be a silver lining to the mushroom cloud. First, it should be noted that a nuclear exchange does not inevitably result in apocalyptic loss of life. Nuclear winter—the idea that firestorms would make the earth uninhabitable—is based on shaky science. There’s no reliable model that can determine how many megatons would decimate agriculture or make humans extinct. Nations have already detonated 2,476 nuclear devices.

An exchange that shuts down the global economy but stops short of human extinction may be the only blade realistically likely to cut the carbon knot we’re trapped within. It would decimate existing infrastructures, providing an opportunity to build new energy infrastructure and intervene in the current investments and subsidies keeping fossil fuels alive.

Our planet has coped remarkably well so far with the blizzard of changes we have wrought, but we would be foolish to assume that it will continue to do so. A relatively small proportion of species have actually gone extinct so far, but almost all wild species now exist in numbers that are a fraction of their former abundance, subsisting in degraded and fragmented habitats and subjected to a multitude of ever-changing man-made problems. We do not understand anywhere near enough to be able to predict how much resilience is left in our depleted ecosystems, or how close we are to tipping points beyond which collapse becomes inevitable. In Paul Ehrlich’s “rivets on a plane” analogy, we may be close to the point where the wing falls off.

The United States is rejoining international efforts against climate change in a crucial year. All members of the Paris Agreement are obliged to submit updated pledges for emissions reductions prior to a global climate meeting in November. President Joe Biden wants to re-establish U.S. leadership on climate. Doing so will require the United States to make an ambitious but achievable pledge and to assist other nations in doing the same. The political landscape for enacting climate legislation in the United States is still tricky, but U.S. subnational actors have continued emissions reduction efforts during the Trump administration and will be a key part of efforts going forward. These subnational actors can share their skills and ambition with their counterparts abroad. The United States also has an opportunity to lead through its role in the global financial sector. It can encourage greener investing by requiring disclosure of climate risks and support global efforts to finance emissions reduction and climate adaptation in developing countries.

CHALLENGE

History tells us that drafting, debating, and voting on such a massive bill – not to mention producing an eventual bipartisan agreement — will take a significant amount of time and intense negotiations. There are as many as 60-80 House Republicans who are expected to oppose any farm bill, making Chairman Thompson’s job all the more challenging as he launches the renewal process in the House. The markup process is expected to be contentious, and floor consideration could be especially messy. Regardless, the law’s reauthorization will by necessity require bipartisan support. Should Congress not reauthorize the bill by the September deadline, another extension will be necessary – pushing the bill’s consideration into the lame duck session or more likely into the next Congress, where the political dynamics could shift significantly after the November elections and where high profile, high-cost fights over the debt limit and expiring tax cuts will take center stage.

Negotiations will continue. Nothing in either of these publicly available proposals is set in stone. The first formal action, barring a quick schedule change in the Senate Ag Committee, will be the House Ag Committee’s markup on May 23rd. In this markup, committee members will have the opportunity to offer amendments to the Chairman’s bill, speak for or against individual provisions, and vote on whether to advance the bill to a Floor vote. Changes can also happen through Floor amendments and during a Conference Committee between the House and Senate. All of this to say, what we’re seeing in these proposals is not necessarily what will become law.

A lot must be done in a short time. We are in an election year, and a presidential election year at that. While this will motivate some Members of Congress to show efficacy in getting a Farm Bill done, party conferences and campaigning also compress the legislative calendar. The months of May and June will be critical if we’re going to get a bill done.