The built environment, particularly office buildings other urban facilities, are responsible for 39% of the global energy-related emissions, according to the World Green Building Council. About a third of that impact comes from the initial construction of a building and the other two-thirds is produced over the lifetime of a building by heating, cooling, and providing power to the occupants. Our guest today is leading a key battle to reduce the impact of the built environment. Tune in for a wide-ranging conversation with Rob Bernard, Chief Sustainability Officer at CBRE Group Inc., which manages more than $145 billion of commercial buildings, providing logistics, retail, and corporate office services across more than than 100 countries.

Rob cut his sustainability teeth at Microsoft, as its Chief Environmental Strategist for 11 years, as the company was developing its world-leading approach and collaborating with other tech giants to lobby for policy and funding to accelerate progress. He discusses CBRE’s Sustainability Solutions & Services for commercial building owners, as well as the accelerating progress for renewables, carbon tracking, and economic, health, and lifestyle benefits of living lightly on the planet. You can learn more about CBRE and its sustainability services at cbre.com

Take a few minutes to learn more about making construction and building operations more sustainable:

• Earth911 Podcast: Cityzenith’s Michael Jansen Uses Digital Twins to Reinvent Urban Planning
• Earth911 Podcast: Concrete.ai CEO Alex Hall On Mixing Embodied Carbon Out Of the Built Environment
• Best of Earth911 Podcast: Lowering Construction Impacts With Green Badger’s Tommy Linstroth
• Best of Earth911 Podcast: William Ulrich on Learning From Y2K To Design the Circular Economy
• Best of Earth911 Podcast: Autodesk Spacemaker Aides Building Efficiency With AI Insights
• How to Assess Your Business’ Environmental and Social Impacts
• Passive House Design: Changing the Future of New Home Construction

• Subscribe to Sustainability in Your Ear on iTunes and Apple Podcasts.
• Follow Sustainability in Your Ear on Spreaker, iHeartRadio, or YouTube.

Editor’s Note: This podcast originally aired on April 15, 2024.

The post Best of Sustainability In Your Ear: Making Billions of Square Feet of Commercial Space Sustainable with CBRE’s Rob Bernard appeared first on Earth911.

SpaceX’s board approved a compensation plan for founder Elon Musk with goals as futuristic and celestial as the company’s ambitions: colonising Mars and running data centres in outer space.

The details of Musk’s sweeping pay package were revealed in the company’s confidential registration statement filed in recent weeks with the Securities and Exchange Commission and have been reviewed by Reuters.

The lofty rewards dangled for Musk by SpaceX show the challenge of holding the attention of the serial entrepreneur as he prepared to take the rocket maker public. They also potentially set up SpaceX investors for tensions with shareholders of Tesla, where Musk is chief executive officer (CEO), said corporate governance experts.

Connecting science-fiction visions with accounting commitments, the SpaceX board in January approved a pay package for the world’s richest man that would award 200 million in super-voting restricted shares if the company hit a market value of $7.5 trillion and established a permanent human colony on Mars with at least one million people, according to excerpts from the company’s registration statement reviewed by Reuters.

His Mars-shot performance package also gave him as many as 60.4m in restricted shares awarded on March 23, if SpaceX met separate valuation goals and operated data centres in space that provided at least 100 terawatts of compute capacity — a colossal amount of power equal to 100,000 gigawatts — or about 100,000 one-gigawatt nuclear reactors running all at once.

Both awards came with super-voting Class B restricted stock, which carried 10 votes to every one Class A share, and vested in tranches as the company’s value rose.

Conditional rewards, stock options

However, he would not receive a single share if the company failed to reach the board’s lofty valuation targets, which were not tied to a specific timeline other than his continued employment.

He received a nominal salary from SpaceX of $54,080 per year since 2019. The value of the pay package could not be determined since SpaceX is privately held.

SpaceX is targeting an initial public offering around the time of Musk’s birthday on June 28, which could value the company at some $1.75 trillion.

As of December 31, he held 68.8m in previously awarded Class B stock options with a strike price of about $42 that expires in 2031, allowing Musk to pocket any profit above that amount if he exercises the options before that date.

Musk is already worth $776 billion by Forbes’ estimate. SpaceX aside, he could more than double that if he achieves separate, ambitious performance goals at Tesla — the EV automaker he also runs. He owned about 20 per cent of that company’s stock as of November, according to the registration statement.

SpaceX and Tesla did not respond to requests for comment.

The Information and Reuters previously reported SpaceX paid targets for Musk linked to a Mars colony and to space data centres.

Executive compensation expert Eric Hoffmann, who is chief data officer for corporate governance consulting firm Farient Advisers, said he knew of nothing remotely comparable in compensation packages at other companies.

Space targets stand alone

“I am not a physicist or astronomer, and I wouldn’t know where to start,” he said.

“The measuring stick is: has it been done in human history? These haven’t. So that’s hard. Now, SpaceX and Tesla are effectively competing over Musk,” Hoffmann added.

He noted how just last autumn, Tesla’s board argued it needed to pay Musk generously to keep him focused on the automaker. Musk, in fact, threatened to leave Tesla if shareholders failed to approve the plan, Tesla previously disclosed.

“What’s interesting about this situation is now, SpaceX and Tesla — both effectively controlled by Elon Musk — are now bidding against each other for his attention,” Hoffmann said.

Equilar Director of Research Courtney Yu also said the goals of colonising Mars and building space data centres stood out because he could not remember any other company aside from Tesla using metrics beyond standard financial ones, like measures of earnings or revenue to set CEO pay.

It is up to the boards of the respective companies — SpaceX and Tesla — to determine how best to structure Musk’s time, Yu said.

While a $7.5 trillion market capitalisation for SpaceX may seem extraordinary, Yu said in a telephone interview, “it does help with setting expectations for investors as to what the goals of the company really are”.

Nine million tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. That is the projected climate cost of the 48-team, three-country, 16-city soccer tournament that kicks off June 11 in Mexico City — nearly double the average emissions of every World Cup held between 2010 and 2022.

The figure comes from a peer-reviewed analysis published by Scientists for Global Responsibility, the Environmental Defense Fund, Cool Down, the Sport for Climate Action Network, and the New Weather Institute. Their conclusion: FIFA’s decision to expand the tournament and spread it across a continent has locked in a climate footprint that no amount of host-city recycling or LED lighting can offset.

Which makes the question of which host cities are doing serious sustainability work more important, not less. Their practices will outlast the tournament.

The Problem Is Structural

World Cup-related team air travel will account for roughly 7.7 million tons of CO2-equivalent — about 85% of the total, according to the SGR analysis. That is the direct consequence of two FIFA decisions. First, the tournament grew from 32 to 48 teams and from 64 to 104 matches. Second, FIFA chose to hold those matches across Canada, Mexico, and the United States rather than concentrate them in a single region.

The contrast with the previous tournament is stark. Qatar 2022 kept its eight stadiums within 34 miles of each other. The shortest distance between 2026 stadiums, from MetLife in New Jersey to Lincoln Financial Field in Philadelphia, is 95.5 miles. Most teams’ itineraries cover thousands of miles. One UEFA playoff winner, according to a Fossil Free Football analysis, could travel Toronto to Los Angeles (2,175 miles), then Los Angeles to Seattle (932 miles), then, in the knockout rounds, another 2,500 miles to Boston.

FIFA does not set binding emissions limits for host cities, and it did not address the underlying decision to spread the tournament across North America. SGR’s researchers urged FIFA to reverse the team expansion, set mandatory environmental standards, and end sponsorship deals with high-emitting companies, including the Saudi oil company Aramco, whose sponsorship is estimated to result in an additional 30 million tons of CO2e due to energy sales linked to the tournament’s promotion.

The Heat Risk Nobody Planned For

Climate change is not just an abstraction measured in tournament emissions. It is a condition players and fans will experience in real time. The SGR/EDF report assessed heat, flooding, and extreme weather risk at all 16 stadiums. Six face extreme heat stress due to Wet Bulb Globe Temperatures above 80°F, the threshold where exertion becomes dangerous. Eight of the 16 cities require what the researchers called immediate environmental intervention. Four need critical intervention, according to the report.

AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas, which will host nine World Cup matches — more than any other venue — experiences 37 days per year above 95°F, with July wet bulb readings that exceed FIFA safety thresholds.

Houston’s NRG Stadium faces simultaneous heat, flooding, and wildfire risk.

Los Angeles contends with wildfire smoke.

Miami faces hurricanes.

Where Host Cities Lead, and Where They Lag

A sustainability ranking published by World Sports Network in April 2026 attempts to score the 16 host cities across transit access, electric vehicle infrastructure, waste, air pollution, urban greening, and greenhouse gas emissions. The methodology has limits — it weights all factors equally, uses stadium-specific data alongside city-wide data, and includes some questionable proxies — but its directional finding is consistent with what urban sustainability researchers have long documented about the climate in North American cities.

Vancouver tops the rankings. British Columbia generates roughly 95% of its electricity from renewable sources, largely hydropower. BC Place sits in the center of Vancouver, with 26 public transit stops within a 10-minute walk. Fans can reach it by SkyTrain or bus. That single design decision eliminates most of the vehicle trips and parking-lot sprawl that define a typical U.S. stadium day.

Boston ranked second, the highest-scoring U.S. city. That is less about inherent greenness than about what severe flooding has forced the city to prepare for. Boston experienced 19 days of flooding in 2024, and sea levels around the city are projected to rise 20 centimeters by 2030 relative to 2000. The city’s Building Emissions Reduction and Disclosure Ordinance requires large buildings to cut emissions to net zero by 2050, with interim targets that have already tightened performance at Gillette Stadium’s surrounding infrastructure.

Mexico City placed third, Toronto fourth, Monterrey fifth. The pattern shows that four of the top five cities are outside the United States, even though 11 of the 16 host cities are American. Mexico City’s transformation from one of the most polluted major cities in the world into one of the Americas’ most active urban reforesters, with over 27 million trees and plants added between 2018 and 2021, is the kind of long-horizon work that does not fit inside a tournament timeline but shapes what that timeline makes possible.

The American Transit Problem

Every U.S. host city except Boston falls in the bottom half of the WSN ranking, and the reason is almost always the same: transit.

AT&T Stadium in Arlington has no public transit stops within a 10-minute walk. Hard Rock Stadium in Miami, which will host seven matches, sits 17 miles north of downtown Miami with no rail connection. SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, MetLife in East Rutherford, and NRG in Houston all require a car, a shuttle, or a rideshare for most attendees.

Dallas-Fort Worth is ranked third in the world for transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions, a structural problem no single event can fix. The Dallas organizing committee has built a sustainability plan in collaboration with the University of Texas at Arlington’s chief sustainability officer, Meghna Tare. It addresses waste management, single-use plastic reduction, composting, and community legacy. The North Central Texas Council of Governments has designed a charter bus system to fill the transit gap for the nine matches AT&T Stadium will host. These are real efforts. They also show that when infrastructure is car-dependent, event-specific workarounds can reduce harm but don’t substitute for the public transit that does not exist.

What This Means Beyond the Tournament

The 2026 World Cup will be a 34-day event watched by a projected 5 million in-person fans and up to 6 billion viewers worldwide. The emissions it generates will dissipate into an atmosphere that cannot tell tournament carbon from commuting carbon. What will persist are the infrastructure choices each host city makes now, including whether transit lines are extended or not, stadium renovations that meet LEED standards or do not, food recovery programs that continue operating after the final match or get packed away with the branded signage.

These are not reasons to hate world football. It’s the Beautiful Game, and its governing body, FIFA, can make changes to reduce the tournament’s impact and protect players from heat-related injuries.

The post The 2026 World Cup Will Be the Most Polluting Ever appeared first on Earth911.

Google has announced that users in India can now store Aadhaar-based verifiable credentials in Google Wallet, enabling secure and convenient identity verification for a range of everyday services.

The feature, developed in collaboration with the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), allows individuals to confirm their identity directly from their devices without relying on physical documents. It is designed with privacy safeguards such as selective disclosure, ensuring that only the necessary information is shared when required.

According to the company, the new capability can be used for purposes such as age verification at entertainment venues and facilitating trusted interactions across digital platforms. Early partners include PVR INOX for age checks and rewards, BharatMatrimony for verified profiles, and Atlys for simplifying international visa applications.

Additional collaborations are expected, with Mygate planning to use the system for verifying delivery and service personnel, and Snabbit exploring its use for trust-based checks within the gig economy.

Google said security, privacy and interoperability are central to the rollout, with the technology aligned to global standards for digital identity.

The company also highlighted similar developments in other markets, noting that users in countries such as Singapore, Taiwan and Brazil can now create digital ID passes linked to passport data and store them in Google Wallet for both online and in-person verification.

Digital identification tools are increasingly being positioned as a simpler alternative to physical documents, offering quick access and improved convenience.

Separately, Google said it has expanded its AI-powered Search Live feature worldwide, allowing users to engage in real-time, voice- and camera-based interactions. The update is supported by its latest model, Gemini 3.1 Flash Live, which the company says enables more natural and multilingual conversations.

With IANS inputs

China has stepped in to halt the proposed acquisition of artificial intelligence startup Manus by US technology group Meta, underscoring growing scrutiny over foreign involvement in advanced domestic technologies.

The country’s National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) announced on Monday that it would prohibit the foreign takeover of Manus, although it did not explicitly name Meta.

Al Jazeera reported that the intervention reflects rising concern in Beijing about the transfer of Chinese-developed AI expertise and intellectual property to overseas buyers, particularly from the United States.

The legal basis for overturning the deal remains unclear, especially given that Manus is headquartered in Singapore. It is also uncertain how regulators would unwind a transaction that has already been completed.

Manus, originally founded with Chinese ties but now operating from Singapore, develops general-purpose AI agents capable of carrying out complex tasks with minimal human input. The company has positioned itself as a player in next-generation automation tools.

In a brief statement, the NDRC said its decision was made in accordance with national laws and regulations. Meta, headquartered in California, responded by stating that the acquisition complied with all relevant legal requirements and that it expected a satisfactory outcome following discussions with regulators.

The dispute has drawn attention in Washington as well. A spokesperson for the White House said the US administration would continue to protect American technology firms from what it described as inappropriate foreign interference.

Meta first revealed plans to acquire Manus in December, in what was seen as an unusual move by a major US technology company to purchase an AI business with strong links to China. The acquisition was expected to bolster Meta’s artificial intelligence capabilities across its platforms.

At the time, Meta said the deal would eliminate any ongoing Chinese ownership in Manus and that the company would cease its operations within China.

However, Chinese authorities indicated in January that they would review whether the acquisition aligned with domestic regulations. The scrutiny followed a series of restructuring steps by Manus. After raising $75 million in a funding round led by US venture capital firm Benchmark in May 2025, the company shut its offices in China and laid off staff before shifting operations to Singapore.

This relocation allowed its parent company, Butterfly Effect, to re-establish itself outside China, potentially avoiding both US investment restrictions on Chinese AI firms and Chinese controls on the overseas transfer of technology and capital.

China’s attempt to block the deal comes shortly before a planned summit in Beijing between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in mid-May, adding another layer of tension to an already complex technological rivalry between the two countries.The intervention reflects rising concern in Beijing about the transfer of Chinese-developed AI expertise and intellectual property to overseas buyers, particularly from the United States.

The legal basis for overturning the deal remains unclear, especially given that Manus is headquartered in Singapore. It is also uncertain how regulators would unwind a transaction that has already been completed.

Manus, originally founded with Chinese ties but now operating from Singapore, develops general-purpose AI agents capable of carrying out complex tasks with minimal human input. The company has positioned itself as a player in next-generation automation tools.

In a brief statement, the NDRC said its decision was made in accordance with national laws and regulations. Meta, headquartered in California, responded by stating that the acquisition complied with all relevant legal requirements and that it expected a satisfactory outcome following discussions with regulators.

The dispute has drawn attention in Washington as well. A spokesperson for the White House said the US administration would continue to protect American technology firms from what it described as inappropriate foreign interference.

Meta first revealed plans to acquire Manus in December, in what was seen as an unusual move by a major US technology company to purchase an AI business with strong links to China. The acquisition was expected to bolster Meta’s artificial intelligence capabilities across its platforms.

At the time, Meta said the deal would eliminate any ongoing Chinese ownership in Manus and that the company would cease its operations within China.

However, Chinese authorities indicated in January that they would review whether the acquisition aligned with domestic regulations. The scrutiny followed a series of restructuring steps by Manus. After raising $75 million in a funding round led by US venture capital firm Benchmark in May 2025, the company shut its offices in China and laid off staff before shifting operations to Singapore.

This relocation allowed its parent company, Butterfly Effect, to re-establish itself outside China, potentially avoiding both US investment restrictions on Chinese AI firms and Chinese controls on the overseas transfer of technology and capital.

China’s attempt to block the deal comes shortly before a planned summit in Beijing between US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in mid-May, adding another layer of tension to an already complex technological rivalry between the two countries.

If you took one long-haul flight each year for the past decade, the world would eventually pay about $25,000 for it. You won’t see this charge on your credit card, but the cost shows up somewhere—maybe as a hotter field with less rice, a stronger hurricane, or a factory forced to close on days that are too hot to work. This estimate comes from a Nature study published in March 2026 by researchers at Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley. They created a new way to link damage from specific emissions to certain places and years.

That $25,000 figure is based on the social cost of carbon, a dollar estimate of the harm caused by releasing one ton of carbon dioxide into the air. While it might seem abstract, it is one of the most important numbers in American policy. It helps decide if a fuel-economy rule is worth it and influences permits for pipelines and power plants. Over the last four presidential administrations, this number has been raised, lowered, removed, and brought back. What we think a ton of carbon costs today affects how much the country is willing to do about climate change in the future.

What Is the Social Cost of Carbon?

Think of the cost of carbon like a garbage bill, the metaphor the authors of the Nature study use. When you put trash on the curb, someone has to pick it up, haul it away, and store it somewhere. You pay for that service. Carbon dioxide works the same way, except no one sends an invoice—it’s more like using a credit card, the bill for which your children or great-grandchildren will eventually pay.

Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for centuries, quietly heating the planet, damaging crops, intensifying storms, and wearing down economies. Somebody, somewhere, eventually pays. The social cost of carbon is an attempt to figure out how much.

The number comes from combining climate science with economics. Researchers model how one extra ton of CO₂ affects global temperatures over the next century or two, then estimate how those temperature changes damage human health, farm yields, labor productivity, property, and economic growth. They add up the losses and express them in today’s dollars.

Two technical choices drive almost every disagreement about the final number:

• Global versus domestic damages. Should the United States count the damage that occurs in India, Brazil, or Bangladesh from American emissions? Carbon mixes in the atmosphere — a ton released in Ohio warms the planet the same as a ton released in Mumbai — so the economic case for global accounting is strong. The political case for domestic-only accounting is that the US government works for Americans.
• The discount rate. This is the trickiest piece. Economists “discount” future damages to express them in present-day dollars. A higher discount rate makes future harm look cheap today; a lower one makes it look expensive. Using a 7% discount rate, $1 trillion in climate damage in 2100 is worth only about $4 billion today. Using 3%, the same damage is worth about $86 billion. Same science, same damage, twenty times the present value.

That second choice, how much weight to give your grandchildren’s losses compared to your own savings, is where climate economics becomes a moral question.

A Short History of a Disputed Number

2008: A Court Forces the Issue

Federal agencies ignored carbon pricing for most of the modern regulatory era. That changed after the Center for Biological Diversity sued the Bush administration over weak fuel-economy standards for light trucks and SUVs. In 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that assigning zero value to carbon emissions in cost-benefit analyses was “arbitrary and capricious.” The court stated: “the value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero.”

That decision created a legal obligation. If federal agencies wanted to write rules that survived court review, they had to put a price on carbon. They just did not yet have one they could agree on.

2009–2016: The Obama Administration Sets the Framework

In 2009, President Obama convened an Interagency Working Group of federal economists and scientists. In 2010, the group published its first official estimate of the social cost of carbon: $21 per ton of CO₂.

In the following years, as climate models were updated, the estimate rose, reaching about $50 per ton (2020 dollars) by the end of the Obama years. This value was based on a 3% discount rate and global damages.

That framework, which involved interagency process and peer-reviewed models with global scope, was used in more than 65 federal rules and 81 subrules between 2008 and 2016. It shaped appliance efficiency standards, power plant emission limits, fuel-economy requirements, and rules governing methane leaks from oil and gas infrastructure. A higher social cost of carbon justified stricter rules. A lower one did not.

2017–2020: The First Trump Administration Rewrites the Math

Within months of taking office, President Trump signed Executive Order 13783, disbanding the Interagency Working Group and withdrawing its estimates. The Trump EPA recalculated the social cost of carbon by counting only US damages and raising the discount rate to 3%-7%. As a result, Obama’s $52 per ton estimate fell to between $1 and $7 per ton.

That lower number was, as Resources for the Future explained, “too low to make climate policies economically justifiable.” Rules that had provided a cost-benefit analysis supporting strict emissions rules under Obama suddenly no longer did so. The Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece of Obama’s climate policy, was repealed partly on the grounds that the climate benefits recalculated with the lower number no longer exceeded the costs. According to Scientific American, the change in the social cost of carbon was “determinative” in at least half a dozen petroleum-sector rollbacks during the first Trump term. Simply, it gave emitters an easy out.

2021–2024: Biden Restores, Then Raises, The Price Sharply

Biden reinstated the working group and set an interim value of about $51 per ton, adjusted for inflation. Legal challenges from some states were dismissed.

In November 2023, EPA set a new central estimate for the social cost of carbon: $190 per ton for 2020 emissions, rising to $230 by 2030 and $308 by 2050. This increase drew on updated climate science, new economic models, a lower discount rate of 2%, and two decades of scientific progress clarifying warming’s impact on economic growth, climate-driven mortality, and previously understated risks.

Other governments took note. Canada adopted the updated EPA number in 2023. Germany adapted the underlying model for its own analyses in 2024.

2025: The Second Trump Administration Tries to Erase It

On his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14154, “Unleashing American Energy,” which disbanded the Interagency Working Group, withdrew its estimates, and directed EPA to consider eliminating the social cost of carbon from federal permitting and regulatory decisions entirely. The order called the metric “marked by logical deficiencies, a poor basis in empirical science, politicization, and the absence of a foundation in legislation.”

In March 2025, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin announced the agency would “overhaul” the social cost of carbon. In May 2025, a follow-up executive memorandum directed federal agencies to stop factoring climate-related economic damage into their regulations and permitting decisions, except where statute requires it.

Where agencies are still legally obligated to put a number on it, the administration has settled on an interim estimate of as little as $1 per ton of CO₂, a return to the first Trump administration’s methodology, with domestic-only damages and higher discount rates. The companion social cost of methane dropped from $1,470 per ton to $58. In July 2025, the White House guidance went further, instructing agencies that any required analysis  should be limited to “the minimum consideration required to meet a statutory requirement” and, where possible, should not be monetized at all. The practical effect: $1 per ton on paper, $0 in most decisions.

The cycle is now in its third full reversal since 2008. Each time the number changes, so does the federal government’s willingness to regulate emissions.

What the New Research Adds

The new study in Nature does something the federal estimates have never done well: it separates past damage from future damage, and it assigns both to specific emitters. Their framework treats every ton of CO₂ as an asset that pays out negative returns; it’s a garbage bill that keeps accruing interest. Using that framework, they found three things that reshape the conversation.

A ton of CO₂ emitted in 1990 has already caused about $180 in global damages by 2020. That same ton will cause an additional $1,840 in damages between now and 2100 — 10 times more.  Using the authors’ conservative assumptions, which use a 2% discount rate with damages capped at 2100, the social cost of carbon for a ton emitted today is approximately $1,013. That is more than five times the Biden EPA’s $190 estimate, and higher estimates are possible under longer time horizons or lower discount rates.

Settling the bill for climate damage that has already happened would only cover a small fraction of the damage still to come from the same emissions. Past payments do not clear past debts.

Individuals and Corporations Run Up the Carbon Bill

The study also puts numbers on the kinds of choices that fill everyday life.

• One extra long-haul flight per year for a decade produces roughly $25,000 in future discounted damages by 2100.
• Switching from a meat-heavy to a vegetarian diet for a decade avoids about $6,000 in future damages.
• Installing and using a heat pump for a decade results in an additional $6,000 in avoided damage.
• Cutting driving by 10%, another $6,000 less future cost.

At the corporate scale, the numbers are staggering. Emissions from Saudi Aramco’s fossil fuel production between 1988 and 2015 are estimated to cause $64 trillion in cumulative discounted damages through 2100. ExxonMobil’s comparable share: $29 trillion. These are bigger than the annual GDP of most countries.

Today’s Cost, Tomorrow’s Reality

The social cost of carbon can feel like a number on a page in a regulatory document. It is not. It is a bridge between the world you are living in now and the world you will inherit.

When the federal government uses a low social cost of carbon, or no number at all, it writes rules that allow more emissions. More emissions mean a hotter atmosphere, which means stronger storms, longer fire seasons, lower crop yields, higher air conditioning bills, and more days when outdoor work becomes dangerous. Those consequences do not arrive as a lump sum in 2100.

They arrive gradually, starting now, and compounding in the form of flood and wildfire damage, biodiversity loss, and even defense spending to prevent immigration. The Nature researchers emphasize that their estimates are almost certainly too low because GDP damage functions do not capture losses of biodiversity, loss of cultural homelands, harm to mental health, or many slow-moving impacts such as sea level rise.

When the federal government uses a high social cost of carbon, it writes rules that prevent emissions. Those rules have costs today, sometimes real ones, paid by workers in fossil fuel industries, by consumers adjusting to new standards, by companies retooling their operations. The social cost of carbon does not eliminate those costs. It weighs them against costs that will otherwise fall on other people, in other places, at other times. That weighing is a choice about who counts.

The history traced here is, in that sense, a history of that choice, and none of those decisions are final. Courts have repeatedly ruled that federal agencies cannot treat the value of carbon-emissions reductions as zero. The 2008 ruling that gave rise to this framework is still on the books. Whatever the current administration does, the legal obligation to account for climate damages in cost-benefit analysis remains, and the science underpinning the newer, higher estimates continues to strengthen.

The post The Price Tag on a Ton of Carbon: What It Is, Why It Keeps Changing, and What It Means for Your Future appeared first on Earth911.

Backdrop Multisites like Drupal

https://news.dact.in

This site is riding on the Main site DACT HQ. Like Drupal Multisite Backdrop has multiiste too.

https://backdropcms.org

#cms #opensource #webdev #tech

One of the most overlooked decisions on a commercial photo set is what everyone sees on the monitor.

[Read More]

TL;DR

Pros:

- Show-stealing dynamic between the protagonists

- Heartfelt story with a compelling and original premise

- Pretty, retro visuals and fantastic music

- Lighthearted, silly script to lift the mood

- Surprisingly good autism representation for 2011

- Highly affordable

Cons:

- Actual gameplay is minimal and a bit boring

- Very brief, if that bothers you

- Occasional interfacing glitches

Score: 6.5/7 — A simple, powerful and well-contained short romance

Reviewed on: PC; available on Windows (Steam, GOG, Humble Bundle), Linux, macOS, Android, iOS, and Nintendo Switch.

Price: $5.49 (Steam), $9.99 (GOG, Humble Bundle), $4.39 (Play Store), $4.99 (App Store), $15.11 (Nintendo Store)

With Moon Joy abounding after the success of Artemis II’s recent lunar flyby, I recently revisited an old favourite from my teenage years: To the Moon, written by Kan Gao and developed and published by Freebird Games. I don’t often replay games that aren’t designed for it — this one is straightforward, with only one route and storyline. But it’s so short and sweet that it’s easy to pick up again every now and then, like a well-loved book.

To the Moon was released in 2011 and still holds up. It’s humbly designed with RPG Maker XP, but hones in quickly on telling a sweet, heartfelt story — one you can probably finish in five hours if you take your time.

A trip down memory lane

The game’s premise is this: a technology by the fictional Sigmund Corp can create artificial memories. Instead of immediately turning evil, though, doctors use this technology to enter the minds of the dying, where they make careful memory alterations to create a life in which their patient’s greatest wishes came true, letting them die content.

It’s a simple and compassionate idea, executed with mastery in a single case study. Sigmund Corp doctors Eva Rosalene and Neil Watts take on the case of Johnny Wyles, an old man with one foot out the door. His only wish: to go to the moon. The catch? He has no idea why — it’s up to the doctor duo, hopping through his memories across his whole life to figure out his motivations, plant the seed early, and make his dream real (at least, to him).

To be clear: a lot of the game takes place in an old man’s head, and no impact is had on the reality outside of it. Yet it’s fantastically compelling, with the stakes of the mission holding massive emotional weight, and the unfolding of the story of Johnny’s life — alongside that of his wife, River — will leave you feeling at least somewhat tender by the end of it all.

Genre-blending concept with excellently written characters

To the Moon doesn’t overcomplicate things and I like that. It has a story to tell and gives its all to telling it. While I will not spoil the story itself, its deeply earnest delivery erases just about any skepticism over its implausible or cheesy aspects, and its cast of characters is small but mighty.

I don’t mean to say it’s an overly simplistic story: it keeps you guessing until the end, and it’s a fun ride all the way. The concept pulls elements from a variety of genres to make something altogether unique. In some ways it’s a peaceful mystery game where you investigate and connect dots, and in other ways it’s a romantic novel.

There’s even a touch of medical drama, given the concept of the game itself, and an unexpected splash of workplace comedy from the two bickering doctors. And, though you’re not actually time-travelling, it still feels like it, so add that to the list.

I find it a clever touch to have the focal characters, and the main romantic storyline, be entirely separate from our protagonist characters (and players) while still letting them share the spotlight. The story of Johnny and River is that much more compelling for being witnessed in reverse order by an external party, and the Sigmund Corp specialists are able to shine that much more in their roles as observers with a heavy responsibility.

While I’m on the topic of good writing and good characters: here’s another reason I revisited the game right now. April is Autism Awareness Month, and To the Moon features some autism representation that — while not necessarily perfect — is astonishingly thoughtful for 2011, even while some of the humour in other aspects is dated. I’m not exactly an expert, but I can say it never reduces its autistic characters (more than one!) to symbols, archetypes or moral lessons, and makes sure to give them voices of their own, presenting them as fully three-dimensional characters in their own right without downplaying the disorder itself. Revisiting this aspect of the story as a (now better-informed) adult was a matter of trepidation for me, so I’m happy to find that it holds up quite well.

A dynamic duo

While I must stress that I love the focal characters of Johnny’s story, they pale in comparison to the double act that is Eva and Neil, the ones working overtime to give it a happy ending.

Not ones for silent protagonism, these two unexpectedly steal the show with constant witticisms, snark, dated pop culture references and a great deal of heart.

Even though Eva appears more stoic, practical and by-the-book than the deeply unserious Neil, they’re both kind of clowns in their own way, and I love them to bits.

The duo works especially well as a duo because they’re clearly extremely familiar with each other already, despite getting on each other’s nerves like an old married couple. I love this because it means at no point do they feel like blank slates or player puppets: the script works hard to lend them their own lives, struggles and sharply contrasting personalities.

They also play off each other’s energy and make each other’s characters shine brighter, and — sue me — I love a power team.

(It bears mention here that these two have gone on to star in some more games featuring Sigmund Corp, which I also highly recommend for more of their overarching storyline.)

Minimal on interesting gameplay

The so-called ‘gameplay loop’ of To the Moon is not worthy of much mention. It mainly consists of moving RPG-style through the world and interacting with objects in Johnny’s memory to progress.

For a good while, the only concrete puzzle-solving happens when you find mementos – objects that are retained across Johnny’s life, forming a gateway to other memories — and are presented with an interface where you unscramble the tiles of a picture to progress to the next scene. While there are a couple of gameplay twists, they take a while to get to and are sometimes purely cosmetic.

Admittedly, that’s as underwhelming as it sounds. But to be fair, this isn’t really a game designed around gameplay. It’s not precisely a visual novel, but it gets close: a medium for experiencing a story, deprioritising challenge entirely. So I won’t judge it too harshly, except to say that a smidgen more variety or difficulty in Act One’s puzzle-solving wouldn’t go amiss.

The only other issue I noted was one of stability, in which sprites will occasionally interact weirdly with their surroundings and nearly softlock you out of progressing. That doesn’t happen often, though.

Nostalgic delight

Since half the gameplay experience is interfacing with the scenery, it’s nice that the scenery is lush even in its retro, pixellated trappings.

It uses an arsenal of textures and decorative elements to create a world that feels much larger than it is, with just enough pixel detail to portray a lot with a little. The latter especially jumps out in sprite animations.

But it’s the soundtrack that ends up cementing this game in S-tier territory, starring a sweet and uncluttered piano theme that’s memorable over a decade later (I say on good authority) and tracks that pull from melancholy and foreboding, to fun and downright whimsical in a John Williams-y way. It’s very orchestral, and delightfully nostalgic: Kan Gao is a master of musical composition, and any indie game with Laura Shigihara’s name in the credits holds promise at this point.

Verdict: Does it still hold up?

Yes. And for less than the price of a fancy coffee on Steam, you should definitely give it a go if you like romance, shenanigans and a well-written story with an emotional whack. Maybe not if you prefer your games with more gaming, though.

This is a sweet, refreshing palate-cleanser of a game that I only wish had a little more oomph to the puzzle-solving. It stands as a reminder that the humblest of games can earn their laurels through excellence in storytelling. And while it doesn’t really need a remaster, I’d play the heck out of one.

To the Moon is $5.49 on Steam, $9.99 on GOG and Humble Bundle, $4.39 for Android and $4.99 for iOS. The most expensive it gets is $15.11 in the Nintendo Store at full price.

China has selected two Pakistani candidates for astronaut training as part of its manned space programme, with one expected to participate in a future mission to the Tiangong space station, officials said on 22 April.

The China Manned Space Agency (CMSA) said Muhammad Zeeshan Ali and Khurram Daud have been chosen as reserve astronauts and will soon travel to China for training.

After completing training and evaluation, one of them will be selected to fly as a payload specialist, becoming the first foreign astronaut to travel to China’s Tiangong space station.

The selection follows an agreement signed last year between the CMSA (China Manned Space Agency) and SUPARCO (Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission) of Pakistan.

The agreement, signed during a visit by Pakistan Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to Islamabad, provides for joint efforts in selecting, training and eventually sending Pakistani astronauts to China’s space station.

Chinese state media reported that the selection process for foreign astronauts was completed earlier this month.

Strategic collaboration in space

China’s Tiangong space station, orbiting at an altitude of around 400 km, has been operational for nearly five years and is central to Beijing’s expanding space programme.

The inclusion of Pakistani astronauts marks the first time China has opened its human spaceflight missions to foreign participants, reflecting deepening strategic ties between the two countries.

China has also been assisting Pakistan’s space programme through satellite launches in recent years.

Global context and competition

The Tiangong station is often seen as an alternative platform to other space stations, including the International Space Station (ISS).

China developed its own station after being excluded from the ISS programme, reportedly over concerns regarding the role of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in its space activities.

India angle

The development comes as regional competition in space capabilities intensifies, with India advancing its own human spaceflight programme, including preparations under ISRO’s Gaganyaan mission.

The participation of Pakistani astronauts in China’s programme could add a new dimension to space collaboration dynamics in the region.

The Tiangong space station forms a key component of China’s long-term ambitions in space exploration, including crewed missions, scientific research and potential international partnerships.

The upcoming mission involving a foreign astronaut is expected to test China’s ability to integrate international participants into its spaceflight ecosystem.