Nature, Published online: 20 November 2024; doi:10.1038/d41586-024-03551-7An analysis has revealed that global temperatures were warmer in the early twentieth century than was inferred from existing data sets. Revising these estimates could improve our understanding of global temperature change.

Once again, global greenhouse-gas emissions are projected to hit a new high in 2024. In this time of shifting political landscapes and ongoing international negotiations, many are quick to blame one country or another for an outsize role in causing climate change. But assigning responsibility is complicated. These three visualizations help explain why and provide some perspective about the worlds biggest polluters. Greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuels and industry reached 37.4 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2024, according to projections from the Global Carbon Budget, an annual emissions report released last week. Thats a 0.8% increase over last year. Breaking things down by country, China is far and away the single biggest polluter today, a distinction it has held since 2006. The country currently emits roughly twice as much greenhouse gas as any other nation. The power sector is its single greatest source of emissions as the grid is heavily dependent on coal, the most polluting fossil fuel. The US is the worlds second-biggest polluter, followed by India. Combined emissions from the 27 nations that make up the European Union are next, followed by Russia and Japan. Considering a countrys current emissions doesnt give the whole picture of its climate responsibility, though. Carbon dioxide is stable in the atmosphere for hundreds of years. That means greenhouse gases from the first coal power plant, which opened in the late 19th century, are still having a warming effect on the planet today. Adding up each countrys emissions over the course of its history reveals that the US has the greatest historical contributionthe country is responsible for about 24% of all the climate pollution released into the atmosphere as of 2023. While its the biggest polluter today, China comes in second in terms of historical emissions, at 14%. If the EUs member states are totaled as one entity, the group is among the top historical contributors as well. According to an analysis published November 19 by the website Carbon Brief, China passed EU member states in terms of historical emissions in 2023 for the first time. China could catch up with the West in the coming decades, as its emissions are significant and still growing, while the US and EU are seeing moderate declines. Even then, though, theres another factor to consider: population. Dividing a countrys total emissions by its population reveals how the average individual in each nation is contributing to climate change today. Countries with smaller populations and economies that are heavily reliant on oil and gas tend to top this list, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and the United Arab Emirates. Among the larger nations, Australia has the highest per capita emissions from fossil fuels, with the US and Canada close behind. Meanwhile, other countries that have high total emissions are farther down the list when normalized by population: Chinas per capita emissions are just over half that of the US, while Indias is a small fraction. Understanding the complicated picture of global emissions is crucial, especially during ongoing negotiations (including the current meeting at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan) over how to help developing nations pay for efforts to combat climate change. Looking at current emissions, one might expect the biggest emitter, China, to contribute more than any other country to climate finance. But considering historical contributions, per capita emissions, and details about national economies, other nations like the US, UK, and members of the EU emerge as those experts tend to say should feature prominently in the talks. What is clear is that when it comes to the emissions blame game, its more complicated than just pointing at todays biggest polluters. Ultimately, addressing climate change will require everyone to get on boardwe all share an atmosphere, and were all going to continue feeling the effects of a changing climate. Notes on data methodology: Emissions data is from the Global Carbon Project, which estimates carbon emissions based on energy use. Territorial emissions take into account energy and some industry, but dont include land use emissions. Data from the European Union is the sum of its current 27 member states. The bloc is represented together because the EU generally negotiates together on the international stage. Historical emissions for some countries are disaggregated from former borders, including the former USSR and Yugoslavia. The per capita emissions map uses official World Bank boundaries, with the exception of Taiwan, which has separate emissions data in the Global Carbon Project. Western Saharas energy data are reported by Morocco, so its emissions are included in that total. Per capita emissions for Morocco are also used for Western Sahara on the map. More detailed information about the Global Carbon Project methods (including the particulars on how territorial emissions are broken down) is available here.

Google's DeepMind and YouTube previously built and shelved Orca, an AI music tool.Orca could generate music mimicking artists. Google trained it on copyrighted YouTube music videos.Google's AI strategy led to Orca's development. Legal risks halted its release.Name your favorite artist, choose a genre, and feed it some lyrics, and AI will create a song that sounds completely authentic.That was the vision of "Orca," a project Google's DeepMind and YouTube collaborated on and ultimately shelved last year after butting up against copyright issues, according to four people familiar with the matter, who asked to remain anonymous because they were not permitted to talk to the press.The tool, which was internally codenamed "Orca," let anyone generate music with just a few simple prompts. It was developed as Google scrambled to catch OpenAI.Users could generate a new song by giving Orca prompts like a specific artist, lyrics, and musical genre, said one person familiar with the project. For example, they could use the tool to generate a hip-hop song with the voice of Taylor Swift, that person said, adding that it was "mind-blowing."Google eventually approached some music labels about releasing the Orca tool to the public, offering a revenue-share agreement for the music and artists Orca trained from, and the labels demurred, forcing Google to put the brakes on the project, that person said, adding that it was a "huge legal risk."Orca is yet another example of how tech companies have moved at breakneck speeds to get ahead in the AI race. It also demonstrated how tech companies were willing to ride roughshod over their own rules to compete.Google had previously avoided using copyrighted videos for AI training. When OpenAI started scraping YouTube for its own models, Google leadership decided to be more aggressive and reneged on its rule, said a person with direct knowledge of Orca.Google has terms that allow it to scrape data from YouTube videos to improve its own service, although it's unclear if building an AI music generator would fall under this policy.Developments on Orca throughout 2023 were so promising that at one point, some employees suggested that giving it a codename after a killer whale wasn't a good idea if DeepMind was about to destroy an entire music industry, one person involved recalled.Some researchers inside Google had developed a similar model of their own, MusicLM, trained on "a large dataset of un-labeled music," as detailed in a paper published early last year.In November 2023, DeepMind announced a music generation AI model named Lyria, which was a pared-down version of the Orca project. Users could ask Lyria to generate music using the voice and music style of some artists who had explicitly worked with Google on the project, such as John Legend although it was far more limited in scope than Orca, three people familiar with the project said.Some employees who worked on Lyria and Orca left to found a new startup named Udio, which makes an AI music creation app.Google did not respond to a request for comment.Are you a current or former DeepMind or YouTube employee? Got more insight to share? You can reach the reporter Hugh Langley via the encrypted messaging app Signal (+1 628-228-1836) or email ().

Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, co-heads of DOGE, are figuring out how to cut the federal government.Both men admire Javier Milei, the Argentine leader elected on a pledge to slash the state.Milei closed nine ministries, firing thousands of officials, and the economy is feeling the effects.About a year ago, standing in front of a whiteboard with a gleam in his eye, Javier Milei started pulling apart Argentina's government."Ministry of Culture Out! Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development Out!" he yelled with escalating joy, shredding an org chart of the state.Soon after, he was elected his nation's president and started to make good on his program of massive spending cuts. Javier Milei pulls apart a chart of Argentina's state in a video published on September 9, 2023. TikTok/@javiermileii Watching admiringly were Vivek Ramaswamy and Elon Musk, the men now charged with a similar task in the US.Both men have praised Milei repeatedly, seeing in him a model for their Department of Government Efficiency.So, how has Milei's hack-and-slash agenda played out? And what could it mean for the federal government?'Just cut to the chase'Milei's program was swift and brutal.Within days of taking office, Milei shut down half of the country's 18 ministries by presidential decree.He fired some 25,000 public employees, and is working throughCuts of a similar scale in the US, with about seven times Argentina's population, would mean shedding 700,000 government workers.Milei also hacked back the Argentine equivalent of Social Security by an estimated third, canceled infrastructure projects, and froze budgets at the surviving ministries.This week, in an interview with the podcaster Lex Fridman, Milei said DOGE should act with speed too.When prompted for advice, he said, "Just cut to the chase."Milei described a physical timer in Argetina's deregulation ministry meant to focus minds by counting down days.Harsh medicineHis measures helped tame a crisis: Argentina's inflation was25.5%when Milei took office, and as of October, it was 2.7%.The government ran its first surplus in 12 years, and trimmed tens of billions from its national debt.It also spurred a recession and mass civil unrest as hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets and unions held regular strikes across the country.Economists told Business Insider that major differences in the US and Argentine economies make the two tough to compare.First Milei took power in an economic meltdown where inflation of 25.5% was hammering the economy.Milei solved that, said Maria Victoria Murillo, director of the Institute of Latin American Studies at Columbia University.But "the consequence was a deep recession that facilitated controlling inflation but has been very painful and is accepted because inflation was terrible and people do not want to go back.""I am not certain that would be the case in the US," she said. Argentinians have taken to the streets to protest against Javier Milei's economic policies since his election. Luciano Gonzalez/Anadolu via Getty Images Kimberley Sperrfechter, Capital Economics' Latin America Economist, noted that President-elect Donald Trump's policies mostly point to more state spending, not less. He explicitly ruled out changes to Social Security, the government's single biggest budget item.The US balance of power is also different. Milei was able to make his changes mostly by executive decree. As BI reported, Trump would have to contend with Congress, where Republicans have only slender majorities.The toast of Mar-a-LagoDOGE's leaders don't seem blind to that in August, Ramaswamy touted Milei as an inspiration but said Argentina was "much less complicated" an economy to overhaul.It hasn't dimmed Milei's popularity in Trumpworld.Milei was a guest of Trump's at Mar-a-Lago, the first world leader to meet him since his election victory, where he called his victory "the greatest political comeback in history."On the Fridman podcast, Milei advised Musk and Ramaswamy to go "all the way" in cutting US federal spending.Since Election Day, Ramaswamy and Musk have posted about Milei more than a dozen times: DOGE is readying its work with at least one eye on Buenos Aires.

Welcome to Know-It-All. In the age of intellectual property grabs, docudramas, and so very many sequels, it can be difficult to find a way into the complicated worlds we see on screen. In this series, Vox experts explain what you need to know to get into the latest hot release.Like a friendship between a popular blonde princess and a dour lime-skinned outcast, the story of Wicked is a bit more complicated than it looks. Wicked is billed as the true story of Glinda the Good and the Wicked Witch of the West, the very famous, very what-you-see-is-what-you-get witches from The Wizard of Oz. Its based on a well-loved, very catchy Broadway musical thats been around for 20-plus years. It also stars pop queen Ariana Grande and powerhouse Cynthia Erivo, and the movies very expansive, very expensive marketing campaign seemed determined to forever alter the way we think about pink and green.Wicked is everywhere. Surely it cant be that impenetrable! But did you know that the Broadway musical was based on Gregory Maguires revisionist novels which were, in turn, inspired by L. Frank Baums beloved series of over a dozen books about Oz? And that a major plot in the novels involves sentient, talking animals that love sonnets and science? Or that Wicked is really a political thriller about corrupt government officials scapegoating a minority and creating an enemy of the state?Beneath the movies airy aesthetics and its bubblegum pop moments is a broiling, chaotic tale of power, greed, and discrimination. The more you know about Wicked, the weirder and weirder it gets. With that in mind, I asked my colleague Constance Grady to help us navigate the world of Wicked and Oz. Grady has read Gregory Maguires original novel multiple times, the Baum novels as a child, seen the Broadway production, and like me, saw the movie this week. We discussed everything from anti-goat fascism, to Grandes delicious performance, to what from the book didnt make it into the adaptations. Heres what you need to know about the movie musical of the moment. Do I have this correct? Wicked is a movie musical adaptation of the Tony-winning Broadway show Wicked, which is an adaptation of the novel Wicked, which is a retelling of The Wizard of Oz. Youre right, but theres another adaptation layer in there.All those layers. The whole thing starts with the L. Frank Baum childrens novel The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, which he published in 1900. Baums book was so successful that it was almost immediately adapted into a Broadway musical of its own (now largely forgotten) and an entire franchise worth of sequels, 13 of which Baum wrote himself. Then in 1939 we got the most famous and, for most people, canonical version of the story: The Wizard of Oz, the Judy Garland film based on the Baum novel. The first Wicked was Gregory Maguires novel, first published in 1995 as Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. Maguires gimmick was to take Margaret Hamiltons cackling, green-skinned Wicked Witch of the West from the 1939 film surely one of childhoods scariest villains and make her the beating heart of his novel. He renamed her Elphaba, a name suggested by the initials of L. Frank Baum.Wicked the musical came in 2003, with music from Stephen Schwartz and a book by Winnie Holzman. It was a smash hit success when it came out, and its still running on Broadway now, 21 years later. Cynthia Erivo as Elphaba in Wicked. You cant tell here, but she is green. Wicked/UniversalThe musical was such a hit that Universal, which owns the rights, has had various versions of the film in development for a very long time now. Finally and at last, in 2021, Universal put director Jon M. Chu of Crazy Rich Asians on the task. Chu split the stage musical into two halves, with Wicked Part 1 to premiere in November 2024 and Wicked Part 2 set to come in 2025. And now here we are! Do you have a favorite? At different times, all of the Oz stories have been my favorites.I grew up on the 1939 movie like everyone else. When Dorothy opens the black-and-white door to her Kansas home and walks out into brilliant, Technicolor Oz? Thats what cinema was made for, baby! When I was around 8 or 9 I came upon the L. Frank Baum novels, and I was tickled to find that they contained such an expansive and playful mythology. I gobbled up those books like candy. Then at around 11 years old, I read Wicked and was entranced by it: all that moral complexity, all the political intrigue, all those slippery, winding sentences. When the musical came along, I immediately resented it for being a glitzier, simpler story than the book was really boiled down to the complicated friendship between Elphaba and Glinda, set against the backdrop of the Wizards manipulations but when I was 17 I saw it on Broadway and was overwhelmed by the sheer spectacle of it and the gleeful drive of the songs. When Elphaba started flying at the end of act one, I burst into tears. To be fair to 17-year-old you, there is at least one person, if not 10 to 20 people, bursting into tears at every performance when Elphaba defies gravity. Its a spectacle. Its monumental. Its as important to Broadway as the chandelier coming down in Phantom of the Opera.God, its truly so good. For that moment, I even forgive Schwartz for writing the lyric Nessa, Nessa, Ive got something to confess-a.Wicked is famously one of only six musicals I enjoy. And I feel like the movie sticks to the musical. How well do the musicals stick to the book? The musical is very, very loosely based on Maguires book.What Gregory Maguire wanted to write was a really sophisticated allegorical exploration of the nature of evil itself and what might drive Elphaba to wickedness. As such, his Wicked is bleak, at times self-indulgently so. Maguires Elphaba is raised by missionaries in a Southern Gothic childhood right out of Flannery OConnor. After she abandons both religion and schooling and is politically radicalized by the cause of Ozian Animal rights, she becomes a terrorist, complicit in multiple acts of violence against civilians. By the end, however much you might sympathize with Elphabas cause, you understand why people call her the wicked witch.Wicked: Part I (the official name of this movie) feels less like, Wow, this lady is really wicked, and more like, Oh, shes just misunderstood. Maybe we havent gotten to the full terrorist part yet, but I cant imagine Elphabas morality is ever going to be as ambiguous as the novel. Absolutely. The Wicked of the stage show is a much sweeter and sillier version of the story. Schwartz and Holzman ditch as much of the religion and the politics as they possibly can to focus on the relationship between Elphaba and Glinda, the Good Witch of the North or Galinda, as she originally calls herself. Ariana Grande as Glinda, the good witch. Wicked/UniversalMaguire imagined Glinda as Elphabas college roommate, and shes key to Elphies college years, but he largely abandons her after Elphie drops out of school to go into politics. Schwartz and Holzman, however, make comic, superficial Glinda into the heart of the story. Perhaps in part to make room for the shift in focus, Elphabas misdeeds are significantly toned down, and as for Maguires dark, heartbreaking ending lets just say it gets, um, revised.The movie convinced me that Glinda is actually the splashier, better-written role. Ive always envisioned Glinda as an SEC-coded mean girl blonde, bubbly, a bit passive aggressive rather than aggressive aggressive. Grande gets us there, and seems to really understand what makes this character so surprisingly funny. So buy or sell: Oscar nominee Ariana Grande?Oh, man. I buy.This movie struggles a lot with its tone. It doesnt know whether it wants to be as silly as the stage musical or as serious as the Maguire book, and as a result, it ends up veering wildly around. The only element of this movie that never has this problem is Grandes performance. Grande nails it top to bottom. She makes spoiled, selfish Glinda so gleefully mean, so deliciously phony in all her virtue-signaling, that you want to laugh at her the way you would laugh at Regina George and then she shows you Glindas tender, insecure heart, and you fall in love with her. Grande has always had an uncanny knack for vocal mimicry, and here she pitches her speaking voice into something halfway between Judy Garlands earnest Dorothy tones and the distinctive showbiz patter of Kristin Chenoweth, who originated the role of Glinda on Broadway. You wouldnt think you could combine the two, but Grande does, and she makes it make sense. As for the singing well, that kind of goes without saying, doesnt it? Shes in phenomenal voice.Whatever happens with the Oscars race this year, Ill know that Grande is the Academy Award nominee of my heart.Tonally, the movie goes from Legally Blonde to The Fugitive. The last 10 minutes are absolutely bonkers. What in the world?Yikes, right? For me, this tonal mismatch is the big flaw of the film, and I think its a byproduct of this very long and winding adaptation process. When Schwartz and Holzman adapted Maguires Wicked, they stripped away as much of his rather baroque mythologizing as they could while still allowing the plot to make a modicum of sense. The vibe of this musical is generally: Why go on and on about the ontological differences between humans and animals if we could be singing fun bops about being popular? It doesnt all have to be so serious all the time.In their version of the story, the Wizards plans are vague, but clearly evil, and Elphabas resistance to his regime is likewise vague, but clearly righteous. The Wizards main sin in the stage musical is that he is lying to his people to stoke up their fears and marshal support to his own side, because this musical hit Broadway in 2003, when George W. Bush was just about to invade Iraq. Other than that, we dont know that much about why hes so bad. We dont really care, either. It all pretty much works if you just sit back in the theater and let the songs wash over you.Chu, however, takes Wicked very seriously indeed; so much so that hes stretched out the musicals 90-minute first act into a lugubrious two hours and 40 minutes, mostly by keeping the pacing slow and solemn. The side effect of moving so slowly, though, is that it puts a lot of pressure on the political subplot of this musical to not only make sense, but to be emotionally impactful. Unfortunately, all of the background that could make it work got left behind in Maguires novel. Are we supposed to care this much about anti-animal fascism in the movie? Or the musical? Do the people who adapted Wicked care that much?Yeah, this is one of the big plotlines where the cracks in the adaptation show. It also makes for a kind of interesting timeline of how different authors have thought about Oz.One of the inconsistencies of L. Frank Baums Oz is that its a land where animals can talk and go on quests and be guests at dinner parties, and so on youll recall the Cowardly Lion but also all the characters are constantly eating meat. Its the kind of minor quirk in world-building that a childrens book can skate right over, but it becomes weird and confusing in an adult novel.So when Maguire wrote Wicked, he imagined an Oz that distinguished between Animals, who are talking and intelligent beings who wear clothes and hold jobs and can be invited to dinner parties, and animals in lowercase, who are non-sentient and can be killed or treated as chattel. In Maguires Oz, the Wizard consolidates his power in part by making the Animals into a scapegoat race. Emphasis, quite literally, on goat. Over the course of the novel, we see them go from full citizens to living under restrictions to slaves who are occasionally cooked and eaten. Elphaba is radicalized into terrorism when her favorite college professor, the Goat and Animal rights agitator Doctor Dillamond, is assassinated by the government. Doctor Dillamond, voiced by Peter Dinklage. This is a CGI goat. I (Alex) do not particularly enjoy looking at CGI goats. Wicked/UniversalWhen Schwartz and Holzman got their hands on the story, they were transforming it once again into a childrens tale, so they didnt particularly have time for this piece of world-building. They ditched the distinction between Animal and animal, so that Doctor Dillamond becomes a guy in a silly goat costume who exists to nudge Elphaba into realizing that the Wizard might not have her best interests at heart. It would be a stretch to think that the stage musical really wants the audience to care about animals in general, or Doctor Dillamond in particular.Chu, characteristically, seems to want to give the animal plotline more gravitas. He makes Dillamond an eerily photorealistic CGI goat who appears in one of Elphabas visions shivering and cringing in a cage, in a dark foretelling of the Wizards eventual goals. Under Chus solemn and slightly heavy-handed touch, you can feel how important the animal rights plotline is to Elphabas character arc. But the part of Maguires novel that made you care about the animals, and about Elphabas commitment to their freedom, was jettisoned long ago. Its an uneasy balance.This contradiction is part of why, I think, Grandes Glinda feels so much like a breath of fresh air whenever she appears on screen. The part of this story that Schwartz and Holzman cared about was Glinda and Elphaba, so thats the part of the story architecture that remains rock solid. No matter what happens, you cant not root for their friendship.Are we going to get more of that in Wicked: Part II? Are people going to want to see the second half of this musical if its all about authoritarianism? I am very curious to see how Chu handles Wicked: Part II, because the second act of Wicked is famously much worse than the first half. All the iconic songs are over by then (although personally, I quite like No Good Deed), the storytelling gets bogged down in mythology that never becomes either clear or interesting, and Glinda and Elphaba spend most of the act in separate places, effectively depriving the show of its strongest dynamic for long stretches of stage time. In the stage show, youre generally invested enough in the characters on the strength of the first half to sit through the second half with minimal complaints, but for that act two to hold its own for a full movie? Tricky! As for the anti-animal fascism, though, we can all breathe easy. As originally staged, Wickeds act two focuses on the animal rights plotline for exactly as long as it takes to hook Elphaba up with her iconic flying monkeys and not a single second longer. Well see if Chu keeps it that way.Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More: Culture

During his campaign, President-elect Donald Trump had a pointed tagline for his energy policy: Drill, baby, drill.That statement is emblematic of where Trump is poised to focus his efforts in a second term: Hes pledged US energy dominance and everything from new pipelines to new refiners that amp up fossil fuel production. This approach marks a stark shift from the Biden administrations and puts the USs emphasis more heavily on producing oil and gas than on attempting a transition to clean energy sources. In addition to touting the need to boost fossil fuels, Trump has disparaged subsidies for clean energy investments and called for terminat[ing] the funds that were allocated for those subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act. His stance ignores the role that burning fossil fuels has played in climate change and could cause considerable harm to US efforts to address the issue. Related:Several of his nominations are indicative of these goals. Hes chosen oil industry executive Chris Wright a fracking evangelist to head up the Department of Energy. Hes named North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum who connected Trump to oil executive donors during the campaign as the lead for the Interior Department and as an energy czar. Hes also tapped former Rep. Lee Zeldin whos emphasized his commitment to deregulation as his chief of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Theres only so much the administration can control, however. Although Trump can take notable steps to try to increase fossil fuel production, actual upticks in oil and gas extraction will depend heavily on the private sector and the economics of the industry. Still, while Trump faces some constraints, he has significant policy levers he can pull to encourage production of fossil fuels. Wright, Burgum, and Zeldin have also signaled theyre prepared to execute on the president-elects vision, including changes to drilling on public lands and speedier permitting for oil and gas projects. President Trump and his energy team Mr. Burgum, Mr. Wright, Mr. Zeldin can go to considerable lengths to make expanded production attractive and relatively easy, Barry Rabe, a University of Michigan environmental policy professor, told Vox. How Trump could increase fossil fuel productionTrump has two key avenues he can utilize to boost fossil fuel production. One, he can open up more public lands and waters for exploration, development, and extraction. Two, he can ease the regulatory processes that govern fossil fuel work.Trump could offer more oil and gas leases on public landsAs president, Trump will oversee the Interior Department, which includes the Bureau of Land Management as well as the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, both of which manage a substantial fraction of the countrys public lands and waters. Hell also oversee the Agriculture Department, which contains the Forest Service, another body that has oversight of some public lands. The Bureaus of Land Management and Ocean Energy Management, as well as the Forest Service, are the three main entities that issue oil and gas leases on public spaces. These leases effectively allow fossil fuel companies to rent parcels of public land from the federal government so they can extract resources from these areas. Once land is designated as available for lease, leases are typically auctioned off to the highest bidder.Those bureaus, and the Forest Service, have major discretion to determine if more leases can be issued and where. But the president can issue an executive order instructing them to prioritize the subject: Trump could call on agencies to make identifying suitable public lands a top agenda item, for example. If you have an administration that says we want everything that could be leased to be leased, theres a lot of discretion to be able to do that, says Stan Meiburg, the executive director of the Center for Environment and Sustainability at Wake Forest University. Trumps first term, during which he also made moves to expand the acreage of public lands available for oil and gas drilling, is likely a sign of whats to come. Per a study from Science, he mounted one of the largest reductions in protected public lands in history, rolling back the acreage of Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument to allow for additional oil and gas exploration in these places.Data from the Bureau of Land Management shows that there was an increase in total acres offered for oil and gas leases during Trumps first term compared to President Barack Obamas second term and Joe Bidens current term. Though Trump could again expand the number of leases available, its important to note that wont necessarily translate to more production. Leases are subject to environmental rules that means new leases could well be challenged in court for potential violations of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, or other federal laws. Another factor could limit production too: corporate interest. Companies may not be interested in these new leases since many of the parcels might not be home to fossil fuels. And businesses could also lease the land but fail to utilize it. The White House could make expanding production easier for the private sectorThe second avenue Trump could pursue is rolling back regulations to make fossil fuel production easier and faster for the private sector.Much of this will involve undoing policies the Biden administration put in place like the pause on permits for liquefied natural gas exports and expediting federal approvals for oil- and gas-related projects. Trump could use the executive branchs authority to rescind certain proposals. For other rules, the White House could need Congresss help. By utilizing whats known as the Congressional Review Act, Congress has the ability to roll back rules that agencies have recently put in place. In other cases, it might need to pass new legislation: The EPA has just begun imposing a methane fee on oil and gas companies, and because that fee was included in the Inflation Reduction Act, it would need an act of Congress to undo. Under it, these businesses must curb their methane emissions or suffer a financial penalty. Repealing policies like the methane fee and the natural gas export permit pause would curb the restrictions oil and gas companies currently face, creating more opportunities to export products abroad and making fossil fuel production less costly. Another area where both the administration and Congress have power to ease regulation is on the issue of permitting reform. Currently, any oil and gas project such as building a new pipeline must go through many layers of approval by federal agencies like the EPA. (Many clean energy infrastructure projects also need to go through this process.) For these projects, companies have to obtain a hefty number of permits, slowing their ability to execute on these plans. The Biden administration managed to outstrip the pace at which the Trump administration issued permits for drilling on public lands. Under Trump, federal agencies could try to further streamline such approvals, says Mark Squillace, a University of Colorado-Boulder Law School professor and former staffer at the Interior Department. We certainly could see some efforts to pull back on environmental standards, to make it easier to permit different kinds of facilities, Squillace told Vox. Trump could also take executive action to direct agencies to cut as many unnecessary steps as possible and to simplify their processes. More expansive permitting reforms, like policies that put firm limits on the time needed for legal challenges and federal approvals of a project, would need the backing of Congress, however, and have had bipartisan support in the past.The combination of loosening restrictions currently placed on oil and gas companies and making new projects easier to pursue all tie back to Trumps pledge to slash the red tape on the industry. As is the case with expanding access to public lands, its not clear that these policy changes will result in more fossil fuel production since much of that will depend on how private companies respond.Trump can make production a little easier, but the market for fossil fuels is also a factorDuring the Biden administration, the US produced more oil and gas than any country in the world. Companies incentives to increase production will depend on whether they think its financially sound for them. As more countries including the US have invested in clean energy sources, there is more competition in the market, which could factor in to whether businesses see it as a smart move to dial up their fossil fuel output if given the chance.As we watch a movement toward more solar and wind development, there is less demand for the oil and gas products that weve been producing, Squillace says. Though the administration has stressed that its all-in on fossil fuels, its not evident that it can turn away from clean energy investments to the degree that Trump has urged. Defunding the subsidies in the Inflation Reduction Act, for instance, would prompt legal challenges, short of an actual repeal by Congress. The administration could well take some contradictory stances, too. Although Trump has long denigrated energy sources like offshore wind and subsidies for electric vehicles, his allies include Tesla CEO Elon Musk, whos the head of an EV company. Musk is among the tech leaders whove attained notable influence in the administration and who also has deep ties with the government due to his role leading SpaceX. All of this means that, ultimately, even though Trump will have the power to try making good on this campaign pledge, it may not work out the way he promised. Youve read 1 article in the last monthHere at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country.Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change.We rely on readers like you join us.Swati SharmaVox Editor-in-ChiefSee More:

It's Wednesday, which means a whole host of new Team of the Week players are coming to EA FC 25. From Haaland to Ronaldo, here are the biggest upgrades for EA FC players in TOTW 10.

Why we still havent begun our Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 reviewNick GillettNick GillettPublished November 21, 2024 8:58amUpdated November 21, 2024 8:58am Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 itd be nice if it worked before 2025 (Xbox Game Studios)Two days after it first launched and its still impossible to play Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024, as it suffers server and other technical problems.Its easy to be cynical when publishers withhold review copies until a games day of release. The immediate assumption is that they know theyve got a dud on their hands and are trying to hide it until the last possible moment.Often thats exactly why it happens but sometimes there are mitigating circumstances, especially if its an online-only game or a developer has been rushing to get it ready to hit an inflexible release date.In the case of Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 its non-availability before launch was explained, by Microsoft, as being due to the online services not being ready and a planned day one patch update for Xbox and PC. As excuses go, that one didnt sound too worrying. The problem is those online services are still not working and as we write this the game has already been out for two days.The reality of Flight Simulator 2004s situation has turned out to be something wearyingly familiar, especially as it comes only a few days after the fourth anniversary of Cyberpunk 2077s nightmare launch.On trying to start Flight Simulator 2004, which despite being single-player requires an always-on Internet connection to play it, we were greeted with a static Login Queue screen explaining, Too many users are trying to connect at the same time. Apparently having a large number of players trying to play a triple-A title on launch day was a situation nobody had considered in advance.The queue later changed to a server error, and the following day gave way to downloading several gigabytes of assets, which seemed positive until the download froze at 97%. Restarting the game the same thing happened.Later in the day we were able to complete that process, only to have the game freeze in the set-up menus. Rebooting our Xbox Series X, we got to the same screen in set-up before it froze again. And again. And again.A number of PC players have managed to load the game, and theyre already complaining of a litany of glitches, broken textures, and performance issues. The fact that its been review-bombed down to 1/10 on Steam is perhaps understandable given the scale of disappointment.Reader Saints Stickman summed it up nicely in Wednesdays Inbox: So, Microsoft want us all to believe that cloud gaming is the future. Yet they release Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 today and all you get is a message saying, too many users are trying to connect at the same time.Thats the software installed locally on an Xbox Series X just trying to connect to the servers. If the infrastructure cannot handle that, then how are they ever going to handle streaming the game down too! The only cloud they are in is Cloud Cuckoo Land!It also raises the long-standing concern of whether you actually own a game when you buy it digitally, especially when, through no fault of your own, you then cant play it. The rise of digital purchases shows no sign of stopping and yet Flight Simulator 2024 makes a very clear argument against it.More TrendingReader Cassius2K alludes to exactly that in the same Inbox: In a world where people buy digital and never actually own it, the top version is 199.99. Thats a lot of money.It certainly is, and its a reminder that rules around digital ownership may need to be tightened up to prevent companies we buy from being able to withdraw rights to a game, film or piece of music whenever they feel like it or happen to be experiencing technical difficulties.It would be different if there were a built-in compensation process if your train doesnt run on time you get a partial refund but despite prices for games that stretch well over 100, gamers have no recourse except venting their anger on Steam. If you cant play the game you bought, tough luck. Nothing about that seems fair.We look forward to reviewing Flight Simulator 2024 and will do so as soon as its in a playable state. Unfortunately, we have no idea when that will be. Microsoft Flight Simulator 2024 flights have been delayed (Xbox Game Studios)Emailgamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below,follow us on Twitter, andsign-up to our newsletter.To submit Inbox letters and Readers Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use ourSubmit Stuff page here.For more stories like this,check our Gaming page.GameCentralExclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content.This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

Retro rivalries: Tomb Raider vs. UnchartedSteve BoxerSteve BoxerPublished November 20, 2024 6:00pmUpdated November 20, 2024 6:01pm Tomb Raider vs. Uncharted a battle of equals? (Sony Interactive Entertainment/Embracer Group/Metro)For over a decade, Tomb Raider and Uncharted have slugged it out for the affection of gamers but how did things start and what is the future for both series?Even the greatest rivalries can take years to develop and when Tomb Raider was released (initially only on the Sega Saturn) in 1996, there was no hint that it would end up as one half of a double act. Even so, its difficult to overstate the impact it made on a previously unsuspecting game-playing public. It may seem incredible now, but it was the first successful action adventure game to feature a female protagonist. And what a protagonist: Lara Croft was blue-blooded, seductive, totally kickass, and able to wield a gun in each hand while pulling off gymnastic moves.By the time Tomb Raider 2 was released in 1997, Lara Croft had appeared on the cover of The Face and been the subject of a feature in The Economist. She was also famously co-opted into Tony Blairs Cool Britannia circus. Ian Livingstone, at that time CEO of original Tomb Raider publisher Eidos Interactive, later told me the company had only pressed 100,000 copies of the first Tomb Raider at launch and ended up selling 5 million.Eidos was not slow to capitalise on its hit: Tomb Raider 3 followed in 1998 and Tomb Raider: The Last Revelation in 1999. The series became associated with the parallel success of the original PlayStation, with Eidos negotiating a console exclusivity clause with Sony that made Lara Croft a de facto console mascot.But Eidoss eagerness to milk its cash cow and the aforementioned affinity with the PlayStation nearly bred disaster. Things went pear-shaped when original developer Core Designs failed to get to grips with the complexities of programming for the PlayStation 2 (launched in 2000), which led to the disastrous release of Tomb Raider: Angel Of Darkness originally slated for a 2002 release but delayed until 2003.Angel Of Darkness was a hot mess not only was it hopelessly buggy (then Sony Europe boss Chris Deering subsequently told me that had it not been a Tomb Raider game he would never have allowed it to be certified for release) but its attempt to redefine the well-worn Tomb Raider format, placing Lara in a near-empty Paris that was supposed to function as a sort of world hub, fell hopelessly flat.Tomb Raider survived the disaster that was Angel Of Darkness, but Core Design did not. Eidos subsequently entrusted development duties to San Francisco-based Crystal Dynamics and one of the games industrys first successful franchise reboots was the result. Crystal Dynamics first effort, 2006s Tomb Raider Legend, got things back on track in fine style and Lara was reborn, with a less anatomically infeasible figure and a generally more realistic tone. Tomb Raider I-III Remastered is still plenty of fun today (Aspyr)And at that point, one of the games industrys great rivalries was born. In 2007, Uncharted: Drakes Fortune was released to the world. One of the first major first party releases for the PlayStation 3, it was published by Sony and developed by Naughty Dog, who were then best known for Crash Bandicoot and Jak & Daxter.In Nathan Drake, it may have had a male protagonist, but Uncharted: Drakes Fortune had more than a mere whiff of Tomb Raider about it to the point where some nicknamed it Dude Raider. Third person action adventure gameplay involving gunplay, platforming, and puzzle-solving with an Indiana Jones style archaeological bent? Check. Exotic locations? Check. Rock-climbing? Of course.Playing Drakes Fortune felt like playing a Tomb Raider game, albeit with the best production values a mid-2000s video game could muster. There was also a strong cast of supporting characters, who were interesting and complex (Laras cohorts are rarely anything less than annoying) and some equally involving storylines. Indeed, story-wise, Drakes Fortune had much more to offer than any previous Tomb Raider game and in graphical terms it felt more state-of-the-art.Laras fierce fanbase would counter that it lacked Tomb Raiders more complex platforming and puzzles, while also accusing Uncharted of copyism: Tomb Raider, of course, was already a decade old as a franchise, before the first Uncharted was released.Discerning gamers, with no particular bias, would contend that two quality action adventure franchises, however similar, were surely better than just one. And for the next decade the rivalry raged in the best possible way for gamers: with a steady stream of great games.In 2007 Tomb Raider: Anniversary a well-received remake of the original Tomb Raider went up against Uncharted: Drakes Fortune. It was swiftly followed by Tomb Raider Underworld in 2008, the final game in Crystal Dynamics initial trilogy of titles.Naughty Dog hit back with Uncharted 2: Among Thieves in 2009, which was showered with both critical praise and a hatful of awards. Still considered by many to be the best in the series, it was the point at which Uncharted became one of Sonys most important new franchises and Naughty Dog was recognised for their storytelling and character work, as much as for their gameplay and graphics.We then had to wait until 2011 for Uncharted 3: Drakes Deception, which was very good, even if it never eclipsed its predecessor. But Tomb Raider wasnt done yet: 2013s gritty reboot, simply entitled Tomb Raider, sparked a new trilogy which clearly borrowed some elements from Uncharted. Most notable was a new-found ability to drop into first person mode and free aim bows and guns, plus a multiplayer element as seen in Uncharted 2. Its still unclear what the reboot trilogys legacy will be (Square Enix)The Tomb Raider reboots depiction of a young Laras origin story breathed a new lease of life into the legendary franchise and Crystal Dynamics, unsurprisingly, capitalised on it. Next up in the new trilogy was 2015s Rise Of The Tomb Raider and then in 2016 Naughty Dog released the last mainline entry in the Uncharted series and the first not to involve co-creator Amy Hennig.Uncharted 4: A Thiefs End had a slightly more serious tone, and no supernatural elements, and was followed up by half-sequel Uncharted: The Lost Legacy, in which players controlled the female character Chloe Frazer, making it the most Tomb Raider-like Uncharted game of all.Crystal Dynamics second trilogy, begun in 2013, was concluded in 2018 with Shadow Of The Tomb Raider, which again garnered critical praise, and sold well, although not spectacularly.And then nothing. Since 2018, both franchises have been dormant and their hugely enjoyable rivalry, lasting over a decade, has evaporated. Will we see either franchise resurrected? Currently, its hard to say, and there are worrying reasons why.As far as Tomb Raider is concerned, its most recent publisher, Square Enix (which subsumed Eidos in 2009) sold Crystal Dynamics and the Tomb Raider intellectual property to Embracer Group in 2022. 2024 was an annus horribilis for Embracer Group; after an overoptimistic bout of expansion, it was forced to restructure and laid off more than 4,500 employees. Tomb Raiders future has been assured but still nothing has been shown of the game and fans are understandably worried.Meanwhile, Uncharted 4 was a very purposeful ending for the franchise, at least as far as protagonist Nathan Drake Is concerned. Naughty Dog has made it very clear theyre not returning to the series but, especially after the release of the live action movie, theres been persistent rumours of Sony getting a different developer to work on a new entry.More TrendingHowever, away from video games, both franchises continue to exert major cultural influence. The rivalry between the two moved into a new arena in 2022, when an Uncharted film was released, starring Tom Holland as Nathan Drake and Mark Wahlberg as Sully. A sequel is already underway.Tomb Raider, of course, has existed in the movie space since 2001s Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, in which Angelie Jolie portrayed Lara, returning for a sequel in 2003, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider The Cradle of Life. More recently, Alicia Vikander took over celluloid Lara duties in 2018s Tomb Raider.Head to Netflix and youll find a newly released anime series entitled Tomb Raider: The Legend of Lara Croft and Phoebe Waller-Bridge is reportedly working on a new live action Tomb Raider series for Amazon Prime, possibly involving Sophie Turner in the lead role.While both franchises live on via TV and film there almost certainly will be new entries in both series within the next couple of years. In fact, given the timings involved theres a good chance theyll come out at roughly the same time, opening up a new era in their mutually beneficial rivalry. Nathan Drake may have had his last starring role, in games at least (Sony Interactive Entertainment)Emailgamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below,follow us on Twitter, andsign-up to our newsletter.To submit Inbox letters and Readers Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use ourSubmit Stuff page here.For more stories like this,check our Gaming page.GameCentralExclusive analysis, latest releases, and bonus community content.This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Your information will be used in line with our Privacy Policy

It has thus far shed light on everything from organ formation to the causes of inflammation