Science
These scientists think an 'awe'-some eclipse could help unite Americans in troubled times
To hear Herodotus tell it, a total solar eclipse in 585 BC ended a five-year war between ancient kingdoms in present-day Turkey.
Could another total eclipse on Monday bring an end to the partisan wars in America?
The idea may sound far-fetched — until you talk with Paul Piff. The UC Irvine professor of psychology and social behavior has spent the better part of two decades researching what triggers us to set our personal needs aside and shift our focus to the greater good.
One of them, he and other scholars have found, is awe: the feeling you get when you contemplate something that is so vast and so mysterious that it forces you to reevaluate your understanding of the world.
And few things generate awe like watching the moon blot out the sun and plunge a sunny day into erie darkness.
“People talk about eclipses as one of the coolest or most mind-blowing things they’ve ever seen,” Piff said.
For the Great American Eclipse of 2017, Piff launched a research study that showed people engulfed by the moon’s shadow experienced more awe than their counterparts who didn’t see the sun disappear. What’s more, that sense of awe seemed to make them feel more in touch with others, more open to differing points of view, and more inclined to put someone else’s needs ahead of their own.
Piff is of the opinion that the country could use more of those sentiments this year, as a contentious presidential race threatens to turn political opponents into sworn enemies.
Awe “gives you a sense of feeling connected to something bigger than yourself, like your community, your society or your world,” he said. “Getting people to feel that way is totally vital to our species’ survival and longevity.”
Monday’s eclipse offers a fresh opportunity to assess the emotional states of the tens of millions of Americans who are expected to gather in the path of totality. Piff plans to focus on whether the celestial event will make those who experience it feel more allied with their fellow Americans who belong to a rival political party.
Jennifer Stellar, a social psychologist who studies emotions at the University of Toronto, sees reason for optimism. She said awe is an ideal tool for trying to reduce political polarization.
Emotions like gratitude and compassion tend to pull one’s focus outward, but in those cases it’s usually redirected toward a single person, she said. Awe is unique in that “it creates a sense of interconnection, of common humanity, of collective interest.”
The community-oriented mind-set documented in the wake of the 2017 eclipse wore off within six weeks, Piff and his collaborators found.
What would it take to make it last?
If you’ve ever found yourself mired in an anger spiral, paralyzed with fear or overwhelmed by debilitating grief, you may have wondered what emotions are good for. Experts assure they serve a useful purpose.
“Negative emotions narrow your attention, get you to focus on threats. Positive emotions broaden your mind,” said psychologist Dacher Keltner, faculty director of the Greater Good Science Center at UC Berkeley.
Keltner’s lab has studied positive feelings like amusement, compassion, gratitude and love. But his favorite emotion is awe. (He even wrote a book about it called “Awe: The New Science of Everyday Wonder and How It Can Transform Your Life.”)
“Awe is destabilizing,” Keltner said. “It makes you realize your knowledge can’t explain everything.”
Awe is also a universal emotion, expressed by people across countries and continents. No matter where we’re from, awe makes us widen our eyes and open our mouths.
The fact that it emerged in so many disparate cultures around the world is one indication of awe’s usefulness, Piff said. What’s more, societies have ritualized ways to get regular hits of awe, whether it’s walking into a majestic church or visiting the Grand Canyon.
When Piff investigates the effects of awe, he prompts study subjects to feel it by asking them to look up into the canopy of a stand of towering eucalyptus trees or by watching a slow-motion video of dye dropping into a glass of milk.
Such research by Piff and many others has found that awe makes us feel breathless, affects our heart rate, and causes goosebumps to rise on our skin. It also reduces physiological signs of stress and suppresses the brain’s default mode network, which plays a role in certain forms of self-focus.
“In all sorts of ways, individuals who experience awe experience a whole bunch of different benefits — better health, better meaning, more happiness, a greater sense of purpose in life,” Piff said.
It also fuels discovery and exploration, Keltner said.
“Awe provides the engine by which you update your knowledge,” he said. “It animates the testing of new ideas. And we need that — we need to always be updating our understanding of the world.”
Keltner has gathered stories about awe from 26 countries to look for common triggers. Nature was one of the broad categories that came up repeatedly, he said, and “big ideas” was another.
A total solar eclipse ticks both of those boxes.
There’s nothing inherently mysterious about the cause of a total solar eclipse.
The moon travels around the Earth as the Earth travels around the sun, though the planes of those orbits are slightly askew. Nonetheless, at least twice a year the moon comes directly between the Earth and the sun, blocking it from view in the daytime sky. And about once every 18 months or so, this celestial alignment occurs while the moon is close enough to Earth to cover the sun completely — in other words, to totally eclipse it.
That seems like a frequent occurrence, but any particular spot on the planet will find itself in the path of totality just once every 375 years, on average. To find oneself in just the right place at just the right time may be awe-inducing all by itself.
The idea of using an eclipse as a natural experiment to study awe came to Piff in 2016, when he attended an “awe summit” and heard a UC Berkeley astronomer mention that the Great American Eclipse of Aug. 21, 2017, would be the first in nearly a century to produce a coast-to-coast path of totality.
It wasn’t immediately clear how to capitalize on the event. He could have dispatched researchers to places along the eclipse’s path so they could observe the crowds or conduct interviews. He could have distributed a survey to people who said they’d witnessed the eclipse and hoped that they would fill it out.
“None of the ideas really stuck,” Piff said.
Ultimately, he turned to Twitter.
Nickolas M. Jones, who was a graduate student at the time, had devised a way to identify Twitter users in a particular community based on the accounts they followed. That allowed him to create a sample of more than 1.5 million tweets shared over a 12-week period by more than 22,000 people in select cities along the path of totality.
Meanwhile, another graduate student named Sean Goldy took the lead in creating a custom dictionary of words that expressed awe — it included “transcendent,” “mind-blowing” and “unreal” — along with terms indicative of the community-focused outlook that awe often inspires. The dictionary was used to assess the emotional subtext of the tweets Jones amassed, as well as a sample of 6 million tweets posted on the day of the eclipse.
The researchers found that Twitter users who were positioned to witness the eclipse were more than twice as likely to use words from the awe dictionary than people who missed out on the big event.
To a lesser degree, they were also more likely to use words that expressed a collective mind-set, recognized the limits of their knowledge, and gave credence to the views of others. The research team’s statistical analysis suggested that these feelings were driven in part by the awe they felt.
In addition, the tweets gathered by Jones showed that people who injected more awe-related words into their eclipse day tweets also used language infused with outward-looking, community-minded sentiments — although the effect was short-lived.
The findings were published in the journal Psychological Science.
Jones, who is now a senior postdoctoral researcher at UC Irvine, said he developed his method of geolocating Twitter users in order to gauge the effect of mass shootings.
“The effect that we find when we study negative events is pretty powerful,” he said. “I was not expecting things to pan out really well for something positive, but … it worked!”
Posts on X, as Twitter is now known, are no longer freely available to researchers. So Piff and a new set of collaborators are devising another way to gather data related to Monday’s eclipse.
They’ve already found people who said they are planning to experience totality somewhere between Mazatlan, Mexico, and Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. They hope to entice them to answer a few questions on their phones while the world is temporarily dark, and to follow up with them for several weeks afterward.
In other experiments, Piff has had volunteers invest five minutes in a “daily intervention of awe.” Early results suggest it extends the benefits of an initial awesome experience, he said.
“If people become a little more attentive to the awe-inspiring things around them, you would very likely get more persistent effects,” Piff said.
He said he hopes that would include the kind of mind-set shift that could help bridge the country’s increasingly toxic partisan divide.
There’s no reason why an event like the eclipse would cause people to change their party identity, Piff said, but it could make them more willing to compromise with their political opponents for the sake of a collective goal.
“Awe seems to trigger more kind, compassionate and empathic behavior,” he said. “It reminds you of the bigger things that we’re a part of.”
Science
Pink Fire Retardant, a Dramatic Wildfire Weapon, Poses Its Own Dangers
From above the raging flames, these planes can unleash immense tankfuls of bright pink fire retardant in just 20 seconds. They have long been considered vital in the battle against wildfires.
But emerging research has shown that the millions of gallons of retardant sprayed on the landscape to tame wildfires each year come with a toxic burden, because they contain heavy metals and other chemicals that are harmful to human health and the environment.
The toxicity presents a stark dilemma. These tankers and their cargo are a powerful tool for taming deadly blazes. Yet as wildfires intensify and become more frequent in an era of climate change, firefighters are using them more often, and in the process releasing more harmful chemicals into the environment.
Some environmental groups have questioned the retardants’ effectiveness and potential for harm. The efficiency of fire retardant has been hard to measure, because it’s one of a barrage of firefighting tactics deployed in a major fire. After the flames are doused, it’s difficult to assign credit.
The frequency and severity of wildfires has grown in recent years, particularly in the western United States. Scientists have also found that fires across the region have become faster moving in recent decades.
There are also the longer-term health effects of exposure to wildfire smoke, which can penetrate the lungs and heart, causing disease. A recent global survey of the health effects of air pollution caused by wildfires found that in the United States, exposure to wildfire smoke had increased by 77 percent since 2002. Globally, wildfire smoke has been estimated to be responsible for up to 675,000 premature deaths per year.
Fire retardants add to those health and environmental burdens because they present “a really, really thorny trade-off,” said Daniel McCurry, an assistant professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of Southern California, who led the recent research on their heavy-metal content.
The United States Forest Service said on Thursday that nine large retardant-spraying planes, as well as 20 water-dropping helicopters, were being deployed to fight the Southern California fires, which have displaced tens of thousands of people. Several “water scooper” amphibious planes, capable of skimming the surface of the sea or other body of water to fill their tanks, are also being used.
Two large DC-10 aircraft, dubbed “Very Large Airtankers” and capable of delivering up to 9,400 gallons of retardant, were also set to join the fleet imminently, said Stanton Florea, a spokesman for the National Interagency Fire Center in Boise, Idaho, which coordinates national wildland firefighting efforts across the West.
Sprayed ahead of the fire, the retardants coat vegetation and prevent oxygen from allowing it to burn, Mr. Florea said. (Red dye is added so firefighters can see the retardant against the landscape.) And the retardant, typically made of salts like ammonium polyphosphate, “lasts longer. It doesn’t evaporate, like dropping water,” he said.
The new research from Dr. McCurry and his colleagues found, however, that at least four different types of heavy metals in a common type of retardant used by firefighters exceeded California’s requirements for hazardous waste.
Federal data shows that more than 440 million gallons of retardant were applied to federal, state, and private land between 2009 and 2021. Using that figure, the researchers estimated that between 2009 and 2021, more than 400 tons of heavy metals were released into the environment from fire suppression, a third of that in Southern California.
Both the federal government and the retardant’s manufacturer, Perimeter Solutions, have disputed that analysis, saying the researchers had evaluated a different version of the retardant. Dan Green, a spokesman for Perimeter, said retardants used for aerial firefighting had passed “extensive testing to confirm they meet strict standards for aquatic and mammalian safety.”
Still, the findings help explain why concentrations of heavy metals tend to surge in rivers and streams after wildfires, sometimes by hundreds of times. And as scrutiny of fire suppressants has grown, the Forestry Service has set buffer zones surrounding lakes and rivers, though its own data shows retardant still inadvertently drifts into those waters.
In 2022, the environmental nonprofit Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics sued the government in federal court in Montana, demanding that the Forest Service obtain a permit under the Clean Water Act to cover accidental spraying into waterways.
The judge ruled that the agency did indeed need to obtain a permit. But it allowed retardant use to continue to protect lives and property.
Science
2024 Brought the World to a Dangerous Warming Threshold. Now What?
At the stroke of midnight on Dec. 31, Earth finished up its hottest year in recorded history, scientists said on Friday. The previous hottest year was 2023. And the next one will be upon us before long: By continuing to burn huge amounts of coal, oil and gas, humankind has all but guaranteed it.
The planet’s record-high average temperature last year reflected the weekslong, 104-degree-Fahrenheit spring heat waves that shuttered schools in Bangladesh and India. It reflected the effects of the bathtub-warm ocean waters that supercharged hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and cyclones in the Philippines. And it reflected the roasting summer and fall conditions that primed Los Angeles this week for the most destructive wildfires in its history.
“We are facing a very new climate and new challenges, challenges that our society is not prepared for,” said Carlo Buontempo, director of the Copernicus Climate Change Service, the European Union monitoring agency.
But even within this progression of warmer years and ever-intensifying risks to homes, communities and the environment, 2024 stood out in another unwelcome way. According to Copernicus, it was the first year in which global temperatures averaged more than 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit, above those the planet experienced at the start of the industrial age.
For the past decade, the world has sought to avoid crossing this dangerous threshold. Nations enshrined the goal in the 2015 Paris agreement to fight climate change. “Keep 1.5 alive” was the mantra at United Nations summits.
Yet here we are. Global temperatures will fluctuate somewhat, as they always do, which is why scientists often look at warming averaged over longer periods, not just a single year.
But even by that standard, staying below 1.5 degrees looks increasingly unattainable, according to researchers who have run the numbers. Globally, despite hundreds of billions of dollars invested in clean-energy technologies, carbon dioxide emissions hit a record in 2024 and show no signs of dropping.
One recent study published in the journal Nature concluded that the absolute best humanity can now hope for is around 1.6 degrees of warming. To achieve it, nations would need to start slashing emissions at a pace that would strain political, social and economic feasibility.
But what if we’d started earlier?
“It was guaranteed we’d get to this point where the gap between reality and the trajectory we needed for 1.5 degrees was so big it was ridiculous,” said David Victor, a professor of public policy at the University of California, San Diego.
The question now is what, if anything, should replace 1.5 as a lodestar for nations’ climate aspirations.
“These top-level goals are at best a compass,” Dr. Victor said. “They’re a reminder that if we don’t do more, we’re in for significant climate impacts.”
The 1.5-degree threshold was never the difference between safety and ruin, between hope and despair. It was a number negotiated by governments trying to answer a big question: What’s the highest global temperature increase — and the associated level of dangers, whether heat waves or wildfires or melting glaciers — that our societies should strive to avoid?
The result, as codified in the Paris agreement, was that nations would aspire to hold warming to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius while “pursuing efforts” to limit it to 1.5 degrees.
Even at the time, some experts called the latter goal unrealistic, because it required such deep and rapid emissions cuts. Still, the United States, the European Union and other governments adopted it as a guidepost for climate policy.
Christoph Bertram, an associate research professor at the University of Maryland’s Center for Global Sustainability, said the urgency of the 1.5 target spurred companies of all kinds — automakers, cement manufacturers, electric utilities — to start thinking hard about what it would mean to zero out their emissions by midcentury. “I do think that has led to some serious action,” Dr. Bertram said.
But the high aspiration of the 1.5 target also exposed deep fault lines among nations.
China and India never backed the goal, since it required them to curb their use of coal, gas and oil at a pace they said would hamstring their development. Rich countries that were struggling to cut their own emissions began choking off funding in the developing world for fossil-fuel projects that were economically beneficial. Some low-income countries felt it was deeply unfair to ask them to sacrifice for the climate given that it was wealthy nations — and not them — that had produced most of the greenhouse gases now warming the world.
“The 1.5-degree target has created a lot of tension between rich and poor countries,” said Vijaya Ramachandran, director for energy and development at the Breakthrough Institute, an environmental research organization.
Costa Samaras, an environmental-engineering professor at Carnegie Mellon University, compared the warming goals to health officials’ guidelines on, say, cholesterol. “We don’t set health targets on what’s realistic or what’s possible,” Dr. Samaras said. “We say, ‘This is what’s good for you. This is how you’re going to not get sick.’”
“If we were going to say, ‘Well, 1.5 is likely out of the question, let’s put it to 1.75,’ it gives people a false sense of assurance that 1.5 was not that important,” said Dr. Samaras, who helped shape U.S. climate policy from 2021 to 2024 in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. “It’s hugely important.”
Scientists convened by the United Nations have concluded that restricting warming to 1.5 degrees instead of 2 would spare tens of millions of people from being exposed to life-threatening heat waves, water shortages and coastal flooding. It might mean the difference between a world that has coral reefs and Arctic sea ice in the summer, and one that doesn’t.
Each tiny increment of additional warming, whether it’s 1.6 degrees versus 1.5, or 1.7 versus 1.6, increases the risks. “Even if the world overshoots 1.5 degrees, and the chances of this happening are increasing every day, we must keep striving” to bring emissions to zero as soon as possible, said Inger Anderson, the executive director of the United Nations Environment Program.
Officially, the sun has not yet set on the 1.5 target. The Paris agreement remains in force, even as President-elect Donald J. Trump vows to withdraw the United States from it for a second time. At U.N. climate negotiations, talk of 1.5 has become more muted compared with years past. But it has hardly gone away.
“With appropriate measures, 1.5 Celsius is still achievable,” Cedric Schuster, the minister of natural resources and environment for the Pacific island nation of Samoa, said at last year’s summit in Azerbaijan. Countries should “rise to the occasion with new, highly ambitious” policies, he said.
To Dr. Victor of U.C. San Diego, it is strange but all too predictable that governments keep speaking this way about what appears to be an unachievable aim. “No major political leader who wants to be taken seriously on climate wants to stick their neck out and say, ‘1.5 degrees isn’t feasible. Let’s talk about more realistic goals,’” he said.
Still, the world will eventually need to have that discussion, Dr. Victor said. And it’s unclear how it will go.
“It could be constructive, where we start asking, ‘How much warming are we really in for? And how do we deal with that?’” he said. “Or it could look very toxic, with a bunch of political finger pointing.”
Science
U.S. Efforts to Cut Emissions Stalled in 2024 as Power Demand Surged
America’s efforts to cut its climate change pollution stalled in 2024, with greenhouse gas emissions dropping just a fraction, 0.2 percent, compared to the year before, according to estimates published Thursday by the Rhodium Group, a research firm.
Despite continued rapid growth in solar and wind power, emissions levels stayed relatively flat last year because demand for electricity surged nationwide, which led to a spike in the amount of natural gas burned by power plants.
The fact that emissions didn’t decline much means the United States is even further off-track from hitting President Biden’s goal of slashing greenhouse gases 50 percent below 2005 levels by 2030. Scientists say all major economies would have to cut their emissions deeply this decade to keep global warming at relatively low levels.
Since 2005, United States emissions have fallen roughly 20 percent, a significant drop at a time when the economy has also expanded. But to meet its climate goals, U.S. emissions would need to decline nearly 10 times as fast each year as they’ve fallen over the past decade. That seems increasingly unlikely, experts say, especially since President-elect Donald J. Trump has promised to dismantle Mr. Biden’s climate policies and promote the production of fossil fuels, the burning of which generates greenhouse gases.
“On the one hand, it is notable that we’ve now seen two years in a row where the U.S. economy grew but emissions went down,” said Ben King, an associate director at the Rhodium Group. “But it’s far from enough to achieve our climate targets.”
The biggest reason that U.S. emissions have fallen in recent years is that electric utilities have been retiring their older, dirtier coal-fired power plants and replacing them with cheaper and less-polluting natural gas, wind and solar power. That trend mostly continued last year, with a few unexpected ups and downs.
The nation’s demand for electricity, which has stayed more or less flat for two decades, suddenly jumped by roughly 3 percent in 2024, in large part because scorching heat during the summer caused many Americans to crank up their air-conditioners. A smaller factor was that tech companies have been building more energy-hungry data centers in states like Virginia and Texas.
While power companies installed large numbers of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries last year to meet rising demand, natural gas use also rose to record highs, while coal use declined only slightly. The net result was that emissions from the power sector increased an estimated 0.2 percent, according to the Rhodium Group.
At the same time, transportation, the nation’s largest source of greenhouse gases, saw an 0.8 percent rise in emissions last year. Gasoline and jet fuel consumption both increased as Americans continued to drive and fly more after the pandemic. Nearly 10 percent of new car sales in 2024 were less-polluting electric vehicles, but those models still make up a small fraction of total cars on the road and have yet to put a major dent in transportation emissions.
On the flip side, emissions from America’s industrial sector — which includes steel, cement and chemicals — fell by 1.8 percent in 2024. Some of that may have been the result of lost output, as two hurricanes and a strike at the nation’s ports disrupted some factory activity in the fall, Mr. King said.
“It’s a reminder that there’s always some bumpiness in emissions,” Mr. King said. “It’s not just a question of how many electric vehicles are on the road or how much solar we’ve installed. A big portion of our economy still relies on fossil fuels.”
One of the most striking findings in this year’s data was that emissions from oil and gas operations dropped roughly 3.7 percent in 2024. Even though the United States produced record amounts of oil and near-record amounts of natural gas last year, many companies appear to have curbed leaks of methane, which is the main ingredient in natural gas and which can seep into the atmosphere and contribute significantly to global warming.
Over the past few years, the Biden administration and several states have adopted new regulations that require oil and gas producers to detect and fix methane leaks. Many companies also have financial incentives to capture methane to sell rather than vent it into the air.
Between 2014 and 2024, U.S. companies appear to have reduced the amount of methane that escaped, per each cubic feet of gas they produced, by 40 percent, according to the Rhodium Group.
Several experts have estimated that greenhouse gases generated in the United States could start dropping sharply in the years ahead if many clean energy policies stay in place, particularly the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act that pumped hundreds of billions of dollars into low-carbon energy technologies such as electric vehicles, wind turbines, solar panels, nuclear reactors, green hydrogen and batteries.
While Mr. Trump has pledged to scrap many of Mr. Biden’s subsidies and tax credits for electric vehicles and low-carbon energy, it remains to be seen whether Congress will agree.
That law has not yet had a major impact on the country’s emissions, said Mr. King, since it takes time for new factories to open and power plants to get built. But, he said, data shows that low-carbon energy and transportation now make up fully 5 percent of total U.S. private investment.
“That’s a leading indicator that things are changing quickly,” he said.
-
Business1 week ago
These are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week ago
The 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week ago
The top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week ago
New Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week ago
Carter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics6 days ago
Who Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health5 days ago
Ozempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week ago
Ivory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades