There's a million to choose from but for my money this probably wins
Of this NYT national higher education correspondent's last six bylines dating to mid-May, three are about this one Princeton professor's case. Another was a similarly soft profile of the Georgetown law prof who tried to get canceled, didn't, so he quit and acted like he was.
Russian shelling of Kharkiv destroyed a neutron generator, used in scientific experiments. Because it did have nuclear material, it was under @iaeaorg safeguards.
We gave the targeting/takeover of nuclear facilities in Ukraine the 360 treatment: grid.news/story/360/2022…
By taking the Zaporizhzhia plant, Russia took 20 percent of Ukraine's electricity capacity.
There are reports that the Yuzhnoukrainsk (South Ukraine) plant may be next. If it takes all four nuclear plants, Russia would control half the country's electricity generation.
So far, no nuclear catastrophe has materialized. But the situation isn't great.
IAEA director general: “There is safe operation, but there are many, many questions on the ability to sustain this for much longer.”
This piece has a whole section on the idea that climate change adaptation is the "worst idea" and holy shit have you met like 125 countries, Mr. World is Flat???
Adaptation does not mean "giving up" on mitigation! How did I end up in 1998! What the hell!
To be clear, NO ONE is saying we should focus "only" on adaptation. The Paris Agreement stipulates that climate finance should fund an equal assortment of mitigation and adaptation. Development banks say the same thing. Adaptation is for actual people suffering, today.