New bank rules should make it easier to switch

I haven't seen anything about court battles over this. Maybe the big banks are more or less OK with it.

It’s about to get harder for banks to hold onto unsatisfied customers — and their money.

It has long been a challenge for people to ditch the banks where they keep their checking accounts. Blame tricky data transfer processes, lengthy and time-consuming requests, and other hurdles. But the first so-called open banking rules in the U.S. aims to change that.

New rules finalized by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) on Tuesday will require banks to simplify how customers transfer their data from one bank to another without losing their transaction and bill history.

The aim of the regulations, formally known as 1033, is to empower consumers by giving them unprecedented control over their financial data, including who to share it with and when. As a result, customers will be able to direct their bank to move their account to a competing one with ease and use third-party applications with just the click of a button — all without paying a fee.

“Imagine being able to switch banks as easily as switching streaming services,” said James McCarthy, a founding member of the CFPB who is now chairman of financial services solutions firm McCarthy Hatch. “That’s what it’s really going to be like.” - Quartz

The first big US carbon sequestration plant is spouting leaks

People have been warning for years that this was pretty much inevitable.

ADM’s facility in central Illinois was the first permitted commercial carbon sequestration operation in the country, and it’s on the forefront of a booming, multibillion-dollar carbon capture and storage, or CCS, industry that promises to permanently sequester planet-warming carbon dioxide deep underground.

The emerging technology has become a cornerstone of government strategies to slash fossil fuel emissions and meet climate goals. Meanwhile, the Biden administration’s signature climate legislation, the Inflation Reduction Act, has supercharged industry subsidies and tax credits and set off a CCS gold rush…

In September, the public learned of a leak at ADM’s Decatur site after it was reported by E&E News, which covers energy and environmental issues. Additional testing mandated by the EPA turned up a second leak later that month. - Grist

Utilities are doing a pitiful job in clean energy transition

This is unsurprising on the whole, but I admit that I was a little startled to see how little is being done.

To address the climate crisis, utilities must transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. We published the first Dirty Truth Report in 2021, evaluating utility plans to transition to clean energy based on their commitments to retire coal, build clean energy, and not build new gas through 2030. In 2021, these utilities failed to plan for the clean energy transition, scoring an aggregate of 17 out of 100.1. Unfortunately, instead of correcting course, many utilities continue to fail to appropriately prepare for a clean energy future, wasting time as the clean energy transition becomes more urgent. This failure has led to the timing and cost challenges that these companies are now trying to use as excuses to remain reliant on fossil fuels.

The solutions to move away from fossil fuels exist today. Utilities are well positioned to take action with cost reductions in clean energy, strong public support for the clean energy transition, and government support for climate solutions... - Sierra Club

Tech bros hype military AI

That anyone regards this with terminology like "promise" and "game-changing" is despicable.

Since the emergence of generative artificial intelligence, scholars have speculated about the technology’s implications for the character, if not nature, of war. The promise of AI on battlefields and in war rooms has beguiled scholars. They characterize AI as “game-changing,” “revolutionary,” and “perilous,” especially given the potential of great power war involving the United States and China or Russia...

While experts caution that militaries are confronting a “eureka” or “Oppenheimer” moment, harkening back to the development of the atomic bomb during World War II, this characterization distorts the merits and limits of AI for warfighting. It encourages policymakers and defense officials to follow what can be called a “primrose path of AI-enabled warfare,” which is codified in the US military’s “third offset” strategy. This vision of AI-enabled warfare is fueled by gross prognostications and over-determination of emerging capabilities enhanced with some form of AI, rather than rigorous empirical analysis of its implications across all (tactical, operational, and strategic) levels of war.

The current debate on military AI is largely driven by “tech bros” and other entrepreneurs who stand to profit immensely from militaries’ uptake of AI-enabled capabilities. - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

Do online lie-spreaders always believe themselves?

No, they don't. This is a good discussion. I personally believe, though, that in the bigger picture it's the true believers who are most effective.

There has been a lot of research on the types of people who believe conspiracy theories, and their reasons for doing so. But there’s a wrinkle: My colleagues and I have found that there are a number of people sharing conspiracies online who don’t believe their own content.

They are opportunists. These people share conspiracy theories to promote conflict, cause chaos, recruit and radicalize potential followers, make money, harass, or even just to get attention.

There are several types of this sort of conspiracy-spreader trying to influence you. - The Conversation

Apparently antimicrobial resistance isn't that big a deal

Talk about Big Ag capture

Last May, the United Nations (U.N.) released the first draft of a global plan to tackle antibiotic resistance that aligned with a call from world leaders’ expert advisors to take “bold and specific action.” That included a commitment to reduce the use of antibiotics used in the food and agriculture system by 30 percent by 2030.

But when those leaders (met at the U.N. in September) to adopt the Political Declaration on Antimicrobial Resistance, that concrete goal and others (were) missing from the latest draft.

After months of negotiations and edits to the proposal, these ambitious—and likely effective—commitments have been replaced with a toothless target: to “strive to meaningfully reduce” antibiotic use in agriculture. Now, experts and advocates are concerned that this new, vague provision, among other weakened commitments, will be included in the final declaration…

U.S. officials were at least partially responsible for weakening the U.N. declaration’s commitments on animal agriculture. - Civil Eats