Paramount-owned U.K. broadcaster Channel 5 has acquired premium history docuseries “Seven Wonders of the Ancient World,” a Keshet International (KI) and SandStone Global collaboration. The three-part series, which has just gone into production, is based on Professor Bettany Hughes’ best-selling book of the same name. Historian and broadcaster Hughes will travel across three continents for […]

NBCUniversal International has posted a record pre-tax loss following a write down of £99,297,000 ($130 million), its latest accounts show. The accounts, which were filed at U.K. business registrar Companies House last week and cover the 12 month period up to Dec. 31, 2023, were accompanied by a report that said: “Following an assessment of […]

On Wednesday, during a routine operation in Gaza, Israeli soldiers reportedly killed Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar—seemingly stumbling into realizing a major military objective. Despite over a year’s worth of efforts, Israeli soldiers appear to have found Sinwar by accident. After killing three people during a normal operation, they apparently realized that one of the men resembled the Hamas leader. The Israeli military confirmed Sinwar’s death on Thursday.

“I think Netanyahu has zero interest in ending this war and I don’t think he’s motivated to help Biden before the elections.”

Israel and the United States have been trying to find and kill Sinwar since last October. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has cast his death as one of the main reasons for Israel’s unceasing bombardment of Gaza, saying a main war objective is “eliminating” Hamas leadership. 

With this objective met, Sinwar’s death could present a chance to end what has become a regional war. Vice President Kamala Harris said after the killing that Sinwar’s death gave “us an opportunity to finally end the war in Gaza.” But it seems unlikely that Israeli and American leaders will fully press in this moment.

A former Biden administration official said they do believe that Sinwar’s death will be viewed by the administration as “somewhat of an opportunity to secure an end to the conflict,” particularly ahead of the elections as they try to win back votes that they “certainly have lost.” The problem, the former official explained, is that “I think Netanyahu has zero interest in ending this war and I don’t think he’s motivated to help Biden before the elections.”

The next move from Israel’s government, at the moment, is unclear. On Thursday, Netanyahu stated that “the mission ahead of us has not been completed.” In an initial statement Benny Gantz, a centrist member of Netanyahu’s war cabinet, said that while Sinwar’s death is a vital goal it would not mean the end of the war in Gaza.

Sinwar was killed just over a year after he orchestrated the October 7 attack in which Hamas killed nearly 1,200 Israelis. In response, the Israeli military has leveled Gaza, killing at least 42,000 Palestinians, according to the local health ministry. (The full death toll is feared to be more than double that number, according to some public health experts.) 

Sinwar’s death comes at a time when ceasefire talks to end the war in Gaza have effectively fallen apart and the conflict has expanded throughout the region.

Israel recently launched a major invasion of Lebanon, where more than 2,000 people have now been killed. And Israel is on the verge of striking Iran in response to the ballistic missiles it launched against Israel on October 1. Iran’s decision to strike Israel came after a series of increasingly aggressive Israeli escalations in Lebanon—including extensive bombardment of residential areas in Beirut—that seemed all but guaranteed to provoke an Iranian retaliation. Hezbollah officials supported multiple ceasefire offers in early October, none of which Netanyahu accepted. (The US is not currently pushing publicly for a ceasefire between Hezbollah and Israel.)

The Biden administration could use Sinwar’s death as leverage to push for an end to what is now a regional war. This would build on a letter the United States recently sent to Israel that gave Israel 30 days to allow in more humanitarian aid to Gaza, or face potential restrictions on US weapons exports to Israel. “I don’t think [the Israeli government] will be responsive to the letter,” the former Biden official said. “I don’t think they take our threat seriously. I don’t think the US government would withhold weapons. I think this is a signal that won’t be followed through on.” (Human rights groups, according to a report in Politico, voiced similar concerns that “rules don’t apply” to Israel.)

Israel has now killed the top leaders of both Hamas and Hezbollah: Hezbollah secretary-general Hassan Nasrallah was killed in an Israeli airstrike on September 27, and in July, Israeli is widely understood to have assassinated Hamas’ political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. (Haniyeh, who was Hamas’ key ceasefire negotiator, was considered to be more moderate than Sinwar.) 

Israel has reduced much of Gaza to rubble following one of the most intense aerial bombardment campaigns in modern history. The IDF has dropped at least 75,000 tons of bombs on the territory, killed at least one out of every 55 people in Gaza, and has cut off nearly all humanitarian aid. Its actions in Gaza have reportedly violated international human rights law and—along with Hamas’ actions on October 7—constitute potential war crimes in the view of the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court. A case in the International Court of Justice asserting Israel is actively committing a genocide is proceeding as well.

Both Iran and Hezbollah, which is closely aligned with Iran, have signaled they would like to avoid a full-scale war with Israel that could potentially further involve the United States. The question remains whether the Biden administration is willing to use its extensive leverage as Israel’s primary weapons supplier to force an end to the conflict. 

Update, October 17: This post has been updated to reflect a new statement from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and a new statement from Vice President Kamala Harris.

Color grading system developer FilmLight has revealed the nominees for its 4th annual Color Awards, which are organized with the EnergaCamerimage international cinematography film festival. The juried awards–which recognize colorists in film, TV and other media–will be presented Nov. 17 during Camerimage in Toruń, Poland. This year, the awards attracted more than 500 entries from 46 countries. […]

Dozens of countries are condemning Israel’s attacks on United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon.

Israeli forces reportedly struck the UN mission in Lebanon—known as UNIFIL—in recent days, injuring multiple peacekeepers, according to the mission. As UNIFIL points out, deliberate attacks on peacekeepers violate international law.

A joint statement by 34 UNIFIL-contributing countries, initiated by , urges to protect @UNIFIL_ peacekeepers.
We condemn recent incidents, call to respect UNIFIL's mission & ensure the safety of its personnel.
pic.twitter.com/66q46Pu1RR

— Poland in the UN (@PLinUN) October 12, 2024

Human rights groups including Human Rights Watch have condemned the reported attacks and called for UN investigations. In a statement posted on X on Saturday by the Polish Mission to the United Nations, a joint group of signatories said that they “condemn recent incidents, call to respect [the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon’s] mission & ensure the safety of its personnel.”

Netanyahu’s unwillingness to call for a full-scale stop of IDF interactions with UNIFIL has drawn scorn. The prime minister of Ireland—one of the signatories of the letter which the BBC reports has more than 370 troops in Lebanon as part of the peacekeeping mission—said during a visit to Washington, DC this week that the attacks were an “extraordinarily concerning development.” Spain, France, and Italy have also condemned the attacks in a joint statement, calling them “unjustifiable.” And President Biden on Friday said Israel should “absolutely” stop striking the UN peacekeepers.

Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati said the country “condemns Netanyahu’s position and the Israeli aggression against UNIFIL, renews its commitment to international legitimacy.”

The Israeli Defense Forces have claimed that Hezbollah “operates from within and near civilian areas in southern Lebanon, including areas near UNIFIL posts.” On Friday, the IDF acknowledged that two UNIFIL personnel were reportedly injured in a strike on a post near an unnamed “threat,” adding that the Israeli military had instructed UNIFIL personnel to shelter in protected spaces while the attack was unfolding. The IDF also said that on Yom Kippur, which fell on Saturday and marks the holiest day of the Jewish year, Hezbollah fired more than 300 projectiles “towards Israeli civilians.”

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the IDF regrets the harm done to UNIFIL personnel but said they should withdraw from the area, alleging that Hezbollah was endangering them by being stationed nearby. A spokesperson for UNIFIL told AFP Saturday that the peacekeepers will not withdraw: “There was a unanimous decision to stay because it’s important for the UN flag to still fly high in this region, and to be able to report to the Security Council,” Andrea Tenenti told the French news agency.

The global appetite for drama films has significantly diminished, according to a panel of international sales agents at the BFI London Film Festival. Sophie Green, head of acquisitions and development at Bankside Films, summed up the current market sentiment by saying: “The big sort of takeaway at the moment from the market is anything but […]

Dozens of countries are condemning Israel’s attacks on United Nations peacekeepers in Lebanon.

Israeli forces reportedly struck the UN mission in Lebanon—known as UNIFIL—in recent days, injuring multiple peacekeepers, according to the mission. As UNIFIL points out, deliberate attacks on peacekeepers violate international law.

A joint statement by 34 UNIFIL-contributing countries, initiated by , urges to protect @UNIFIL_ peacekeepers.
We condemn recent incidents, call to respect UNIFIL's mission & ensure the safety of its personnel.
pic.twitter.com/66q46Pu1RR

— Poland in the UN (@PLinUN) October 12, 2024

Human rights groups including Human Rights Watch have condemned the reported attacks and called for UN investigations. In a statement posted on X on Saturday by the Polish Mission to the United Nations, a joint group of signatories said that they “condemn recent incidents, call to respect [the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon’s] mission & ensure the safety of its personnel.”

Netanyahu’s unwillingness to call for a full-scale stop of IDF interactions with UNIFIL has drawn scorn. The prime minister of Ireland—one of the signatories of the letter which the BBC reports has more than 370 troops in Lebanon as part of the peacekeeping mission—said during a visit to Washington, DC this week that the attacks were an “extraordinarily concerning development.” Spain, France, and Italy have also condemned the attacks in a joint statement, calling them “unjustifiable.” And President Biden on Friday said Israel should “absolutely” stop striking the UN peacekeepers.

Lebanese Prime Minister Najib Mikati said the country “condemns Netanyahu’s position and the Israeli aggression against UNIFIL, renews its commitment to international legitimacy.”

The Israeli Defense Forces have claimed that Hezbollah “operates from within and near civilian areas in southern Lebanon, including areas near UNIFIL posts.” On Friday, the IDF acknowledged that two UNIFIL personnel were reportedly injured in a strike on a post near an unnamed “threat,” adding that the Israeli military had instructed UNIFIL personnel to shelter in protected spaces while the attack was unfolding. The IDF also said that on Yom Kippur, which fell on Saturday and marks the holiest day of the Jewish year, Hezbollah fired more than 300 projectiles “towards Israeli civilians.”

On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the IDF regrets the harm done to UNIFIL personnel but said they should withdraw from the area, alleging that Hezbollah was endangering them by being stationed nearby. A spokesperson for UNIFIL told AFP Saturday that the peacekeepers will not withdraw: “There was a unanimous decision to stay because it’s important for the UN flag to still fly high in this region, and to be able to report to the Security Council,” Andrea Tenenti told the French news agency.

Editor’s note: One year after the slaughter of more than 1,200 people in Israel and taking of 254 hostages by Hamas on October 7, 2023—and the commencement of retaliatory strikes and invasions by Israel—the situation remains fraught. Gaza lies in rubble. The Gazan health ministry reports that Israel’s military activities have killed more than 42,000 Palestinians to date, including more than 11,000 children, and have wounded nearly 100,000. The true toll, when uncounted and indirect deaths are factored in, is likely far greater. Some 1.9 million people—about 90 percent of Gaza’s population—are displaced, and relatively few have made it out of the territory. This is the story of one family that did. The events described took place in February 2024. Owing to the uncertain legal status of the family members, who remain in Egypt, the names herein, and that of the author, are pseudonyms.

It’s nearing 9 p.m. by the time we finally agree on Papa John’s. Six pizzas for the 12 of us. Youssef calls in the order. At 16, he’s shed the sweet voice I remember from our calls to Gaza over the years. The total will be $16 at Cairo’s black market exchange rates. The manager calls back a minute later. For such a large amount, they will send someone to take a deposit. Youssef relays the message and someone translates. We laugh at the concept of a down payment on pizza.

My brother-in-law Kamal, Youssef’s father, walks in, and another plastic chair appears as we readjust our circle to accommodate him. My husband, Samer, and I have traveled halfway across the globe from California to help 10 family members—relatives I’m finally meeting in person after 25 years of marriage—settle temporarily in Egypt after escaping the devastation in Gaza.

They are here under precarious conditions—some of the more than 115,000 displaced Gazans in Egypt, many of whom managed to wrangle (and overstay) a 45-day tourist visa before Israel shut down the border. But despite their good fortune in escaping the war zone, they have no status outside of it. Neither refugee nor resident, they exist in a legal no-man’s land that prevents any of them from enrolling in school, getting a job, or securing health coverage.

Three family members remain trapped in Rafah—two of my husband’s brothers and one of their daughters. They are everyone’s priority right now. Our seats spill out of the cramped living room into the hall, entranceway, and kitchen of the basic, hastily rented apartment. It doesn’t compare to the three high-rise units in Gaza City the families had to flee, but it is worlds better than their other stops along the refugee railway—sleeping on the floor of their pharmacy supply business, which the Israelis later blew up, and then at the house of a cousin in Rafah shared with 40 others.

Everyone is acutely aware of the hour as we chat about our day, cellphones heavy in our hands. Papa John’s calls back to apologize. It won’t require a deposit after all. The rules always seem to be shifting here. Indeed, why one child was denied exit while six others were not is yet another nonsensical piece of a broader, even more nonsensical puzzle.

 

Israeli forces commenced bombing in Gaza on October 9, 2023.

Five days later, Gaza City residents were told to evacuate.

About a quarter of all structures have been destroyed, per the UN, and two-thirds damaged.

 

Ali Jadallah/Anadolu/Getty

My husband and I came to Egypt to do whatever we can to help. And tonight, like so many families in Gaza or Cairo, across Europe and the United States, we are awaiting the Daily List. Thousands of families are trying desperately to get loved ones out of Gaza, though relatively few are successful. The list of people approved for exit by the Egyptian border authority—no more than 250 names a day, a mere trickle—appears on Rafah News, a privately maintained Facebook page that is updated nightly. The family members in Rafah await our call. With no reliable internet, they depend on the diaspora for news of their fate.

All at once, everyone’s phones start pinging with alerts from their social networks, and all heads bow to scour the list. Our Egyptian fixer has assured us that the names will be on it tonight, “100 percent.” This is the sixth day of such assurances, for which my husband and I have paid $21,000. That would buy 7,894 Papa John’s pizzas in Cairo.

Mona, 17, flicks her index finger on her screen, seeking the names of her father, sister, and uncle. She was with them a month ago when her own name appeared on the list. From the comfort of our home in San Francisco, my husband—as the eldest, the de facto patriarch—made the decision on his brother’s behalf: She would be safer risking the journey alone than staying in Gaza. And so Mona was sent by herself across the border, across the Sinai Peninsula.

Tonight, from the group’s downcast eyes, the huddle of their shoulders, no translation is needed. The names are not there.

I had tried to convince my husband that I wasn’t needed on this trip. I don’t speak Arabic and I’d never met his Gazan family. I’d be a woman in Egypt, with little to offer but my patently American optimism. But Samer insisted I was needed for “moral support.”

In Cairo, he assigns me “aunt duty.” My job is to spend time with our nieces, assess them for trauma, and begin to get to know them.

On a Monday, Yasmine, 19, is the first to arrive at our hotel for some one-on-one time. Her mother had said the teen was having trouble sleeping, so I decide yoga might help. I’m no guru, but I know my way around the yoga app on my iPad. One of the routines is set to the music of Queen, but Yasmine has never heard of the band—nor Taylor Swift. Little Mermaid yoga draws a blank, as do the Beatles, so I give up and select a classic rock theme. We find an open studio in the hotel fitness center and lock the door so she can remove her hijab.

I make small talk as I load the class onto my device, remarking how pretty Yasmine is and asking when she’ll get her braces off. She doesn’t know, she says. Her orthodontist is dead, she tells me. Her uncle, too. One day, her cousins, also still in Gaza, were parched, and their father had gone out looking for potable water—snipers shot him in the head. A week later, her grandfather died of a stroke because no hospital had the capacity to take him. I yearn to know more—about others she’s lost and what it’s like for someone so young to endure such brutal circumstances—but I refrain.

The next morning, Yasmine tells me she slept eight hours for the first time in months. I give her my favorite pen and tell her to keep writing in her journal.

Every day, I pluck one or two of my six nieces from their monotony and uncertainty to enjoy a day out with Aunt Allie. Today is Tuesday, and my task is to bring Samira to try a gym where we’ve offered to buy the girls a membership. They desperately need things to do. A month earlier, the last of Gaza’s 12 universities had been destroyed in what the UN has termed a “scholasticide.” Samira has been spending the days of what should be her sophomore year in Cairo, watching endless YouTube videos.

Samira is also 19, and her skittish persona emerges in nearly inaudible whispers. When she does volunteer conversation, her English is excruciatingly halting. Its very simplicity seems to evoke an almost savant-like deeper meaning: “Does Zane ask how we are?”

Zane is my 19-year-old son, her elder cousin by a mere 41 days. The juxtaposition of her life of deprivation with his life of peace and abundance couldn’t be more striking. Samira has lived through four wars and the countless daily indignities Americans rarely hear about—like the Israeli blockades that result in shortages of basics such as clothing fabrics, pens, spices, and toothbrushes; the youth unemployment rate of up to 75 percent; and the throttled electricity, available only about 10 hours a day even prior to the hostilities.

“Does he know us?” Samira’s tone is meek, as though she’s talking to herself, but her persistence signals a certain determination: “Does he know my name?”

I realize she is only inquiring about her cousin, cocooned away at a small liberal arts college in New England, but something in her simple poetry evokes something broader: Despite Gaza’s moment as a global cause célèbre—the hastily produced kaffiyehs, protest encampments, and solidarity marches—much of the world exhibits little interest in learning what a typical childhood in Gaza is like. As Samira might put it, “Do they know about us?”

It was 2 a.m. in Rafah and Israeli bombs were falling. Tamir wanted his big brother on the line. I gripped Samer’s hand as we listened to sounds of destruction over his cellphone speaker.

My husband had warned me about the Islamic dress codes, but the lightest long pants I own—a pair of cargo tights—aren’t nearly light enough for the gym’s 80-degree heat. They do, however, have side pockets perfect for carrying the stacks of $100 bills we brought to Cairo, where everything revolves around wads of cash. In a dark parking lot, we swapped our Benjamins for a backpack full of Egyptian pounds, which we emptied at one point onto the apartment’s coffee table, bringing to mind Scrooge McDuck or a B-movie drug deal.

I dispatch some of the pounds on a personal training session for Samira and a short-sleeve shirt to replace her heavy sweatshirt. She’s never been on a treadmill. I recall her saying she missed Gaza’s beaches, so I ask the trainer to put on a beach-themed background video. The beaches aren’t the only thing she is missing. Her twin sister, Amal, is one of the three relatives who remains in Gaza. The sisters have been separated for over three months. How or why or who decides, we have no idea.  

Later, after a shower, changing back into our street clothes, Samira realizes she’s forgotten her brush. She looks at me in utter confusion and asks what to do. I fish a ponytail holder out of my bag and hand it to her. In the few days I’ve known her, I’ve found her often in moments like this, lost and frozen, utterly overwhelmed—perplexed by her circumstances and, I suspect, all she has been through. She can’t grasp my suggestion of a quick finger brush. She asks if I will buy her a new one. I leave and return minutes later with a two-pack. “One is for Amal,” I tell her.

“I feel happy just hearing her name,” Samira says.

As we exit the gym, the shops in the adjacent mall are putting out special goods and decorations for Ramadan. I consider an advent-like calendar with flavored dates behind perforated cardboard doors. Twenty-four days until Ramadan. I wonder if Samira is counting them down.

A member of Israel’s war cabinet had promised that Rafah would be invaded if the remaining hostages weren’t freed by the start of the Muslim holy month. (The invasion ultimately would commence May 6, some two and a half months later.) Back in California, we’d had a preview of what that might look like. Tamir, one of my husband’s brothers, had called just as we were about to set out on a pretrip shopping expedition. It was 2 a.m. in Rafah and Israeli bombs were falling. Tamir wanted his big brother on the line. I gripped Samer’s hand as we listened to sounds of destruction coming over the cellphone speaker.

The dialogue was sparse: “Did you hear that?”

“Something has fallen in the yard in front of the house.”

“The windows have all shattered.”

At some point, Tamir said his throat was dry from the dust—and fear. “Can you stay on the line with Amal while I go look for a drink?” he said.

I was grateful the conversation was in Arabic, as I wouldn’t have known quite what to say to his teenage daughter. Samer kept asking her questions that felt absurd, given the situation: “How are you?” “Are you still there?” Amal replied she was “fine,” as though exchanging pleasantries with an acquaintance at the supermarket.

We had an oversized suitcase back at home waiting to be loaded with shoes, winter coats, and T-shirts with random slogans, so we took the call on the road. By the time we arrived at the store, the apocalyptic soundtrack had receded, and Tamir traded the comfort of our voices for an attempt at sleep.

Back in Cairo, after our workout, Samira and I join the other nieces for lunch. I suggest McDonald’s, which doesn’t exist in Gaza—a golden arches meal is practically a bucket-list item for kids there. I realize I’m being provocative. Given the US military support for Israel, some Egyptians have boycotted American franchises, and many of the displaced Gazans have joined them.

Just as US businesses showed support for Ukraine in the wake of Russia’s onslaught, so businesses in Cairo have incorporated the Gazan cause into their marketing. Palestinian flags adorn takeout coffee cups and storefronts. Our Papa John’s pizza boxes have stickers reading, “Fresh,” atop a silhouette of historic Palestine, which encompasses most of Israel in addition to Gaza and the West Bank.

The sticker makes me uneasy, as I grew up supporting Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. But that support obviously does not stretch to the eradication of my lunch companions—or Lebanese civilians or anyone else just trying to live their lives. One would be hard pressed to create a sticker that accurately depicts today’s Palestinian territory. The Gaza Strip is a speck on the sea. The West Bank, a 90-minute drive to the northeast, resembles a piece of Swiss cheese—a pocket of enclaves picked apart by an expanding cycle of illegal Israeli settlements and the buffer zones set up to protect them. Between the two lies the inaccessible state of Israel.

We settle on an outdoor restaurant where I entertain the girls by ordering in Arabic. A commercial airliner flies overhead, and Laila nudges Noura to look up, as though she’s just spotted a double rainbow. Laila is 17, Noura, 12. In Gaza, they only ever saw military jets—even during times of relative peace.

The girls ask me endless questions: Do I like hummus? Why don’t I eat meat? Have I ever seen snow? Where will they go after Egypt? I stick to the short term, reminding them that our priority now is on getting everyone safely out of Gaza: “After that, when your fathers get here, we will talk as a family.”

The reality is that everything they know has been shattered—literally, fragments of cinder and glass strewn across the trappings of their childhoods. The circumstances may call for optimism, but they want to know what is next. For now, I can only offer the girls our financial support, do desperate Google searches for “countries accepting Gazan refugees” (answer: none), and insist that they order dessert.

Still, the afternoon at the mall boosts our spirits, and we bring a sense of optimism back to our nightly chair circle—hope amid despair. The fixer has upped his “100 percent assurance” with a confident promise of “a million dollars” if the names don’t appear tonight. We’ve extended our stay until the weekend, but I feel in my bones that this is the day.

It’s Wednesday now, and I’m taking Laila and Noura on an outing to distract them from the reality of yet another day estranged from their father. Neither the names nor the million dollars made an appearance last night.

The girls come to meet me at our hotel and can’t stop craning their heads around. They’ve never been in a hotel. I watch as they take selfies, the charcoal black of their French braids a perfect contrast to the ornate lobby’s white marble. Laila, who is perpetually smiling, wears a sweatshirt with “So Happy to Be Here” written across the chest.

Between Israeli “security” measures and extremist Islamic censorship, the nieces also grew up without movie theaters. It’s as though the Israel Defense Forces and Hamas have colluded to deprive Gazan kids of the simplest pleasures. The girls and I have pinky sworn that I will get to have the honor of taking them to their first silver screen experience, but a secondary promise has us agreeing to wait for Amal. So today, we’re headed back to the shopping mall.

Like actors playing people in normal circumstances, we chat about fashion. “We can’t wear short skirts because we are Muslim,” says big sister Laila, who tends to speak for the two of them. I ask them why they don’t wear headscarves. The girls wrinkle their noses in distaste. “In the public schools, we’re required to wear hijab, so we begged our parents to send us to private school.”

Noura bobs her head in agreement. Laila gestures to her own jeans and sweatshirt, modest yet fashionable. She could pass for one of my son’s California friends. “In Gaza, people sometimes look at us funny because of how we dress.”

Western dress can be considered quite rebellious in Gaza. “Here, in Egypt, no one cares!” Laila’s smile could melt mountains of the snow she’s never seen. Noura nods emphatically, echoing the sentiment.

At H&M, Laila beelines toward a tight, short dress. Her eyes go wide as she asks whether she can try it on, and we giggle as she admires herself in the sanctity of the dressing room. Noura dons a more conservative sweater. Absent of her baggy sweatshirt, I notice her sagging jeans and protruding ribs. “We all lost weight in Rafah,” Laila explains casually. “There wasn’t enough to eat.”

In the third or fourth store, maybe the fifth, Laila spots a navy-striped sweater: “I had one just like this at home.”

She’d shown me “home” the day before. A neighbor’s video walkthrough revealed exterior walls with cavernous openings, carpets of shattered glass, and belongings heaped in piles amid the wreckage. Next to Laila’s neatly made-up bed stood a blown-open wardrobe, a stuffed Sesame Street Ernie hanging from its door handle. I watched her watch the footage of a bedroom she would never see again. Miraculously, she was still smiling, dimples as deep as the craters in the walls of her room.

I offer to buy her the navy-striped sweater, but she politely declines. She does accept a multipack of earrings. We pick out an extra pack for Amal, hopeful that her name will make tonight’s list.

It does not.

Back at the hotel, the turndown service has left my husband and me a three-tiered silver cake stand overflowing with bite-sized pieces of baklava, petits fours, and macarons. We call the airline and push our departure back another two days, even though we’ve mostly resigned ourselves to leaving without getting Tamir, Nabil, and Amal to safety. Hope is an aberration in the deserts of Gaza.

I try to imagine what Amal is doing. I know she’s in a house with perhaps 30 others, windows long shattered, but at least they have four walls and a roof. The food is ample, but canned. Water is sparse. I also know the border is tantalizingly visible from that roof—so close that an Egyptian SIM card allows her to message her sisters in Cairo.

It’s Thursday and I’m killing time with Yasmine and her mother at the apartment.

As the 9 o’clock hour nears, the rest of the family joins us. We’re nibbling nervously at a mound of dolmas when I see Mona’s head bend toward her phone. A former neighbor has sent over a copy of the Daily List via WhatsApp. All three names are on it!

There is no dancing, whooping, or jubilatory squealing. It’s as though we have opened a small crack for our pent-up tension to escape slowly, like air from an improperly knotted balloon. Quiet, broad smiles emerge on our faces. Relief proves stronger than jubilation.

Displaced Gazans wait at the border crossing between Rafah and Egypt in November 2023.

Israel shut down the crossing in May 2024.

Abed Rahim Khatib/DPA/ZUMA

The trio’s journey from Gaza to Cairo is arduous but uneventful. We follow their progress via incoming texts.

      In line on Gaza side.

      Through Rafah gate.

      In departure hall.

      In line for bus.

      On bus to Egyptian side.

      In line at arrival hall.

      Crossed to Egyptian side.

      In line for bus.

      Crossing Sinai.

Their 200-mile trip takes nearly as long as our 7,500-mile flight from San Francisco. My husband and I have decided to give each family subunit the freedom to reunite in private. We spend the day making arrangements for our return and setting up a GoFundMe page to help defray our fixer costs and cover the families’ living expenses for the next six months to a year.

Some friends of ours who are GoFundMe veterans have advised us to put lots of specifics in the postings, but there are few to be had: Everything from schools to housing, even the question of whether our relatives can be technically classified as refugees, is up in the air, and it all could take months or years to sort out—if it’s even sortable. No nation has yet embraced the fleeing Gazans. When I inquire with a refugee agency about a US family reunification visa for my brothers-in-law (not even including their families), I am informed me that the average wait time is 15 to 20 years.

On Saturday morning, Tamir, Nabil, and Amal, our new arrivals, come to visit at our hotel. I stand on tiptoes to hug Nabil, who is 6-foot-7. I bend down for Amal. Born with severe scoliosis, she’s barely 5 feet tall, and my arms overlap around her tiny frame. I’m three times her 19 years and yet, given what she has been through, I feel humbled in her presence. My words feel clichéd: “It’s so, so good to see you! I’m so sorry this took so long.”

“I’m the one with the black-sheep bad luck in the family,” she says. Her nose crinkles when she laughs, and her eyes sparkle with mischief.

We escort the trio down the hotel’s imperial staircase for an expansive breakfast buffet. My brothers-in-law pile their plates high with a potpourri of cheeses—cheese and eggs, they say, are the foods they missed the most. Servers circle the room with drink refills and fresh bread, and the contrast of the scene with their existence in Rafah just 24 hours before is as ludicrous as it sounds.

Standing at an omelet station, Tamir apologizes for his hastily purchased sweatshirt, explaining that he hadn’t changed his clothes in 90 days. Six feet away, Amal is practically frozen by all the food choices. I wonder aloud what it must have been like for her to wear the same thing for so long. Tamir dismisses me with a smirk. Amal, he says, organized an exchange with other teens in the house—they traded “new” clothes constantly.

Today will be her day for pampering. I clumsily offer a variety of options, punctuating each with, “but I understand if it might feel like too much for you.”

“I’m up for everything!” she assures me, downing her third glass of juice.

I suggest another shopping trip—a practical choice, as her suitcase of cherished possessions was lost in the chaos of war. “I’ve decided I’m going to reinvent myself,” Amal declares, now onto a fourth juice. Her optimism is surreal, almost unsettling. I’d half-expected to meet a girl traumatized, hysterical, dirty—lacking hope. Instead, she smells of soap. I’m infected by her radiance, humbled by her resilience. She can’t wait to return to her college studies, she tells me, and she dreams of being an embryologist.

At the mall, we meet up with Samira, her twin. I’ve brought along so much Egyptian cash today that I can barely zip my fanny pack. But Amal is again overwhelmed by possibilities. After multiple loops around the mall, Samira points out that her sister’s hands are cracked and dry from her months in Rafah. Minutes later, we are testing body lotions and scents.

Amal’s thirst resurfaces and she asks me if we can grab a coffee. I hesitate to suggest Starbucks—which is just around the corner, but she spots the sign and shushes Samira’s boycott-busting hesitation with a “Don’t be ridiculous!” She grabs her twin by the hand, leads her through the door, and orders each a caramel macchiato.

The night before my husband and I head home, I finally introduce all six nieces to the joy of cinema. I go full throttle, buying each a bucket of popcorn, a box of candy, and a slushie. The girls are captivated by Madame Web, oblivious to the nearly deserted theater and the film’s 11 percent critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Watching their rapt faces, I think about how complex their lives have been, and how surprising their multidimensionality. The way they crave opportunity, not pity. How I came here intent on rescuing them, and instead, I fell in love.

It’s dusk as we leave the theater, the setting sun a gradient of purples, oranges, and pinks—like the colors of Amal’s ruined bedroom. We snap more pictures as she holds aloft the shopping bags with the costumes of her reinvention.

She pulls me close, conspiratorially, her tongue dyed bright blue from the slushie. “This wasn’t how I had hoped it would happen,” she confesses. “But I told you I would get out of Gaza!”

On October 7, 2024, the Costs of War Project at Brown University released two new reports. One report from the military-research group details how much the United States government has spent aiding the Israeli military between October 2023 and September 2024. The other gathers and evaluates previously published data to estimate the human cost of this past year’s unrelenting violence. 

In both cases, the researchers show staggering new findings. 

The Costs of War Project researchers estimate the cost to US taxpayers at over $17.9 billion, and the likely number of people killed at well over 100,000—which, even then, is a “very conservative, minimum amount of death.” As researchers begin to calculate the costs, the human and monetary toll is starting to become clearer.

Human Cost

To estimate the human cost of Israel’s war on Gaza, researcher Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins started with the Gaza Ministry of Health’s count of confirmed deaths, which has now surpassed 41,615. 

Beyond that, an estimated 10,000 people are buried under rubble. Over the past year, 60 percent of buildings and nearly all road-systems in Gaza have been destroyed, making the retrieval of dead and injured people near-impossible. Adding an estimate of those who have died by starvation—about 62,413 people—brings the total estimated death toll to 114,000, or about 5 percent of Gaza’s population. Those likely death-by-starvation numbers come from a letter 99 physicians who served in Gaza sent President Joe Biden last week.

“With only marginal exceptions, every single person in Gaza is sick, injured, or both,” the physicians wrote to Biden. “We worry that unknown thousands have already died from the lethal combination of malnutrition and disease, and that tens of thousands more will die in the coming months, especially with the onset of the winter rains in Gaza. Most of them will be young children.” 

Still, as Costs of War Project director Stephanie Savell told Mother Jones, factors like the destruction of water infrastructure and sanitary facilities mean the real loss may be incalculable for years to come. Savell said that the numbers used here are a “really solid, conservative minimum number of deaths.”

Given the depletion of Gaza’s medical system, thousands more have likely died due to lack of care for their chronic illnesses. (Cancer care, for example, has been unavailable in Gaza, as has most prenatal care. Women are dying in childbirth without adequate care, and are reportedly undergoing cesareans without anesthesia: “A big portion of death tolls from war comes in deaths of newborns, and pregnant mothers,” Savell said. 

Since the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel one year ago on October 7 that killed nearly 1,200, Israel has imposed a severe blockade on food entering Gaza. “96 percent of Gaza’s population faces acute levels of food insecurity, with 2.15 million people in crisis levels of hunger or worse,” the Costs of War Project researchers reported, noting that Israel’s government has limited humanitarian aid convoys entering Gaza that might alleviate that hunger or bring in medical supplies. (A recent ProPublica report found that officials with the US State Department were aware that Israel deliberately blocked aid to Gaza, which would have triggered a potential end to arms shipments to the close ally; Secretary of State Antony Blinken reportedly rejected the findings.)

Researchers at Brown cited the metric for estimating indirect deaths used by the authors of a letter published in the medical journal The Lancet in July, that warned deaths might be much higher in Gaza than currently reported: four “indirect deaths”—that is, preventable deaths from starvation, or untreated illness, for example—for every direct death in a war. In this case, though, “It seems to me that ratio might be much higher,” Savell said. 

Israel’s campaign in Gaza has been directly financed by the United States, which supplies 69 percent of Israel’s weapons imports.

Monetary Cost

Costs of War Project researchers Linda J. Bilmes, William D. Hartung, and Stephen Semler calculated that the United States government has spent $17.9 billion providing military supplies—including weapons, ammunition, vehicles, bombs, and jet fuel—to the Israeli army over the past year. 

Those weapons have come through a variety of channels, including commercial sales approved by the State Department, Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Financing (which provides grants for countries to buy from US defense contractors), and a program providing excess military equipment no longer needed by the US military to ally nations for a steep discount. 

“There are different degrees of public information available on each of these arms channels, and there have also been efforts to hide the full amounts of aid and types of systems through bureaucratic maneuvering,” the researchers explained.

In addition to the $17.9 billion going directly to Israel, the US Navy is spending at least $4.86 billion in the region, “primarily defending maritime shipping against attacks by Houthi militants in Yemen.” The Navy is currently operating two carrier strike groups present in the area, each of which costs $8.7 million per day to operate. (This led to a particularly odd moment when Vice President Kamala Harris boasted on the debate stage that there are no US troops present in conflict zones.)

The amount of taxpayer money sent to Israel this year was not easy to calculate, or perfectly precise. The Pentagon has not been releasing regular reports on weapons transfers and military loans to Israel. Researchers were forced to rely on news reports instead. “The patchwork government reporting on U.S. military aid to Israel contrasts sharply with the treatment of military aid to Ukraine, where dollar amounts, channels of delivery, and specific systems supplied (including how many) are routinely reported in government-supplied fact sheets on a regular basis,” Blimes, Hartung, and Semler wrote. 

This year’s $17.9 billion sum is by far the most the US government has spent on Israel’s military since the country’s founding in 1948, the researchers said, adding that the spending “exceeds the historic amounts of military aid approved for Israel following the Camp David Accords in 1978 and, before that, the start of the October War of 1973.” Though this number is unusually high, Israel has throughout its history received more US military aid than any other country, benefiting from $251.2 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1959.

“All of us have an obligation to…put the pieces of the picture together, and to look at not just the money that’s spent on war, but its toll on human lives,” Savell said. 

On October 7, 2024, the Costs of War Project at Brown University released two new reports. One report from the military-research group details how much the United States government has spent aiding the Israeli military between October 2023 and September 2024. The other gathers and evaluates previously published data to estimate the human cost of this past year’s unrelenting violence. 

In both cases, the researchers show staggering new findings. 

The Costs of War Project researchers estimate the cost to US taxpayers at over $17.9 billion, and the likely number of people killed at well over 100,000—which, even then, is a “very conservative, minimum amount of death.” As researchers begin to calculate the costs, the human and monetary toll is starting to become clearer.

Human Cost

To estimate the human cost of Israel’s war on Gaza, researcher Sophia Stamatopoulou-Robbins started with the Gaza Ministry of Health’s count of confirmed deaths, which has now surpassed 41,615. 

Beyond that, an estimated 10,000 people are buried under rubble. Over the past year, 60 percent of buildings and nearly all road-systems in Gaza have been destroyed, making the retrieval of dead and injured people near-impossible. Adding an estimate of those who have died by starvation—about 62,413 people—brings the total estimated death toll to 114,000, or about 5 percent of Gaza’s population. Those likely death-by-starvation numbers come from a letter 99 physicians who served in Gaza sent President Joe Biden last week.

“With only marginal exceptions, every single person in Gaza is sick, injured, or both,” the physicians wrote to Biden. “We worry that unknown thousands have already died from the lethal combination of malnutrition and disease, and that tens of thousands more will die in the coming months, especially with the onset of the winter rains in Gaza. Most of them will be young children.” 

Still, as Costs of War Project director Stephanie Savell told Mother Jones, factors like the destruction of water infrastructure and sanitary facilities mean the real loss may be incalculable for years to come. Savell said that the numbers used here are a “really solid, conservative minimum number of deaths.”

Given the depletion of Gaza’s medical system, thousands more have likely died due to lack of care for their chronic illnesses. (Cancer care, for example, has been unavailable in Gaza, as has most prenatal care. Women are dying in childbirth without adequate care, and are reportedly undergoing cesareans without anesthesia: “A big portion of death tolls from war comes in deaths of newborns, and pregnant mothers,” Savell said. 

Since the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel one year ago on October 7 that killed nearly 1,200, Israel has imposed a severe blockade on food entering Gaza. “96 percent of Gaza’s population faces acute levels of food insecurity, with 2.15 million people in crisis levels of hunger or worse,” the Costs of War Project researchers reported, noting that Israel’s government has limited humanitarian aid convoys entering Gaza that might alleviate that hunger or bring in medical supplies. (A recent ProPublica report found that officials with the US State Department were aware that Israel deliberately blocked aid to Gaza, which would have triggered a potential end to arms shipments to the close ally; Secretary of State Antony Blinken reportedly rejected the findings.)

Researchers at Brown cited the metric for estimating indirect deaths used by the authors of a letter published in the medical journal The Lancet in July, that warned deaths might be much higher in Gaza than currently reported: four “indirect deaths”—that is, preventable deaths from starvation, or untreated illness, for example—for every direct death in a war. In this case, though, “It seems to me that ratio might be much higher,” Savell said. 

Israel’s campaign in Gaza has been directly financed by the United States, which supplies 69 percent of Israel’s weapons imports.

Monetary Cost

Costs of War Project researchers Linda J. Bilmes, William D. Hartung, and Stephen Semler calculated that the United States government has spent $17.9 billion providing military supplies—including weapons, ammunition, vehicles, bombs, and jet fuel—to the Israeli army over the past year. 

Those weapons have come through a variety of channels, including commercial sales approved by the State Department, Foreign Military Sales, Foreign Military Financing (which provides grants for countries to buy from US defense contractors), and a program providing excess military equipment no longer needed by the US military to ally nations for a steep discount. 

“There are different degrees of public information available on each of these arms channels, and there have also been efforts to hide the full amounts of aid and types of systems through bureaucratic maneuvering,” the researchers explained.

In addition to the $17.9 billion going directly to Israel, the US Navy is spending at least $4.86 billion in the region, “primarily defending maritime shipping against attacks by Houthi militants in Yemen.” The Navy is currently operating two carrier strike groups present in the area, each of which costs $8.7 million per day to operate. (This led to a particularly odd moment when Vice President Kamala Harris boasted on the debate stage that there are no US troops present in conflict zones.)

The amount of taxpayer money sent to Israel this year was not easy to calculate, or perfectly precise. The Pentagon has not been releasing regular reports on weapons transfers and military loans to Israel. Researchers were forced to rely on news reports instead. “The patchwork government reporting on U.S. military aid to Israel contrasts sharply with the treatment of military aid to Ukraine, where dollar amounts, channels of delivery, and specific systems supplied (including how many) are routinely reported in government-supplied fact sheets on a regular basis,” Blimes, Hartung, and Semler wrote. 

This year’s $17.9 billion sum is by far the most the US government has spent on Israel’s military since the country’s founding in 1948, the researchers said, adding that the spending “exceeds the historic amounts of military aid approved for Israel following the Camp David Accords in 1978 and, before that, the start of the October War of 1973.” Though this number is unusually high, Israel has throughout its history received more US military aid than any other country, benefiting from $251.2 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars since 1959.

“All of us have an obligation to…put the pieces of the picture together, and to look at not just the money that’s spent on war, but its toll on human lives,” Savell said. 

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Mary Fleming was on holiday in Kenya when she saw it: a mound of secondhand clothes heaped by a river, the pile so vast and unruly it was spilling into the water.

The sight shocked her. At home in Ireland she was a passionate shopper and bought a new outfit almost every weekend. Now, in East Africa, she was seeing the consequence of fast fashion and mass consumption.

A decade later Fleming, now 34, is leading a campaign to prevent waste by swapping, reusing, repairing and repurposing clothes under the inimitable exhortation: “Because secondhand is feckin’ grand.”

“In some communities there is still a stigma about secondhand clothes and not wanting to be seen to be poor. We’re trying to change perceptions.”

She is the founder of Change Clothes, a nonprofit that hosts a swap shop in Dublin and runs pop-up outlets and workshops across Ireland. It lets people rent, exchange and buy used clothes and gives tutorials in mending and upcycling frayed garments.

“Most people wouldn’t know how to patch a hole. Once they figure it out they’re delighted with themselves,” says Fleming. “It’s so simple it’s criminal that it’s not better known.”

Change Clothes outgrew its base in Crumlin, west Dublin, and this month moved to new premises in the city center. “So many people were coming, we just needed more space,” says Fleming, who was still unpacking and sorting shoes and fabrics at the Thomas Street hub. The nonprofit also runs night markets and workshops in making Halloween costumes, Christmas baubles, and wreaths.

“This has grown really quickly so who knows where we will be in a few years. There is an appetite for change, an opportunity for change.” Fleming points to rolls of brightly coloured textiles stacked in a corner. “An underground network of textile freaks alerted me to a dump that had brand new rolls of fabric—it was heading for a landfill.”

Change Clothes is a mecca for the converted but Fleming’s goal is to reach people who trash old or unwanted clothes and trek to Zara, Next, the Gap and other outlets to replenish their wardrobe. “In some communities there is still a stigma about secondhand clothes and not wanting to be seen to be poor. We’re trying to change perceptions. There is a lot of work to be done.”

Enticing people into a swap-shop can be a “great gateway drug” that introduces them to wider possibilities of reusing and repairing garments, she says.

Fleming and her team of two part-time staff and a dozen or so volunteers have three categories: clothes in very good condition, clothes that “need help” and clothes at the end of their life.

For a €5 ($5.50) fee, people with garments in the first category can book a 30-minute slot at Change Clothes, obtain tokens for their donations—the better the condition or brand, the more tokens—and then use the tokens to select items from the shop’s racks.

Her first pop-up swap shop was such a hit she organized more, using her parents’ garage for storage, which Fleming still does. “They’ve been very patient, God love them.”

Alternatively you can rent an item, which must be returned clean, for about €10 ($11) per week. Last year, Fleming added her wedding dress, a sequin gown, to the rental racks. She had bought it online, her first such purchase in years, after her first choice, a secondhand dress, did not fit properly.

Surplus clothing in good condition is donated to refugee centres and assisted living accommodations.

Fleming’s team crisscrosses Ireland visiting university campuses, libraries, and community centres to give lessons in repairing or repurposing damaged or worn clothes. People’s eyes light up when they discover they can do basic tailoring, she says. “It can be incredibly creative and mindful. You’re not on your phone or laptop.”

Garments beyond rescue are chopped and cut and turned into something else such as banners or placemats.

The need for such skills is about to grow. From January, new EU rules will require member states to separate the collection of textiles for reuse and recycling, a directive that covers clothing, blankets, bed linen, curtains, hats, footwear, mattresses, and carpets.

The sight of that riverbank in Kenya redirected Fleming’s life. She quit her career in corporate marketing to work for nonprofits that promoted sustainability. Her first swap-shop, a weekend pop-up, was such a hit she organized more, using her parents’ garage for storage, which she still does. “They’ve been very patient, God love them.”

Fleming finds ideas and inspiration in Suay, a Los Angeles shop and recycling hub, and collaborates with the Northern Ireland charity Show Some Love Belfast, but she has no illusions about the challenge facing the movement.

Irish shopfronts are filled with Halloween outfits and decorations that will soon give way to winter and Christmas ware, then spring ware, summer ware and back to Halloween, part of a remorseless, globalized churn of production and consumption.

“If I spent every day thinking about what we’re up against I don’t think I’d bother. I want to focus on the change that is possible,” says Fleming. Garment by garment she will spread the message: Secondhand is feckin’ grand.

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Exported gas emits far more greenhouse gas emissions than coal, despite fossil-fuel industry claims it is a cleaner alternative, according to a major new research paper that challenges the controversial yet rapid expansion of gas exports from the US to Europe and Asia.

Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels when combusted for energy, with oil and gas producers for years promoting cleaner-burning gas as a “bridge” fuel and even a “climate solution” amid a glut of new liquefied natural gas (or LNG) terminals, primarily in the US.

But the research, which itself has become enmeshed in a political argument in the US, has concluded that LNG is 33 percent worse in terms of planet-heating emissions over a 20-year period compared with coal.

More than 125 climate, environmental and health scientists wrote to the Biden administration last month to defend Howarth’s research and urge a continuation of the pause on LNG exports.

“The idea that coal is worse for the climate is mistaken—LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” said Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University and author of the new paper. “To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just plain wrong. It’s greenwashing from oil and gas companies that has severely underestimated the emissions from this type of energy.”

Drilling, moving, cooling, and shipping gas from one country to another uses so much energy that the actual final burning of gas in people’s homes and businesses only accounts for about a third of the total emissions from this process, the research finds.

The large resulting emissions mean there is “no need for LNG as an interim energy source,” the paper says, adding that “ending the use of LNG should be a global priority.”

The peer-reviewed research, published on Thursday in the Energy Science & Engineering journal, challenges the rationale for a huge surge in LNG facilities along the US Gulf coast, in order to send gas in huge tankers to overseas markets. The US is the world’s leading LNG exporter, followed by Australia and Qatar.

Previous government and industry estimates have assumed that LNG is considerably lower-emitting than coal, offering the promise that it could replace it in countries such as China, as well as aiding European allies menaced by the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, a major gas producer.

“US LNG exports can help accelerate environmental progress across the globe, enabling nations to transition to cleaner natural gas to reduce emissions and address the global risks of climate change,” Dustin Meyer, director of market development at the American Petroleum Institute, has said.

But scientists have determined that LNG expansion is not compatible with the world avoiding dangerous global heating, with researchers finding in recent years the leakage of methane, a primary component of gas and a potent planet-heating agent, from drilling operations is far higher than official estimates.

Howarth’s paper finds that as much as 3.5 percent of the gas delivered to customers leaks into the atmosphere unburned, much more than previously assumed. Methane is about 80 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, even though it persists for less time in the atmosphere, and scientists have warned that rising global methane emissions risk blowing apart agreed-upon climate goals.

“This whole process is much more energy intensive than coal…It’s wishful thinking that the gas miraculously moves overseas without any emissions.”

Howarth’s research also found that during LNG production, around half of the total emissions occur during the long journey taken by gas as it is pushed through pipelines to coastal terminals after it is initially drilled, usually via hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, from areas such as the US’s vast shale deposits.

The energy used to do this, along with the leaks, causes pollution that is exacerbated once the gas gets to the export facilities. There, it is supercooled to -162C (-260F) to become a liquid, which is loaded into huge storage containers on tankers. The tankers then travel long distances to deliver the product to client countries, where it is turned back into a gas and then burned.

“This whole process is much more energy intensive than coal,” said Howarth. “The science is pretty clear here: it’s wishful thinking that the gas miraculously moves overseas without any emissions.”

Howarth’s paper has caused something of a firestorm before its publication, with a draft of the study highlighted by climate campaigners such as Bill McKibben to the extent it was reportedly a factor in a decision earlier this year by the Biden administration to pause all new export permits for LNG projects.

This pause has enraged the oil and gas industry—prompting lawsuits—and its political allies. Last month, four congressional Republicans wrote to the Department of Energy demanding correspondence between it and Howarth over what they called his “flawed” and “erroneous” study.

Gas-friendly groups have also argued that the paper overstates emissions from LNG, an stance echoed by some energy experts. “It’s hard to swallow,” said David Dismukes, a leading Louisiana energy consultant and researcher. “Does gas have a climate impact? Absolutely. But is it worse than coal? Come on.”

Howarth said the result of this unusual scrutiny was “more peer review than I’ve ever had before,” with five rounds of review being conducted by eight other scientists. Howarth said: “I don’t consider the criticism valid at all—it feels like a political job.”

Howarth said the US has a “huge choice” to make in the presidential election, with Donald Trump vowing to undo Biden’s pause on his first day back in the White House to allow a raft of new LNG projects. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, has backed away from a previous plan to ban fracking but has promised action on the climate crisis.

More than 125 climate, environmental and health scientists wrote to the Biden administration last month to defend Howarth’s research and urge a continuation of the pause on LNG exports.

The paper’s findings are “plausible,” said Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University, who was not involved in the research.

“Bob’s study adds to a lot of literature now that shows the industry’s argument for gas is undermined by the option to go to renewables,” Shindell said. “The debate isn’t really about whether gas is slightly better or worse than coal, though. It should be about how both are terrible and that we need to get rid of both of them.”

This story was originally published by the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Exported gas emits far more greenhouse gas emissions than coal, despite fossil-fuel industry claims it is a cleaner alternative, according to a major new research paper that challenges the controversial yet rapid expansion of gas exports from the US to Europe and Asia.

Coal is the dirtiest of fossil fuels when combusted for energy, with oil and gas producers for years promoting cleaner-burning gas as a “bridge” fuel and even a “climate solution” amid a glut of new liquefied natural gas (or LNG) terminals, primarily in the US.

But the research, which itself has become enmeshed in a political argument in the US, has concluded that LNG is 33 percent worse in terms of planet-heating emissions over a 20-year period compared with coal.

More than 125 climate, environmental and health scientists wrote to the Biden administration last month to defend Howarth’s research and urge a continuation of the pause on LNG exports.

“The idea that coal is worse for the climate is mistaken—LNG has a larger greenhouse gas footprint than any other fuel,” said Robert Howarth, an environmental scientist at Cornell University and author of the new paper. “To think we should be shipping around this gas as a climate solution is just plain wrong. It’s greenwashing from oil and gas companies that has severely underestimated the emissions from this type of energy.”

Drilling, moving, cooling, and shipping gas from one country to another uses so much energy that the actual final burning of gas in people’s homes and businesses only accounts for about a third of the total emissions from this process, the research finds.

The large resulting emissions mean there is “no need for LNG as an interim energy source,” the paper says, adding that “ending the use of LNG should be a global priority.”

The peer-reviewed research, published on Thursday in the Energy Science & Engineering journal, challenges the rationale for a huge surge in LNG facilities along the US Gulf coast, in order to send gas in huge tankers to overseas markets. The US is the world’s leading LNG exporter, followed by Australia and Qatar.

Previous government and industry estimates have assumed that LNG is considerably lower-emitting than coal, offering the promise that it could replace it in countries such as China, as well as aiding European allies menaced by the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, a major gas producer.

“US LNG exports can help accelerate environmental progress across the globe, enabling nations to transition to cleaner natural gas to reduce emissions and address the global risks of climate change,” Dustin Meyer, director of market development at the American Petroleum Institute, has said.

But scientists have determined that LNG expansion is not compatible with the world avoiding dangerous global heating, with researchers finding in recent years the leakage of methane, a primary component of gas and a potent planet-heating agent, from drilling operations is far higher than official estimates.

Howarth’s paper finds that as much as 3.5 percent of the gas delivered to customers leaks into the atmosphere unburned, much more than previously assumed. Methane is about 80 times more powerful as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, even though it persists for less time in the atmosphere, and scientists have warned that rising global methane emissions risk blowing apart agreed-upon climate goals.

“This whole process is much more energy intensive than coal…It’s wishful thinking that the gas miraculously moves overseas without any emissions.”

Howarth’s research also found that during LNG production, around half of the total emissions occur during the long journey taken by gas as it is pushed through pipelines to coastal terminals after it is initially drilled, usually via hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, from areas such as the US’s vast shale deposits.

The energy used to do this, along with the leaks, causes pollution that is exacerbated once the gas gets to the export facilities. There, it is supercooled to -162C (-260F) to become a liquid, which is loaded into huge storage containers on tankers. The tankers then travel long distances to deliver the product to client countries, where it is turned back into a gas and then burned.

“This whole process is much more energy intensive than coal,” said Howarth. “The science is pretty clear here: it’s wishful thinking that the gas miraculously moves overseas without any emissions.”

Howarth’s paper has caused something of a firestorm before its publication, with a draft of the study highlighted by climate campaigners such as Bill McKibben to the extent it was reportedly a factor in a decision earlier this year by the Biden administration to pause all new export permits for LNG projects.

This pause has enraged the oil and gas industry—prompting lawsuits—and its political allies. Last month, four congressional Republicans wrote to the Department of Energy demanding correspondence between it and Howarth over what they called his “flawed” and “erroneous” study.

Gas-friendly groups have also argued that the paper overstates emissions from LNG, an stance echoed by some energy experts. “It’s hard to swallow,” said David Dismukes, a leading Louisiana energy consultant and researcher. “Does gas have a climate impact? Absolutely. But is it worse than coal? Come on.”

Howarth said the result of this unusual scrutiny was “more peer review than I’ve ever had before,” with five rounds of review being conducted by eight other scientists. Howarth said: “I don’t consider the criticism valid at all—it feels like a political job.”

Howarth said the US has a “huge choice” to make in the presidential election, with Donald Trump vowing to undo Biden’s pause on his first day back in the White House to allow a raft of new LNG projects. Kamala Harris, meanwhile, has backed away from a previous plan to ban fracking but has promised action on the climate crisis.

More than 125 climate, environmental and health scientists wrote to the Biden administration last month to defend Howarth’s research and urge a continuation of the pause on LNG exports.

The paper’s findings are “plausible,” said Drew Shindell, a climate scientist at Duke University, who was not involved in the research.

“Bob’s study adds to a lot of literature now that shows the industry’s argument for gas is undermined by the option to go to renewables,” Shindell said. “The debate isn’t really about whether gas is slightly better or worse than coal, though. It should be about how both are terrible and that we need to get rid of both of them.”

On October 1, 2024, as Israel began a ground incursion of Lebanon and Iran prepared to fire missiles into Israel, Foreign Affairs published a piece from Secretary of State Antony Blinken on “America’s strategy for renewal” in a “new world.” 

Like policy adviser Jake Sullivan’s essay in the same magazine a year ago—boasting of a “quiet” Middle East—Blinken’s manifesto had an ironic twist. It was published right as fighting broke out.

A different mood has begun to creep back into the US discussions of foreign policy: the glee of the big war to change the Middle East.

In the essay, Blinken promised a way forward that was actively failing. Over the past fifteen days, the Biden administration’s putative plan to avoid regional war has collapsed. Here is how Blinken described (in one long-winded sentence) the goals of US foreign policy in the Middle East:

The Biden administration, for its part, has been working tirelessly with partners in the Middle East and beyond to end the conflict and suffering in Gaza, find a diplomatic solution that enables Israelis and Lebanese to live in safety on both sides of the border, manage the risk of a wider regional war, and work toward greater integration and normalization in the region, including between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Every single thing Blinken said the administration is working “tirelessly” for is the opposite of what is happening: There is not a ceasefire, nor an end to suffering in Gaza; there is more conflict between Israel and Lebanon; there is a growing likelihood of a full regional war; and Saudi Arabia has now said it won’t normalize diplomatic relations with Israel until Palestinians get a state (something Israel has no plans to allow).

As Blinken’s plans have failed—and Israel has ignored stern warnings from Biden that did not carry consequences—an old hope has returned. In the three days since the Secretary of State’s essay, a different mood has begun to creep back into the US discussions of foreign policy: the glee of a potential big war to change the Middle East.

After the killing of Hezbollah’s leader, the US has seen a rhetorical push—from background administration sources, former government officials, op-ed columnists, and TV pundits—for a reshaping of the Middle East through large conflict (and away from the immediate goal of just stopping the death in Gaza). The war hawks are back in full force. In newspapers and speeches, there has been a return of neoconservative talking points and even repeated requests for Israel, or the United States, to attack Iran. 

Politico reported that top Biden advisors Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk privately supported Netanyahu as he shifted Israel’s strategy towards “reshaping the Middle East.” Jared Kushner, current son-in-law and former adviser to Donald Trump, had a similar idea. He called Israel’s actions in Lebanon “brilliant, rapid-fire technical successes” and said that “there is not an expert on earth who thought that what Israel has done to decapitate and degrade [Hezbollah] was possible.” Kushner began to see the possibility of a total reconfiguration of the Middle East in the wake of the bombings, he said on X.

“Well, I don’t exactly know what Israel’s plans in Lebanon were,” John Bolton, famous war enjoyer, said Tuesday, “but their plans should not be for a limited incursion.”

In the New York Times, Bret Stephens suggested that America “absolutely” should escalate directly and attack Iran. (He then proceeded to name specific missile complexes he believes Biden should be planning to destroy.) Stephens said he is looking forward to when Israel “completes Hezbollah’s decapitation in Lebanon and Hamas’s evisceration in Gaza.” 

On Tucker Carlson’s podcast, Sen Mike Lee (R-Utah) seemed to suggest that the Biden administration should stop calling for ceasefires altogether. He described Biden’s current position as deeply self-contradictory: “On the one hand, they want to be seen as pro-Israel. On the other hand, they’re constantly telling Israel: ceasefire. That’s very, very strange.” 

Other Republicans chimed in on which places to bomb first. “I would urge the Biden Administration to coordinate an overwhelming response with Israel, starting with Iran’s ability to refine oil,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina suggested. “This is a moment of choosing for the free world regarding Iran.”

“Charred bodies and severed limbs,” a source in Gaza texted me, “all of this is just normal news to the outside world.”

It seemed US politicians were inching towards a cross-partisan embrace of Israel’s reported “de-escalation through escalation” strategy.

Much of this began in mid-September, when official Israeli Defense Force messaging shifted from “return the hostages,” to “regain control of northern Israel.” It was then that Israel blew up hundreds of pagers and cell phones in Lebanon and Syria, killing both Hezbollah members and civilian children. The attacks injured thousands. In the following week, Israel dropped hundreds of bombs on southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah continued launching missiles at Israel, attacking further south, aiming for Haifa and Tel Aviv. 

On September 26th, the US and France proposed a 21-day ceasefire with Lebanon. Netanyahu scuttled the plan. The following day, the Israeli Prime Minister gave a speech at the UN in which he made it clear that “Israel’s war on Hamas and Hezbollah will continue unabated,” until “total victory.” 

That same day, Israel reportedly dropped more than eighty bombs on four residential buildings in Beirut. They announced that they’d killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in the process. Within days, Israeli forces went further and entered Lebanon.

But this escalation has not brought de-escalation. On Tuesday, Israel formally began a ground “offensive” in Lebanon, and Iran fired approximately 180 missiles at Israel (most of which were reportedly intercepted by the US and Israeli militaries). The only person killed in the attack was a Gazan laborer with an Israeli work permit who spent the past year stranded in the West Bank. Damage was also reported at a school in central Israel. In Lebanon, officials say over a thousand people have been killed, and one million displaced. 

Throughout all this, the Israeli military’s incursion into Gaza continues. As bombardment in the city of Khan Younis increased, I received panicked messages from Palestinians in European Gaza Hospital who were hearing F-16s outside and witnessing mangled corpses arriving at the emergency room. (“Charred bodies and severed limbs,” one person texted me, “all of this is just normal news to the outside world.”)

Indeed, global attention is shifting away from Gaza toward everywhere else in the region. At this point, at least four other countries are involved in Israel’s war that began with a goal of eliminating Hamas: Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iran. Netanyahu’s government is expected to directly retaliate against Iran soon. 

Now, the question is whether America will merely fund that barrage, or more actively join in. The hawks—from background sources to Bolton—seem eager to broaden the violence.

Sullivan, the same man who once called for  “red lines” in Rafah and hailed a “quiet” Middle East right before October 7th, spoke from the White House mid-day Tuesday of “consequences” for Iran; and not just doled out by Israel, but potentially levied by the United States and the Biden administration. 

“We are proud of the actions that we’ve taken alongside Israel to protect and defend Israel,” he said. “We have made it clear that there will be consequences—severe consequences—for this attack, and we will work with Israel to make that the case.” 

On October 1, 2024, as Israel began a ground incursion of Lebanon and Iran prepared to fire missiles into Israel, Foreign Affairs published a piece from Secretary of State Antony Blinken on “America’s strategy for renewal” in a “new world.” 

Like policy adviser Jake Sullivan’s essay in the same magazine a year ago—boasting of a “quiet” Middle East—Blinken’s manifesto had an ironic twist. It was published right as fighting broke out.

A different mood has begun to creep back into the US discussions of foreign policy: the glee of the big war to change the Middle East.

In the essay, Blinken promised a way forward that was actively failing. Over the past fifteen days, the Biden administration’s putative plan to avoid regional war has collapsed. Here is how Blinken described (in one long-winded sentence) the goals of US foreign policy in the Middle East:

The Biden administration, for its part, has been working tirelessly with partners in the Middle East and beyond to end the conflict and suffering in Gaza, find a diplomatic solution that enables Israelis and Lebanese to live in safety on both sides of the border, manage the risk of a wider regional war, and work toward greater integration and normalization in the region, including between Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Every single thing Blinken said the administration is working “tirelessly” for is the opposite of what is happening: There is not a ceasefire, nor an end to suffering in Gaza; there is more conflict between Israel and Lebanon; there is a growing likelihood of a full regional war; and Saudi Arabia has now said it won’t normalize diplomatic relations with Israel until Palestinians get a state (something Israel has no plans to allow).

As Blinken’s plans have failed—and Israel has ignored stern warnings from Biden that did not carry consequences—an old hope has returned. In the three days since the Secretary of State’s essay, a different mood has begun to creep back into the US discussions of foreign policy: the glee of a potential big war to change the Middle East.

After the killing of Hezbollah’s leader, the US has seen a rhetorical push—from background administration sources, former government officials, op-ed columnists, and TV pundits—for a reshaping of the Middle East through large conflict (and away from the immediate goal of just stopping the death in Gaza). The war hawks are back in full force. In newspapers and speeches, there has been a return of neoconservative talking points and even repeated requests for Israel, or the United States, to attack Iran. 

Politico reported that top Biden advisors Amos Hochstein and Brett McGurk privately supported Netanyahu as he shifted Israel’s strategy towards “reshaping the Middle East.” Jared Kushner, current son-in-law and former adviser to Donald Trump, had a similar idea. He called Israel’s actions in Lebanon “brilliant, rapid-fire technical successes” and said that “there is not an expert on earth who thought that what Israel has done to decapitate and degrade [Hezbollah] was possible.” Kushner began to see the possibility of a total reconfiguration of the Middle East in the wake of the bombings, he said on X.

“Well, I don’t exactly know what Israel’s plans in Lebanon were,” John Bolton, famous war enjoyer, said Tuesday, “but their plans should not be for a limited incursion.”

In the New York Times, Bret Stephens suggested that America “absolutely” should escalate directly and attack Iran. (He then proceeded to name specific missile complexes he believes Biden should be planning to destroy.) Stephens said he is looking forward to when Israel “completes Hezbollah’s decapitation in Lebanon and Hamas’s evisceration in Gaza.” 

On Tucker Carlson’s podcast, Sen Mike Lee (R-Utah) seemed to suggest that the Biden administration should stop calling for ceasefires altogether. He described Biden’s current position as deeply self-contradictory: “On the one hand, they want to be seen as pro-Israel. On the other hand, they’re constantly telling Israel: ceasefire. That’s very, very strange.” 

Other Republicans chimed in on which places to bomb first. “I would urge the Biden Administration to coordinate an overwhelming response with Israel, starting with Iran’s ability to refine oil,” Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina suggested. “This is a moment of choosing for the free world regarding Iran.”

“Charred bodies and severed limbs,” a source in Gaza texted me, “all of this is just normal news to the outside world.”

It seemed US politicians were inching towards a cross-partisan embrace of Israel’s reported “de-escalation through escalation” strategy.

Much of this began in mid-September, when official Israeli Defense Force messaging shifted from “return the hostages,” to “regain control of northern Israel.” It was then that Israel blew up hundreds of pagers and cell phones in Lebanon and Syria, killing both Hezbollah members and civilian children. The attacks injured thousands. In the following week, Israel dropped hundreds of bombs on southern Lebanon, and Hezbollah continued launching missiles at Israel, attacking further south, aiming for Haifa and Tel Aviv. 

On September 26th, the US and France proposed a 21-day ceasefire with Lebanon. Netanyahu scuttled the plan. The following day, the Israeli Prime Minister gave a speech at the UN in which he made it clear that “Israel’s war on Hamas and Hezbollah will continue unabated,” until “total victory.” 

That same day, Israel reportedly dropped more than eighty bombs on four residential buildings in Beirut. They announced that they’d killed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in the process. Within days, Israeli forces went further and entered Lebanon.

But this escalation has not brought de-escalation. On Tuesday, Israel formally began a ground “offensive” in Lebanon, and Iran fired approximately 180 missiles at Israel (most of which were reportedly intercepted by the US and Israeli militaries). The only person killed in the attack was a Gazan laborer with an Israeli work permit who spent the past year stranded in the West Bank. Damage was also reported at a school in central Israel. In Lebanon, officials say over a thousand people have been killed, and one million displaced. 

Throughout all this, the Israeli military’s incursion into Gaza continues. As bombardment in the city of Khan Younis increased, I received panicked messages from Palestinians in European Gaza Hospital who were hearing F-16s outside and witnessing mangled corpses arriving at the emergency room. (“Charred bodies and severed limbs,” one person texted me, “all of this is just normal news to the outside world.”)

Indeed, global attention is shifting away from Gaza toward everywhere else in the region. At this point, at least four other countries are involved in Israel’s war that began with a goal of eliminating Hamas: Lebanon, Yemen, Syria, and Iran. Netanyahu’s government is expected to directly retaliate against Iran soon. 

Now, the question is whether America will merely fund that barrage, or more actively join in. The hawks—from background sources to Bolton—seem eager to broaden the violence.

Sullivan, the same man who once called for  “red lines” in Rafah and hailed a “quiet” Middle East right before October 7th, spoke from the White House mid-day Tuesday of “consequences” for Iran; and not just doled out by Israel, but potentially levied by the United States and the Biden administration. 

“We are proud of the actions that we’ve taken alongside Israel to protect and defend Israel,” he said. “We have made it clear that there will be consequences—severe consequences—for this attack, and we will work with Israel to make that the case.” 

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Matthias Weyland loves having people ask about his balcony. A pair of solar panels hang from the railing, casting a sheen of dark blue against the red brick of his apartment building. They’re connected to a microinverter plugged into a wall outlet and feed electricity directly into his home. On a sunny day, he’ll produce enough power to supply up to half of his family’s daily needs.

Weyland is one of hundreds of thousands of people across Germany who have embraced balkonkraftwerk, or balcony solar. Unlike rooftop photovoltaics, the technology doesn’t require users to own their home, and anyone capable of plugging in an appliance can set it up. Most people buy the simple hardware online or at the supermarket for about $550.

The ease of installation and a potent mix of government policies to encourage adoption has made the wee arrays hugely popular. More than 550,000 of them dot cities and towns nationwide, half of which were installed in 2023. During the first half of this year, Germany added 200 megawatts of balcony solar. Regulations limit each system to just 800 watts, enough to power a small fridge or charge a laptop, but the cumulative effect is nudging the country toward its clean energy goals while giving apartment dwellers, who make up more than half of the population, an easy way to save money and address the climate crisis.

“I love the feeling of charging the bike when the sun is shining, or having the washing machine run when the sun is shining, and to know that it comes directly from the sun,” Weyland said. “It’s a small step you can take as a tenant” and an act of “self-efficacy, to not just sit and wait until the climate crisis gets worse.”

“It makes the energy transition feel a little more concrete and not so abstract.”

Balcony solar emerged around a decade ago, but didn’t catch on until four or five years ago, thanks in part to years of lobbying by solar and clean energy advocates for policies to foster its adoption. The German government enacted the first technical regulations for plug-in solar devices in 2019, allowing balcony solar systems to use standard electrical plugs and feed into the grid. That prompted an influx of plug-in devices and advocates to promote the technology.

The pandemic helped fuel the surge in popularity as people spent time at home, working on DIY projects. More recently, the escalating energy prices that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led more Germans to consider balcony solar. “People just did anything they could to reduce their energy bills,” said Wolfgang Gründinger, who works with the clean energy company Enpal.

Federal and local policymakers have redoubled their efforts to make the technology more accessible. In April, the government simplified permitting and registration requirements, and in July, federal lawmakers passed renter protections that prevent landlords from arbitrarily blocking installations. Cities throughout Germany, including Berlin and Weyland’s home city of Kiel, have offered millions of euros in subsidies to install balcony solar.

Gründinger and experts at the German Solar Industry Association noted that the devices don’t generate enough power to strain the grid, and their standardized design and safety features allow them to integrate smoothly and easily.

Despite the hype, most users concede that balcony solar provides modest cost and energy savings. Weyland spent around $530 for his 600-watt-capacity system. While he’s happy with how his south-facing panels perform during balmy weather, such days are rare in northern Germany. He estimates that he’ll save around $100 in annual electricity costs and recoup his investment in about five years. 

That’s fairly typical, although advocates of the technology say a system’s efficacy—and, therefore, payback timeline—varies widely depending upon the number of panels, their location and direction, and how much shade surrounds them. A household with a “comparatively large well-positioned balcony system in a sunny spot facing south” can produce 15 percent of its electricity with balcony solar, according to Peter Stratmann, head of renewables at German Federal Network Agency, the country’s utility regulator. 

While that can put a dent in a household’s utility bill, its impact on Germany’s consumption is far smaller. “Even if we attached panels to all suitable balconies across the country, we’d still only manage to meet 1 percent or less of our overall energy needs,” Stratmann told Deutsche Welle. 

So if balcony solar doesn’t generate a lot of power or save a lot of money, why are so many people flocking to it? Many of them like the idea of producing energy at home and gaining a bit of independence from the grid. It also provides a tangible way to take climate action. “It makes the energy transition feel a little more concrete and not so abstract,” said Helena Holenweger of the nonprofit Deutsche Umwelthilfe, or Environmental Action Germany. She installed a balcony solar system on top of her garage about a year ago. “You can literally do something about it.”

Holenweger and others who have tapped the sun said balcony solar led them to reevaluate their understanding of electricity consumption and take steps to reduce it. “For lots of people, energy is just something that comes out of your socket,” Holenweger said. “You never think about how it gets there or how it works.”

The systems don’t include battery storage, so the juice they generate must be used immediately, leading people to plan the best time to, say, run the washing machine to ensure they’re using renewable energy. In that way, it becomes something of a game. Many balcony solar kits feature an app to track daily energy generation, providing what has, for many people, become a scorecard. “They screenshot that, they send it around to their Facebook groups, family WhatsApp groups. They’re super proud,” Gründinger said.

Germany is unique in its rabid embrace of the tech. Although increasingly popular in Austria, the Netherlands, France, and elsewhere in Europe, plug-in solar devices aren’t viable in the United States due to costly permitting requirements and other local regulations. Beyond that, most systems are designed to European electrical standards, making them incompatible with US power systems. 

But even in Germany, balcony solar still faces hurdles, including fierce resistance from landlords worried about electrical fires or put off by the aesthetics of the panels. Last year, Weyland sued his building’s property management company for imposing what he deemed unreasonable requirements to install a system, including a formal inspection of the building’s electrical system. A court sided with him in October 2023, but similar cases pop up regularly. 

Weyland hopes that as more people adopt balcony solar, that will soon change. Already, people in his life regularly ask him about his panels, and two friends are buying systems of their own. 

“So many people talk to me in our neighborhood and ask about the system when they see it,” Weyland said. “It’s kind of like a snowball that gets bigger and bigger.”

This story was originally published by Grist and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Matthias Weyland loves having people ask about his balcony. A pair of solar panels hang from the railing, casting a sheen of dark blue against the red brick of his apartment building. They’re connected to a microinverter plugged into a wall outlet and feed electricity directly into his home. On a sunny day, he’ll produce enough power to supply up to half of his family’s daily needs.

Weyland is one of hundreds of thousands of people across Germany who have embraced balkonkraftwerk, or balcony solar. Unlike rooftop photovoltaics, the technology doesn’t require users to own their home, and anyone capable of plugging in an appliance can set it up. Most people buy the simple hardware online or at the supermarket for about $550.

The ease of installation and a potent mix of government policies to encourage adoption has made the wee arrays hugely popular. More than 550,000 of them dot cities and towns nationwide, half of which were installed in 2023. During the first half of this year, Germany added 200 megawatts of balcony solar. Regulations limit each system to just 800 watts, enough to power a small fridge or charge a laptop, but the cumulative effect is nudging the country toward its clean energy goals while giving apartment dwellers, who make up more than half of the population, an easy way to save money and address the climate crisis.

“I love the feeling of charging the bike when the sun is shining, or having the washing machine run when the sun is shining, and to know that it comes directly from the sun,” Weyland said. “It’s a small step you can take as a tenant” and an act of “self-efficacy, to not just sit and wait until the climate crisis gets worse.”

“It makes the energy transition feel a little more concrete and not so abstract.”

Balcony solar emerged around a decade ago, but didn’t catch on until four or five years ago, thanks in part to years of lobbying by solar and clean energy advocates for policies to foster its adoption. The German government enacted the first technical regulations for plug-in solar devices in 2019, allowing balcony solar systems to use standard electrical plugs and feed into the grid. That prompted an influx of plug-in devices and advocates to promote the technology.

The pandemic helped fuel the surge in popularity as people spent time at home, working on DIY projects. More recently, the escalating energy prices that followed Russia’s invasion of Ukraine led more Germans to consider balcony solar. “People just did anything they could to reduce their energy bills,” said Wolfgang Gründinger, who works with the clean energy company Enpal.

Federal and local policymakers have redoubled their efforts to make the technology more accessible. In April, the government simplified permitting and registration requirements, and in July, federal lawmakers passed renter protections that prevent landlords from arbitrarily blocking installations. Cities throughout Germany, including Berlin and Weyland’s home city of Kiel, have offered millions of euros in subsidies to install balcony solar.

Gründinger and experts at the German Solar Industry Association noted that the devices don’t generate enough power to strain the grid, and their standardized design and safety features allow them to integrate smoothly and easily.

Despite the hype, most users concede that balcony solar provides modest cost and energy savings. Weyland spent around $530 for his 600-watt-capacity system. While he’s happy with how his south-facing panels perform during balmy weather, such days are rare in northern Germany. He estimates that he’ll save around $100 in annual electricity costs and recoup his investment in about five years. 

That’s fairly typical, although advocates of the technology say a system’s efficacy—and, therefore, payback timeline—varies widely depending upon the number of panels, their location and direction, and how much shade surrounds them. A household with a “comparatively large well-positioned balcony system in a sunny spot facing south” can produce 15 percent of its electricity with balcony solar, according to Peter Stratmann, head of renewables at German Federal Network Agency, the country’s utility regulator. 

While that can put a dent in a household’s utility bill, its impact on Germany’s consumption is far smaller. “Even if we attached panels to all suitable balconies across the country, we’d still only manage to meet 1 percent or less of our overall energy needs,” Stratmann told Deutsche Welle. 

So if balcony solar doesn’t generate a lot of power or save a lot of money, why are so many people flocking to it? Many of them like the idea of producing energy at home and gaining a bit of independence from the grid. It also provides a tangible way to take climate action. “It makes the energy transition feel a little more concrete and not so abstract,” said Helena Holenweger of the nonprofit Deutsche Umwelthilfe, or Environmental Action Germany. She installed a balcony solar system on top of her garage about a year ago. “You can literally do something about it.”

Holenweger and others who have tapped the sun said balcony solar led them to reevaluate their understanding of electricity consumption and take steps to reduce it. “For lots of people, energy is just something that comes out of your socket,” Holenweger said. “You never think about how it gets there or how it works.”

The systems don’t include battery storage, so the juice they generate must be used immediately, leading people to plan the best time to, say, run the washing machine to ensure they’re using renewable energy. In that way, it becomes something of a game. Many balcony solar kits feature an app to track daily energy generation, providing what has, for many people, become a scorecard. “They screenshot that, they send it around to their Facebook groups, family WhatsApp groups. They’re super proud,” Gründinger said.

Germany is unique in its rabid embrace of the tech. Although increasingly popular in Austria, the Netherlands, France, and elsewhere in Europe, plug-in solar devices aren’t viable in the United States due to costly permitting requirements and other local regulations. Beyond that, most systems are designed to European electrical standards, making them incompatible with US power systems. 

But even in Germany, balcony solar still faces hurdles, including fierce resistance from landlords worried about electrical fires or put off by the aesthetics of the panels. Last year, Weyland sued his building’s property management company for imposing what he deemed unreasonable requirements to install a system, including a formal inspection of the building’s electrical system. A court sided with him in October 2023, but similar cases pop up regularly. 

Weyland hopes that as more people adopt balcony solar, that will soon change. Already, people in his life regularly ask him about his panels, and two friends are buying systems of their own. 

“So many people talk to me in our neighborhood and ask about the system when they see it,” Weyland said. “It’s kind of like a snowball that gets bigger and bigger.”

When Benjamin Netanyahu took the stage at the United Nations General Assembly in New York City on Friday morning, he looked out over a world transformed by almost a year of unabated bombing and tens of thousands of civilian deaths in Gaza. Several delegations walked out of his speech and throngs of people outside protested his presence in the city. 

The way the world views Netanyahu, and Israel, has changed. But the man’s view of the world remains seemingly unaltered.

After a year of war, global pressure to stop bombing Gaza, protests in Israel to make a peace deal bringing hostages home, and an Israeli military whose soldiers are exhausted and stretched thin, Netanyahu is not preparing for peace. Instead, he’s planning further war. “Israel’s war on Hamas and Hezbollah will continue unabated,” until “total victory,” he told the UN.

As he gave his speech, reports showed Israel had bombed a neighborhood in southern Lebanon targeting, they said, Hezbollah’s headquarters. Images of destruction flooded social media. This was seemingly, as Israeli sources reportedly said earlier this week, the plan for “de-escalation through escalation.” Peace, Netanyahu told the UN, would come from war.

This stuff is so exhausting. No, Netanyahu doesn't "share the aims" of US policy in Lebanon or Gaza. He wants to bomb the shit out of both places, ignore all US concerns about civilian casualties or regional escalation, and then demand more American weapons and money. https://t.co/jj7oZHShqd

— Tommy Vietor (@TVietor08) September 27, 2024

“They put a missile in every kitchen, a rocket in every garage,” Netanyahu told the UN, casting Lebanese civilian homes as legitimate targets. “As long as Hezbollah chooses the path of war, Israel has no choice, and Israel has every right to remove this threat.” 

The day before his UN speech, the Israeli Prime Minister spoke of “sharing the aims” of American policy but rejected a US-backed proposal for a ceasefire with Lebanon. That same day, the US signed off on $8.7 billion more military funding for Israel. 

Netanyahu’s battles are now expanding on at least three fronts: Gaza, Lebanon, and the West Bank. Despite that, he is still speaking the same way he did a year ago. 

In September 2023, he brought a map labeled “the new Middle East” to his UN speech, in which he spoke of two paths forward for the region: a “blessing,” in which Israel is powerful and allied with Saudi Arabia, and a “curse,” in which it is not. In 2024, as an arrest warrant from the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for war crimes hung over his head, Netanyahu spoke as though the past year simply had not happened. 

Just as he did in 2023, he waved around maps as props. (Once again, the maps did not include Gaza or the West Bank—two places whose residents hardly merited a mention in his half-hour speech.) Once again, he said this was justified because of Iran, not only calling for sanctions as he did last year, but suggesting that Iran funds the protests against him: “Who knows? Maybe, maybe some of the protesters, or even many of the protesters outside this building now.” 

Netanyahu spent more time berating the United Nations for antisemitism than addressing the prospect of a ceasefire with either Hamas or Hezbollah. “For the Palestinians, this UN house of darkness is home court,” Netanyahu said. “They know that in this swamp of antisemitic violence, there is an automatic majority willing to demonize the Jewish state on anything.” He dismissed his own potential ICC arrest warrant as nothing other than “pure antisemitism.” 

Israeli National Security Minister and lifelong anti-Arab extremist Itamar Ben-Gvir, who has threatened to boycott Netanyahu’s governing coalition if the prime minister signs a temporary ceasefire with Lebanon, tweeted his approval of Netanyahu’s speech minutes after it concluded. 

"נצח ישראל לא ישקר"
חזק ואמץ ראש הממשלה

— איתמר בן גביר (@itamarbengvir) September 27, 2024

As he gave his address, Israel launched a massive bombing campaign across Beirut, a city that only days ago the IDF told Lebanese civilians to flee to for their safety. Reports said that Netanyahu personally approved these bombings from New York, in order to target Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah. Netanyahu’s office released an image of him sitting in a New York hotel room before his speech, making the call for bombs to come down. 

On September 24, ProPublica revealed that Secretary of State Antony Blinken reportedly ignored two different reports from within the Biden administration concluding that Israel was deliberately blocking aid into Gaza. Only days after receiving detailed memos explaining exactly how the Israeli military was blocking humanitarian aid, Blinken told Congress that US does not “currently assess that the Israeli government is prohibiting or otherwise restricting the transport or delivery of US humanitarian assistance.”

Now, the Secretary of State is facing calls for his resignation. “[Blinken] lied. People went hungry, and some died. He needs to resign now,” Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich) wrote this morning. Tlaib, who is the only Palestinian-American in the US House, is the first member of Congress to call for Blinken to resign. 

Blinken has not, as of the time of publication, responded to Tlaib’s comment. He justified his response to the reports on CBS this morning, saying his response was “actually pretty typical.”

The US government is legally required to cut off weapons shipments to countries that prevent the delivery of humanitarian aid. The US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the head of the State Department’s Bureau of Population, Refugees and Migration each gave reports to Blinken concluding that Israel was deliberately blocking aid from the starving people of Gaza.

“USAID had sent Blinken a detailed 17-page memo on Israel’s conduct,” ProPublica reported. “The memo described instances of Israeli interference with aid efforts, including killing aid workers, razing agricultural structures, bombing ambulances and hospitals, sitting on supply depots and routinely turning away trucks full of food and medicine.”

As recently as August, the US approved a $20 billion sale of weapons to Israel, including fighter jets, tank shells, and missiles.