Green sea turtles, like this hatchling in Florida, are endangered due in part to habitat destruction and fishing nets. Keenan Adams/USFWSMariah Meek, Michigan State University and Karrigan Börk, University of California, Davis It wouldn’t make much sense to prohibit people from shooting a threatened woodpecker while allowing its forest to be cut down, or to bar killing endangered salmon while allowing a dam to dry out their habitat. But that’s exactly what the Trump administration is proposing to do by changing how one word in the Endangered Species Act is interpreted: harm. For 50 years, the U.S. government has interpreted the Endangered Species Act as protecting threatened and endangered species from actions that either directly kill them or eliminate their habitat. Most species on the brink of extinction are on the list because there is almost no place left for them to live. Their habitats have been paved over, burned or transformed. Habitat protection is essential for their survival.The golden-cheeked warbler breeds only in Texas, primarily in Texas Hill Country. It has been losing habitat as development expands in the region.Steve Maslowski/USFWS, CC BY As an ecologist and a law professor, we have spent our entire careers working to understand the law and science of helping imperiled species thrive. We recognize that the rule change the Trump administration quietly proposed could green-light the destruction of protected species’ habitats, making it nearly impossible to protect those endangered species.
The legal gambit
The Endangered Species Act, passed in 1973, bans the “take” of “any endangered species of fish or wildlife,” which includes harming protected species. Since 1975, regulations have defined “harm” to include habitat destruction that kills or injures wildlife. Developers and logging interests challenged that definition in 1995 in a Supreme Court case, Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon. However, the court ruled that the definition was reasonable and allowed federal agencies to continue using it. In short, the law says “take” includes harm, and under the existing regulatory definition, harm includes indirect harm through habitat destruction.Critical habitat throughout the U.S., including many coastlines and mountain areas. Note: Alaska is not to scale.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The Trump administration is seeking to change that definition of “harm” in a way that leaves out habitat modification. This narrowed definition would undo the most significant protections granted by the Endangered Species Act.
Why habitat protection matters
Habitat protection is the single most important factor in the recovery of endangered species in the United States – far more consequential than curbing direct killing alone. A 2019 study examining the reasons species were listed as endangered between 1975 and 2017 found that only 17% were primarily threatened by direct killing, such as hunting or poaching. That 17% includes iconic species such as the red wolf, American crocodile, Florida panther and grizzly bear. In contrast, a staggering 81% were listed because of habitat loss and degradation. The Chinook salmon, island fox, southwestern willow flycatcher, desert tortoise and likely extinct ivory-billed woodpecker are just a few examples. Globally, a 2022 study found that habitat loss threatened more species than all other causes combined. As natural landscapes are converted to agriculture or taken over by urban sprawl, logging operations and oil and gas exploration, ecosystems become fragmented and the space that species need to survive and reproduce disappears. Currently, more than 107 million acres of land in the U.S. are designated as critical habitat for Endangered Species Act-listed species. Industries and developers have called for changes to the rules for years, arguing it has been weaponized to stop development. However, research shows species worldwide are facing an unprecedented threat from human activities that destroy natural habitat. Under the proposed change, development could be accelerated in endangered species’ habitats.
Gutting the Endangered Species Act
The definition change is a quiet way to gut the Endangered Species Act. It is also fundamentally incompatible with the purpose Congress wrote into the act: “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved [and] to provide a program for the conservation of such endangered species and threatened species.” It contradicts the Supreme Court precedent, and it would destroy the act’s habitat protections.Northern spotted owls, like these fledglings, living in old growth forests in the Pacific Northwest are listed as threatened species because of habitat loss.Tom Kogut/USFS, CC BY Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum has argued that the recent “de-extinction” of dire wolves by changing 14 genes in the gray wolf genome means that America need not worry about species protection because technology “can help forge a future where populations are never at risk.” But altering an existing species to look like an extinct one is both wildly expensive and a paltry substitute for protecting existing species.The Catalina Island fox is endemic to Catalina Island. Habitat loss, diseases introduced by domestic dogs, and predators have diminished the population of these small foxes to threatened status.Catalina Island Conservancy/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA The administration has also refused to conduct the required analysis of the environmental impact that changing the definition could have. That means the American people won’t even know the significance of this change to threatened and endangered species until it’s too late, though if approved it will certainly end up in court.
The ESA is saving species
Surveys have found the Endangered Species Act is popular with the public, including Republicans. The Center for Biological Diversity estimates that the Endangered Species Act has saved 99% of protected species from extinction since it was created, not just from bullets but also from bulldozers. This regulatory rollback seeks to undermine the law’s greatest strength: protecting the habitats species need to survive. Congress knew the importance of habitat when it passed the law, and it wrote a definition of “take” that allows the agencies to protect it.Mariah Meek, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University and Karrigan Börk, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Rod: A creative force, blending words, images, and flavors. Blogger, writer, filmmaker, and photographer. Cooking enthusiast with a sci-fi vision. Passionate about his upcoming series and dedicated to TNC Network. Partnered with Rebecca Washington for a shared journey of love and art.
Rod: A creative force, blending words, images, and flavors. Blogger, writer, filmmaker, and photographer. Cooking enthusiast with a sci-fi vision. Passionate about his upcoming series and dedicated to TNC Network. Partnered with Rebecca Washington for a shared journey of love and art.
DoorDash Driver Arrested After Claiming Sexual Assault: What Really Happened?
A DoorDash driver who claimed she was sexually assaulted during a delivery is now facing felony charges after police say her viral video showed an unconscious, partially nude customer without consent. Here’s what investigators found and why the case is sparking national debate.
DoorDash delivery driver involved in a viral video controversy after claiming sexual assault; police say no assault occurred, and the driver now faces felony charges.
DoorDash Driver Arrested After Claiming Sexual Assault: What Really Happened?
A Viral Accusation Turns Into a Criminal Case
A routine food drop-off turned into a national controversy this month after a DoorDash delivery driver claimed she was sexually assaulted during a delivery — only to later be arrested herself following a police investigation. The incident, which quickly spread across TikTok and other platforms, has generated fierce debate over privacy, personal safety, and the power of viral video culture.
The driver, identified as Livie Rose Henderson, posted a video on social media in mid-October claiming that when she arrived at a customer’s home in Oswego, New York, she found the front door open and discovered a man “half-naked and unconscious” on his couch. She publicly described the moment as a sexual assault, saying she felt endangered and traumatized.
Her posts went viral almost immediately, drawing attention from millions of viewers and sparking outrage over the safety risks faced by gig workers — particularly women — who make deliveries to unfamiliar homes.
But the narrative took a dramatic turn.
Police: No Sexual Assault Occurred
According to the Oswego Police Department, an investigation found no evidence that Henderson was sexually assaulted. Instead, authorities say that she:
Entered the home without consent
Recorded the unconscious customer, who was partially nude
Posted the footage online, identifying him
Made claims police say were “false and misleading”
Investigators concluded the man was intoxicated and unconscious, not acting with intent or awareness. As a result, Henderson was arrested and charged with:
Second-degree unlawful surveillance (felony)
First-degree dissemination of unlawful surveillance images (felony)
Police emphasized that recording a person who is nude or partially nude inside their home — regardless of context — constitutes a violation of New York’s surveillance and privacy laws if done without permission.
DoorDash Drops the Driver
Henderson also claimed that DoorDash deactivated her account, something she described as retaliation for “exposing her assaulter.” But following her arrest, DoorDash stated that recording customers inside their homes violates company policy and local laws.
DoorDash said it cooperated with investigators but declined to comment further on personnel matters.
A Complicated Public Reaction
Social media reaction has been sharply divided:
Advertisement
Sympathy for the driver
Many viewers initially supported Henderson, arguing that gig workers often deal with unsafe conditions and should not be forced to decide between finishing a delivery or backing away from a potentially threatening situation.
Backlash over privacy violations
Others argue that Henderson crossed legal and ethical boundaries by:
Entering a private residence
Recording a vulnerable, unconscious person
Posting it publicly
Accusing the individual of a crime without evidence
These actions, critics say, show the dangerous consequences of rushing to social media before police or professional investigators evaluate the facts.
The Larger Issue: Safety vs. Responsibility
This case highlights a broader tension in the era of app-based work and viral content:
Gig workers do indeed face unpredictable and sometimes unsafe situations.
Customers have a right to privacy in their homes.
Social media, meanwhile, rewards the fastest and most dramatic version of a story — even before the truth is known.
As the criminal process continues, Henderson’s case may set a new precedent for how privacy laws interact with the realities of delivery work and the instant visibility of online platforms.
Focuses on the legal perspective, privacy violations, and the potential consequences of posting sensitive content online.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
How China cleaned up its air pollution – and what that meant for the climate
How China cleaned up its air pollution: Beijing’s air quality went from hazardous to good while Delhi and Lahore still struggle. Discover how China dramatically reduced pollution since 2013—and why cleaner air may have unintended consequences for global warming and climate change.
Delhi: 442. Lahore: 334. Beijing: 16. These are the levels of PM 2.5, one of the principle measures for air pollution, on November 19. As Pakistanis and Indians struggle with hazardous air quality, in Beijing – a city once notorious for its smog – the air quality is currently rated as good. Ahead of the 2008 Beijing Olympics, the Chinese government was so concerned about pollution that it introduced temporary restrictions on cars, shut down factories and stopped work on some construction sites. The measures worked and one study later found that levels of air pollution were down 30% during the period when the temporary Olympic restrictions were in place. It would take a few more years before the Chinese government implemented a clean air action plan in 2013. Since then, China has achieved a dramatic improvement in its air quality. In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to Laura Wilcox, a professor at the National Centre for Atmospheric Science at the University of Reading in the UK, to understand how China managed to clean up its air pollution. But Wilcox’s recent research uncovered some unintended consequences from this cleaner air for the global climate: the pollution was actually helping to cool the atmosphere and by taking it away, it may have accelerated global warming. Wilcox explains:
What we’re seeing is a removing of cooling that’s revealing warming that’s already there. So the air pollution isn’t the cause of the warming. It’s just letting us see stuff that we’ve already done.
Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter. https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/
The Hong Kong high-rise fire shows how difficult it is to evacuate in an emergency
Hong Kong High-Rise Fire: The deadly Hong Kong fire exposes critical challenges in evacuating tall buildings. Learn why stair descent is slower than expected, how human behavior causes delays, and what modern safety features can save lives.
Evacuations of high-rises don’t happen every day, but occur often enough. And when they do, the consequences are almost always severe. The stakes are highest in the buildings that are full at predictable times: residential towers at night, office towers in the day. We’ve seen this in the biggest modern examples, from the World Trade Center in the United States to Grenfell Tower in the United Kingdom. The patterns repeat: once a fire takes hold, getting thousands of people safely down dozens of storeys becomes a race against time. But what actually makes evacuating a high-rise building so challenging? It isn’t just a matter of “getting people out”. It’s a collision between the physical limits of the building and the realities of human behaviour under stress.
It’s a long way down to safety
The biggest barrier is simply vertical distance. Stairwells are the only reliable escape route in most buildings. Stair descent in real evacuations is far slower than most people expect. Under controlled or drill conditions people move down at around 0.4–0.7 metres per second. But in an actual emergency, especially in high-rise fires, this can drop sharply. During 9/11, documented speeds at which survivors went down stairs were often slower than 0.3 m/s. These slow-downs accumulate dramatically over long vertical distances. Fatigue is a major factor. Prolonged walking significantly reduces the speed of descent. Surveys conducted after incidents confirm that a large majority of high-rise evacuees stop at least once. During the 2010 fire of a high-rise in Shanghai, nearly half of older survivors reported slowing down significantly. Long stairwells, landings, and the geometry of high-rise stairs all contribute to congestion, especially when flows from multiple floors merge into a single shaft. Slower movers include older adults, people with physical or mobility issues and groups evacuating together. These reduce the overall pace of descent compared with the speeds typically assumed for able-bodied individuals. This can create bottlenecks. Slow movers are especially relevant in residential buildings, where diverse occupants mean movement speeds vary widely. Visibility matters too. Experimental studies show that reduced lighting significantly slows down people going down stairs. This suggests that when smoke reduces visibility in real events, movement can slow even further as people hesitate, misjudge steps, or adjust their speed.
Human behaviour can lead to delays
Human behaviour is one of the biggest sources of delay in high-rise evacuations. People rarely act immediately when an alarm sounds. They pause, look for confirmation, check conditions, gather belongings, or coordinate with family members. These early minutes are consistently some of the costliest when evacuating from tall buildings. Studies of the World Trade Center evacuations show the more cues people saw – smoke, shaking, noise – the more they sought extra information before moving. That search for meaning adds delay. People talk to colleagues, look outside windows, phone family, or wait for an announcement. Ambiguous cues slow them even further. In residential towers, families, neighbours and friend-groups naturally try to evacuate together. Groups tend to form wider steps, or group together in shapes that reduce overall flow. But our research shows when a group moves in a “snake” formation – one behind the other – they travel faster, occupy less space, and allow others to pass more easily. These patterns matter in high-rise housing, where varied household types and mixed abilities make moving in groups the norm.
Why stairs aren’t enough
As high-rises grow taller and populations age, the old assumption that “everyone can take the stairs” simply no longer holds. A full building evacuation can take too long, and for many residents (older adults, people with mobility limitations, families evacuating together) long stair descents are sometimes impossible. This is why many countries have turned to refuge floors: fire- and smoke-protected levels built into towers as safe staging points. These can reduce bottlenecks and prevent long queues. They give people somewhere safe to rest, transfer across to a clearer stair, or wait for firefighters. Essentially, they make vertical movement more manageable in buildings where continuous descent isn’t realistic. Alongside them are evacuation elevators. These are lifts engineered to operate during a fire with pressurised shafts, protected lobbies and backup power. The most efficient evacuations use a mix of stairs and elevators, with ratios adjusted to the building height, density and demographics. The lesson is clear: high-rise evacuation cannot rely on one tool. Stairs, refuge floors and protected elevators should all be made part of ensuring vertical living is safer.Milad Haghani, Associate Professor and Principal Fellow in Urban Risk and Resilience, The University of Melbourne; Erica Kuligowski, Principal Research Fellow, School of Engineering, RMIT University, and Ruggiero Lovreglio, Professor in Digital Construction and Fire Engineering, Te Kunenga ki Pūrehuroa – Massey University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
STM Daily News is a vibrant news blog dedicated to sharing the brighter side of human experiences. Emphasizing positive, uplifting stories, the site focuses on delivering inspiring, informative, and well-researched content. With a commitment to accurate, fair, and responsible journalism, STM Daily News aims to foster a community of readers passionate about positive change and engaged in meaningful conversations. Join the movement and explore stories that celebrate the positive impacts shaping our world.
Mariah Meek, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University and Karrigan Börk, Professor of Law, University of California, Davis This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
