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.
The All-New 2026 Nissan LEAF Is Here — Sleek, Smart, and Ready to Lead
Nissan has officially lifted the curtain on the all-new 2026 LEAF, and it’s not just an update—it’s a total reinvention. The third-generation LEAF blends sleek, aerodynamic styling with SUV-like proportions, signaling a bold departure from the hatchback form that defined the nameplate for over a decade. This refreshed design marks a new chapter for one of the world’s most accessible and best-selling electric vehicles.
With nearly 700,000 global sales under its belt, the LEAF has long been a pioneer in the mass-market EV space. The 2026 model takes that foundation and builds upon it in every direction—design, technology, comfort, and capability. Whether you’re a loyal EV enthusiast or making the switch from a gas-powered car, Nissan’s newest electric offering is designed to meet you where you are and elevate your driving experience.
The all-new LEAF sports clean, sculpted body lines and a wide stance that echoes modern crossover aesthetics. Inside, the cabin is minimal yet inviting, focused on comfort, spaciousness, and wellbeing. A dimming panoramic roof with heat shielding adds a premium touch, while ambient lighting in 64 available colors helps set the perfect mood for any drive.
Performance Meets Practicality
Among the most impressive upgrades is a liquid-cooled lithium-ion battery offering up to 75 kWh of usable capacity—meaning more range, more freedom, and more confidence. Faster charging speeds and the inclusion of the North American Charging Standard (NACS) port with Plug & Charge capability further simplify EV ownership.
Nissan’s all-new 3-in-1 powertrain—a compact, integrated system combining motor, inverter, and reducer—delivers both efficiency and power in a sleek package. It’s an engineering advancement that supports the LEAF’s mission of providing reliable, affordable electric mobility for all.
Tech-Savvy and Feature-Rich
This isn’t just a car—it’s a rolling tech hub. The 2026 LEAF offers dual 14.3-inch displays, wireless Apple CarPlay® and Android Auto™, and Google built-in features like Google Maps. Drivers will enjoy innovative tools like the Invisible Hood View, Front Wide View, and the 3D Intelligent Around View® Monitor—making tight parking and complex driving environments far easier to navigate.
Audiophiles take note: the available Bose® Personal® Plus audio system ensures that your soundtrack is every bit as premium as your ride.
Advertisement
Built to Impress, Ready for the Road
With details like flush door handles, holographic 3D tail lamps, and available 19-inch wheels, the 2026 LEAF is clearly designed to turn heads. But its mission is practical at heart: making electric driving seamless for everyday users. From its improved range to thoughtful in-cabin tech, Nissan is aiming squarely at the mainstream with this launch.
Assembly for the U.S. and Canadian markets will take place at Nissan’s Tochigi plant in Japan, where the LEAF will be built alongside the Ariya SUV.
The 2026 Nissan LEAF arrives at U.S. dealerships this fall, with availability in other global markets to follow.
Want more 2026 Nissan LEAF details or a feature breakdown?
Welcome to the Consumer Corner section of STM Daily News, your ultimate destination for savvy shopping and informed decision-making! Dive into a treasure trove of insights and reviews covering everything from the hottest toys that spark joy in your little ones to the latest electronic gadgets that simplify your life. Explore our comprehensive guides on stylish home furnishings, discover smart tips for buying a home or enhancing your living space with creative improvement ideas, and get the lowdown on the best cars through our detailed auto reviews. Whether you’re making a major purchase or simply seeking inspiration, the Consumer Corner is here to empower you every step of the way—unlock the keys to becoming a smarter consumer today!
The once red-hot U.S. residential solar market is showing signs of cooling off—but don’t count it out just yet. A combination of rising interest rates, regulatory changes, and supply chain challenges have led to a notable dip in installations across the country. But while the short-term trend suggests a slowdown, industry experts remain optimistic about the long-term potential of rooftop solar.
📉 The Numbers Don’t Lie: Installations Are Down
According to the Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA) and Wood Mackenzie, residential solar installations dropped by 13% year-over-year in Q1 2025, with 1,106 megawatts (MW) installed nationwide. That’s also a 4% decline from the previous quarter. This marks a continuation of the trend that began in 2024, which saw the residential sector contract in 22 states—including a five-year low in California [^1].
Analysts at BloombergNEF predict that total U.S. solar capacity will fall by 7% between 2025 and 2027, with a projected 1% annual decline through 2035 under current policy scenarios [^2].
🧾 What’s Behind the Drop?
1. Higher Interest Rates
The Federal Reserve’s continued efforts to tame inflation have made financing solar systems more expensive for homeowners. The result? Fewer consumers are willing to commit to the upfront investment, even with long-term savings in play [^3].
2. Policy Shifts in Key States
California, long considered the leader in solar adoption, rolled back its Net Energy Metering (NEM) 2.0 program in favor of NEM 3.0, which significantly reduces the value of solar exports back to the grid. Installations in the state fell sharply as a result [^1].
On the federal side, proposed cuts to the 30% Investment Tax Credit (ITC)—a major driver of residential adoption—have caused uncertainty in the market. According to Reuters, solar stocks plummeted following changes in a Senate tax bill that threatened to shrink or eliminate these credits [^4].
Advertisement
3. Tariffs and Supply Constraints
Tariffs on Chinese and other foreign-made solar panels have led to price increases and reduced availability. Simultaneously, battery storage components are experiencing shortages, further delaying installations and complicating project timelines [^5].
🌤 The Long-Term Picture: A Resilient Future
Despite the headwinds, many in the industry see this as a short-term correction rather than a lasting decline. SEIA projects a return to 9% annual residential growth from 2025 to 2030, particularly if financing conditions improve and federal incentives remain intact [^1].
Additionally, solar panel prices remain historically low, hovering around $2.50–$2.60 per watt installed. That affordability, coupled with increasing demand for home electrification and EV charging solutions, makes rooftop solar an attractive long-term investment [^1].
In a recent industry survey, 78% of solar installers said they expect to sell as much or more in 2025 than they did in 2024 [^3]. And while the market is down in states like California, others—including Texas, Florida, and Arizona—are continuing to grow.
✅ Final Takeaway
Yes, residential solar is currently in a downturn. But it’s more of a recalibration than a collapse. Regulatory turbulence and financial pressures are squeezing the market, but the fundamentals—affordability, environmental benefits, and technological advancement—remain strong.
The future of residential solar will depend heavily on stable policy support, affordable financing, and continued innovation. If those stars align, the industry could see another boom in the latter half of the decade.
Advertisement
📚 Sources
[^1]: SEIA/Wood Mackenzie. U.S. Solar Market Insight Q1 2025.
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.
This screenshot of an AI-generated video depicts Christopher Pelkey, who was killed in 2021.
Screenshot: Stacey Wales/YouTubeNir Eisikovits, UMass Boston and Daniel J. Feldman, UMass Boston
Christopher Pelkey was shot and killed in a road range incident in 2021. On May 8, 2025, at the sentencing hearing for his killer, an AI video reconstruction of Pelkey delivered a victim impact statement. The trial judge reported being deeply moved by this performance and issued the maximum sentence for manslaughter.
As part of the ceremonies to mark Israel’s 77th year of independence on April 30, 2025, officials had planned to host a concert featuring four iconic Israeli singers. All four had died years earlier. The plan was to conjure them using AI-generated sound and video. The dead performers were supposed to sing alongside Yardena Arazi, a famous and still very much alive artist. In the end Arazi pulled out, citing the political atmosphere, and the event didn’t happen.
In April, the BBC created a deep-fake version of the famous mystery writer Agatha Christie to teach a “maestro course on writing.” Fake Agatha would instruct aspiring murder mystery authors and “inspire” their “writing journey.”
The use of artificial intelligence to “reanimate” the dead for a variety of purposes is quickly gaining traction. Over the past few years, we’ve been studying the moral implications of AI at the Center for Applied Ethics at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and we find these AI reanimations to be morally problematic.
Before we address the moral challenges the technology raises, it’s important to distinguish AI reanimations, or deepfakes, from so-called griefbots. Griefbots are chatbots trained on large swaths of data the dead leave behind – social media posts, texts, emails, videos. These chatbots mimic how the departed used to communicate and are meant to make life easier for surviving relations. The deepfakes we are discussing here have other aims; they are meant to promote legal, political and educational causes.
Chris Pelkey was shot and killed in 2021. This AI ‘reanimation’ of him was presented in court as a victim impact statement.
Moral quandaries
The first moral quandary the technology raises has to do with consent: Would the deceased have agreed to do what their likeness is doing? Would the dead Israeli singers have wanted to sing at an Independence ceremony organized by the nation’s current government? Would Pelkey, the road-rage victim, be comfortable with the script his family wrote for his avatar to recite? What would Christie think about her AI double teaching that class?
The answers to these questions can only be deduced circumstantially – from examining the kinds of things the dead did and the views they expressed when alive. And one could ask if the answers even matter. If those in charge of the estates agree to the reanimations, isn’t the question settled? After all, such trustees are the legal representatives of the departed.
But putting aside the question of consent, a more fundamental question remains.
What do these reanimations do to the legacy and reputation of the dead? Doesn’t their reputation depend, to some extent, on the scarcity of appearance, on the fact that the dead can’t show up anymore? Dying can have a salutary effect on the reputation of prominent people; it was good for John F. Kennedy, and it was good for Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.
The fifth-century B.C. Athenian leader Pericles understood this well. In his famous Funeral Oration, delivered at the end of the first year of the Peloponnesian War, he asserts that a noble death can elevate one’s reputation and wash away their petty misdeeds. That is because the dead are beyond reach and their mystique grows postmortem. “Even extreme virtue will scarcely win you a reputation equal to” that of the dead, he insists.
Do AI reanimations devalue the currency of the dead by forcing them to keep popping up? Do they cheapen and destabilize their reputation by having them comment on events that happened long after their demise?
In addition, these AI representations can be a powerful tool to influence audiences for political or legal purposes. Bringing back a popular dead singer to legitimize a political event and reanimating a dead victim to offer testimony are acts intended to sway an audience’s judgment.
It’s one thing to channel a Churchill or a Roosevelt during a political speech by quoting them or even trying to sound like them. It’s another thing to have “them” speak alongside you. The potential of harnessing nostalgia is supercharged by this technology. Imagine, for example, what the Soviets, who literally worshipped Lenin’s dead body, would have done with a deep fake of their old icon.
Good intentions
You could argue that because these reanimations are uniquely engaging, they can be used for virtuous purposes. Consider a reanimated Martin Luther King Jr., speaking to our currently polarized and divided nation, urging moderation and unity. Wouldn’t that be grand? Or what about a reanimated Mordechai Anielewicz, the commander of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, speaking at the trial of a Holocaust denier like David Irving?
But do we know what MLK would have thought about our current political divisions? Do we know what Anielewicz would have thought about restrictions on pernicious speech? Does bravely campaigning for civil rights mean we should call upon the digital ghost of King to comment on the impact of populism? Does fearlessly fighting the Nazis mean we should dredge up the AI shadow of an old hero to comment on free speech in the digital age?
No one can know with certainty what Martin Luther King Jr. would say about today’s society.AP Photo/Chick Harrity
Even if the political projects these AI avatars served were consistent with the deceased’s views, the problem of manipulation – of using the psychological power of deepfakes to appeal to emotions – remains.
But what about enlisting AI Agatha Christie to teach a writing class? Deep fakes may indeed have salutary uses in educational settings. The likeness of Christie could make students more enthusiastic about writing. Fake Aristotle could improve the chances that students engage with his austere Nicomachean Ethics. AI Einstein could help those who want to study physics get their heads around general relativity.
But producing these fakes comes with a great deal of responsibility. After all, given how engaging they can be, it’s possible that the interactions with these representations will be all that students pay attention to, rather than serving as a gateway to exploring the subject further.
Living on in the living
In a poem written in memory of W.B. Yeats, W.H. Auden tells us that, after the poet’s death, Yeats “became his admirers.” His memory was now “scattered among a hundred cities,” and his work subject to endless interpretation: “the words of a dead man are modified in the guts of the living.”
The dead live on in the many ways we reinterpret their words and works. Auden did that to Yeats, and we’re doing it to Auden right here. That’s how people stay in touch with those who are gone. In the end, we believe that using technological prowess to concretely bring them back disrespects them and, perhaps more importantly, is an act of disrespect to ourselves – to our capacity to abstract, think and imagine.
Nir Eisikovits, Professor of Philosophy and Director, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston and Daniel J. Feldman, Senior Research Fellow, Applied Ethics Center, UMass Boston
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.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here:
Cookie Policy
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.
