NASA has revealed its $1 billion plan to crash the International Space Station (ISS) back to Earth.

The space agency is set to decommission the orbiting laboratory in 2031 due to stresses on the structure that have accumulated over time.

NASA will pay any company that creates a ‘space-tug’ design, a craft powerful enough to pull the ISS from its orbit and send it toward our planet.

The agency is calling the space tug a US Deorbit Vehicle (USDV), which will nudge the ISS from 175 miles above Earth’s surface to about 75 miles, where it will begin its final descent into the Pacific Ocean. 

Proposals are due no later than November 17, and the ISS retirement plan will begin in 2026 when NASA lets the craft start to decay naturally.

The plan’s first step is to let the ship begin to decay and not re-boost it so it stays in orbit.

During this time, the atmospheric drag will reduce the orbit from around 250 miles above the surface to 200 miles.

However, this will take a few years to happen.

In 2030, the crew on the ISS will make the final descent to Earth and bring any crucial equipment.

The ISS will continue to move closer to Earth, reaching the ‘Point of no return’ at 175 miles above the surface.

And this is where the $1 billion space tug will swoop in and give the ISS a little push from orbit.

The station will begin re-entry between 75 miles and 50 miles above the surface.

The external skin of modules will melt away, and then the exposed hardware will vaporize as the ISS soars 18,000 miles per hour through Earth’s atmosphere.

Any of it that survives re-entry will be targeted to fall in Point Nemo, a region of the Pacific Ocean between New Zealand and South America often used as a spacecraft graveyard – at least 260 craft have been laid to rest there.

‘The decommissioning plan for the space station is the execution of a responsible, controlled, and targeted deorbit into a remote ocean area,’ NASA shared in a statement.

During descent through the Earth’s atmosphere, the space station would burn, break up, and vaporize into fragments of various sizes. 

‘Some fragments would likely survive the thermal stresses of re-entry. Environmental impacts of these fragments within the anticipated impact area are expected to be small. 

‘To best protect people and property on Earth, the most remote areas of the ocean are targeted.’

President Ronald Regan announced the construction of the ISS during his January 25, 1984 State of the Union Address, noting NASA will have it completed in 10 years.

Then, on December 4, 1998, the first US component of the ship launched, and two years later, it officially began operation.

The station has hosted more than 250 visitors from 20 countries since the first crew arrived in November 2000. 

NASA originally planned to decommission the ISS after 15 years of operation – but that timeline has since been surpassed.

But the massive orbiting laboratory shows wear and tear, forcing NASA to say farewell to its faithful ship.

The station’s safe deorbit is the shared responsibility of the five space agencies — including NASA, CSA (Canadian Space Agency), (ESA) European Space Agency, JAXA (Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency), and the State Space Corporation Roscosmos.

Each is responsible for managing and controlling the hardware it provides.

The station was designed to be interdependent and relies on contributions from across the partnership.

The US, Japan, Canada, and ESA participating countries have committed to operating the station through 2030 and Russia through at least 2028.

NASA said it examined several options for decommissioning the ISS, including disassembly and return to Earth, boosting it to a higher orbit to stay in space or leaving it in orbit to decay until it randomly falls to Earth.

The other options fail because the structure was not designed to be easily disassembled in space, the craft needs to be re-boosted to stay in orbit and allowing it to decay in orbit could pose risks on Earth.

NASA does not want the ISS’s retirement to be the end of its hold over space and has already launched a replacement plant. 

The American space agency does not want to lose access to these benefits when the station ends, so it has launched a transition plan – asking private companies to develop a space station. 

Multiple companies want to operate a commercial station, including Axiom Space, Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin and Northrup Grumman.

‘The International Space Station is entering its third and most productive decade as a groundbreaking scientific platform in microgravity,’ said Robyn Gatens, director of the International Space Station at NASA Headquarters.

‘This third decade is one of the results, building on our successful global partnership to verify exploration and human research technologies to support deep space exploration, continue to return medical and environmental benefits to humanity, and lay the groundwork for a commercial future in low-Earth orbit.

ALEX BRUMMER: Rachel Reeves’ plan to ‘gold-plate’ OBR Budget scrutiny is not a radical new deal

• Reeves promises ‘permanent tax and spending changes’ will get OBR scrutiny
• She says Labour will commit to single budget by end of November each year
• But the notion that this is some radical new deal needs to be scotched

By Alex Brummer for the Daily Mail

Updated: 07:07 EDT, 23 September 2023

Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

You need to be very careful in how you use AI bots to help with holiday planning, Which? reveals.

The consumer group put their vacation-booking skills to the test, and found them wanting when asked to help organise a trip to Greece.

The watchdog put five AI systems to the test – OpenAI’s free ChatGPT and the premium version with a Kayak plug-in; Google‘s Bard; Microsoft‘s Bing Chat; and Expedia, which has integrated the ChatGPT software.

Which? asked the bots 10 questions to eke out advice for almost every aspect of the trip, from Greek islands that are best for peace and quiet to the best travel insurance options, car rental firms and hotels. 

There were some positives – such as the bots simplifying travel insurance jargon – but, from recommending hotels with terrible reviews to sourcing flight prices for airports in the wrong country, on the whole, AI wasn’t particularly useful. Here’s what the investigation uncovered…

THE GOOD

Which? was ‘impressed’ when Bing Chat suggested Kefalonia as an island to visit, as the holiday hotspot was voted Which? members’ favourite Greek island and was awarded five stars for peace and quiet.

The watchdog notes that Bing Chat was also the only bot to cite its sources, even citing a report by Which? in its advice.

In another positive, Which? found the AI bots were handy for jargon-busting – for instance, it notes that ChatGPT quickly translated a ‘wordy and confusing’ extract from a travel insurance policy into simpler, easier-to-understand terms.

THE BAD

One major negative, Which? found, was how AI bots’ responses could sound like a ‘backhanded sales pitch’. It explains that when it asked Bing for the best car hire companies at Kefalonia Airport, it recommended the ‘obscure’ CBR Car Hire Kefalonia, using language that appeared to be ‘lifted almost word for word from the company’s own website’ as justification for picking them. ‘It was a similar story for its recommendation of local rental Flydrive,’ Which? says.

As mentioned, ‘downright dodgy’ hotel recommendations were another red flag. Which? says that Erietta Studios was top of the list for ChatGPT Premium’s ‘best-rated hotels for under £150 a night’, even though the property has a mediocre 6.7 rating on Kayak and 2.5 on Tripadvisor, with more than a third of reviewers rating it ‘terrible’.

On top of that, Bard gave Which? several hotel recommendations with links that take users to various holiday providers’ websites. One of the links led users to ‘On the Beach’– a company that was awarded just three stars for customer service by Which? members, the watchdog notes.

Which? faced more problems when they sought advice for buying travel insurance. Bard’ lost the plot’ when the watchdog asked about holiday cover for a 70-year-old with pre-existing medical conditions and recommended a ‘global travel insurance company’ called Interpol – a firm that Which? couldn’t find any trace of online. The watchdog says that following the link provided led to an Interpol (the International Criminal Police Organisation) themed notebook for sale on Amazon.

The AI bots were similarly wayward when it came to sourcing flights. ChatGPT wrongly told Which? there were no direct flights from Birmingham to Kefalonia, as ChatGPT is only ‘educated’ up until September 2021 – the same year the Birmingham to Kefalonia route was launched by Jet2.com.

The watchdog then put the same question to the premium version of ChatGPT, which costs $20 (£16) per month, but the bot confused Birmingham in England for Birmingham, Alabama.

Financial advice from each of the AI bots varied wildly, Which? found. When it asked how much spending money would be needed for a two-week all-inclusive holiday to Kefalonia, answers ranged from £430 to a whopping £2,920 per person, the watchdog reveals.

Another warning sign flashed when Which? asked if the AI bots could book the trip. All said no, except Bard, which found the watchdog a Ryanair flight and asked for its credit card details, saying: ‘I will book the flight and send you a confirmation email.’ However, Google told the watchdog that Bard was getting ahead of itself and doesn’t have the ability to book flights yet.

Google also told Which? that it continues to make improvements ‘to ensure that accurate information is provided in response to queries’.

Meanwhile, touching on the negative aspects of the responses offered by Bing, Microsoft told Which? that Bing includes its sources so that users can ‘fact check’ and research its responses.

‘We are constantly looking to improve the authority and credibility of our web results,’ Microsoft said.

And OpenAI acknowledged that ChatGPT sometimes gives ‘plausible-sounding but incorrect or nonsensical answers’ – and admits that fixing this issue is ‘challenging’, Which? reveals.

In a statement to the watchdog, Kayak added that it was ‘early days’ for the tech, vowing to make changes to help it ‘prioritise nearby locations’ in future.

The upshot from Which? is that you should ‘make sure to do some extra research before turning your fictional trip into a reality’.

Which? senior researcher/writer Laura Sanders says: ‘The chatbots were able to converse with us in a very natural way, which gives them an air of expertise – but don’t be fooled… several [responses we received] were biased, some were out of date and others were utter nonsense. Worse still, AI often doesn’t reveal its sources, meaning you’re none the wiser if that glowing room recommendation has come directly from the hotel manager.’

And Rory Boland, Editor of Which? Travel, said: ‘More and more consumers are likely to encounter artificial intelligence when booking holidays, but worryingly we’ve found that these services can often give travellers information and recommendations that are inaccurate, biased or even out of date.

‘Because AI chatbots have learned to communicate in a natural, conversational style, it can be easy to be lulled into a false sense of security, and accept their answers at face value – even though the information AI uses can often be directly lifted from marketing materials, or unreliable sources. Those that do decide to experiment with AI to get ideas for their next trip should always make sure to take the time to do their own research and check reviews to make sure they’re getting reliable recommendations.’

Federal prosecutors plan to indict Hunter Biden by end of September

By Nikki Schwab, Senior U.S. Political Reporter

Published: 16:49 EDT, 6 September 2023 | Updated: 16:49 EDT, 6 September 2023

Advertisement

Hunter Biden could face charges of illegally possessing a gun while he was using drugs following a bombshell court filing revealing prosecutors want to indict him by the end of September. 

The president’s son had reached a deal that would have allowed him to avoid trial for the firearms charges if he abided by parole conditions over 24 months.

But now charges that could land him up to 10 years in prison appear to be back on the table, according to a new filing signed by Special Counsel David Weiss.

‘The Speedy Trial Act requires that the Government obtain the return of an indictment by a grand jury by Friday, September 29, 2023, at the earliest,’ the filing read. ‘The Government intends to seek the return of an indictment in this case before that date.’

Hunter Biden is also under investigation for his foreign business dealings, which are also the focus of probes started by House Republicans in Congress. 

He was supposed to be spared from jailtime when Weiss, the U.S. attorney for Delaware, and his lawyers inked a plea deal where the younger Biden would plead guilty to two misdemeanor crimes of failure to pay more than $100,000 in taxes. 

Hunter had made more than $1.5 million in income in 2017 and 2018.   

As part of the plea deal, he would avoid prosecution for the gun charge as long as he met certain conditions over a 24-month period. 

Hunter had lied on a 2018 application to buy a gun. 

A photo of the form shows he answered ‘no’ when asked if he was an ‘unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance.’ 

Hunter wrote about his extensive drug use during that period of his life in his 2021 memoir, Beautiful Things.  

Republicans in Washington complained that the president’s son had gotten himself a ‘sweetheart deal.’ 

But it all fell apart when he was in the Wilmington, Delaware courtroom of the Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika in late July. 

Due to Noreika’s probing, daylight was discovered between the government and Hunter’s lawyers’ understanding of the plea deal and whether it provided blanket immunity – essentially whether it let the first son off the hook from facing any future federal charges. 

Noreika complained that the U.S. attorney’s office and Hunter’s lawyers had expected her to ‘rubber-stamp’ the deal.  

‘I’m not going to say I’m going to accept the agreement. I’m not going to say I’ll deny it,’ she said. 

The day in court ended with Noreika saying she would need additional briefings from the parties. 

Since then, Hunter’s defense attorneys have argued that despite the broader plea deal falling apart, the gun deal was ‘valid and binding,’ because it was signed.  

The deal was put under further scrutiny when two IRS whistleblowers accused the Justice Department of giving the president’s son special treatment. 

In August, Attorney General Merrick Garland, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, announced that Weiss, a Trump appointee but who got approval from the state’s two Democratic senators, would be elevated to the level of special counsel. 

Promoting Weiss and not bringing in a new special counsel from the outside to manage the Hunter Biden case raised the eyebrows of some Republicans in Congress who had been angered by the plea deal. 

‘Did they appoint him special counsel so he doesn’t have to testify before the Congress of the United States?’ GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley told DailyMail.com, reacting to the news. ‘If that’s your game – then I’d say there’s ulterior motives.’ 

Grassley pointed out ‘you can see this plea agreement that the judge didn’t take raises a lot of questions about him.’  

House Speaker Kevin McCarthy also suggested Weiss being elevated was a way to thwart ongoing House Republican investigations. 

‘This action by Biden’s DOJ cannot be used to obstruct congressional investigations or whitewash the Biden family corruption,’ the speaker said.  

Every child could get £1,000 pot to invest in plan to revive ‘stagnant’ economy

By Daily Mail City & Finance Reporter

Updated: 18:37 EDT, 6 September 2023

Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

Locals are battling to stop John Lewis‘ plan to replace Waitrose supermarket with huge 20-storey tower blocks. 

A ‘Stop the Towers’ campaign has been organised by residents of west Ealing who are against the plans for almost 430 homes. 

Campaigners say John Lewis has ‘ignored’ public opinion and local planning guidance.

The public consultation on the controversial plans opened on August 10 and closes on August 31 – a move objectors say is a ‘deliberate attempt’ to avoid scrutiny, as many residents will be on holiday and won’t have time to respond. 

In February this year, Ealing Council leader Peter Mason said the plans were ‘disappointing to say the least’. 

He added that it felt like the ‘big institution’ was trying to ‘twist arms and bully through a scheme’. 

Cllr Mason questioned the height of the four proposed tower blocks, with the tallest reaching 20-storeys. 

Subject to ‘ongoing discussions’ with the Labour-led council, 35 per cent of the homes will be affordable – although the documents do suggest this could drop to 20 per cent. 

Co-chairs of the campaign, Denise Colliver and Justine Sullivan stated: ‘The arrogance of JLPs development team is breath-taking. 

‘They’ve ignored both the weight of public opinion and also the Local Plan site-specific guidance.’

They added: ‘No one objects to appropriate, proportionate development that will genuinely benefit local communities. But yet again we are seeing developers trying to ride roughshod over local people’s wishes and needs, ignoring democratically implemented local plans, just to make a fast buck.’ 

Leader of the Liberal Democrat group at the council, Gary Malcolm, said: ‘There have been too many tall towers built over the past fiver to ten years. 

‘A huge amount of housing is needed but it’s better to have lower density schemes,  that are good for families.’ 

Cllr Malcolm added that John Lewis is going against one of the council’s policies which was brought in last year to crack down on tall buildings.

John Lewis has said residents will have until the date of the planning committee to submit their views on the major development.  

The plans also include a café, a Waitrose and ‘public realm improvements’ on Alexandria Road. 

A planning statement submitted by Savills on behalf of the retailer says it is ‘an exciting and significant opportunity to optimise a well-connected, heavily under-utilised, brownfield site’.

The Conservative group said: ‘We are listening to residents’ stated concerns about the proposed height of the development, the amount of parking proposed, the potential strain on local infrastructure, and the provision of retail. All of these questions need to be addressed.’

The department store giant is hoping to build 1,000 new flats on sites of old Waitrose stores as part of a £500 million deal, with its flagship scheme in Bromley in addition to a site in Mill Lane, Reading.

A spokesperson for John Lewis said: ‘As the housing crisis continues, we have the opportunity to make better use of a supermarket and car park site to deliver much-needed homes for the local area, as well as improved community facilities, new commercial space and a new Waitrose shop. 

‘We’ve set out our ambition to maximise the delivery of affordable housing to ensure good availability of quality, rental homes for local people, including nurses, teachers and other key workers. 

‘This is an ongoing process where we’ve been working closely with a range of stakeholders and will continue to do so while the application is considered. 

‘The plans have been submitted to Ealing and the local authority will now consider the application in line with all relevant planning policies. 

‘We are confident that Ealing will welcome feedback from local residents between now and determination of the application as has always been the case with other major applications in the borough.’

Speaker Kevin McCarthy seems to have accepted the GOP-led House will not be able to push through 12 spending bills before the end of the fiscal year, and will instead need to pass a resolution to keep government funding at its current levels temporarily. 

Congress has until September 30 to pass legislation to fund the government through fiscal year 2024 – but the House does not return from recess until September 11. 

The speaker told his rank-and-file members on a press call Monday that a short term CR, or continuing resolution, was the most likely path forward – prompting immediate opposition from a number of Republicans who would rather not see the process drawn out. 

A continuing resolution would extend current spending levels – which were set under Democrats in last year’s 117th Congress – and buy more time for Congress to hash out its differences. 

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said Tuesday that he and McCarthy had met ‘a few weeks back’ and agreed to pursue a CR. 

‘I thought that was a good sign,’ Schumer told Morning Joe on Wednesday. ‘We are working together to avoid that shutdown in the Senate, Democrats and Republicans, but the House, McCarthy is going to have the dilemma of dealing with these hard right people who are just totally destructive and angry.’ 

McCarthy has promised to push through 12 separate funding bills, which set spending levels for each agency separately, rather than an over-arching ‘omnibus’ bill. 

Under an omnibus, members are often forced to choose between voting for provisions they don’t agree with or holding up funding for the government and forcing a shutdown. 

But some conservatives say Congress should not punt its disagreements down the road. 

‘I am a NO on any Continuing Resolution that only kicks the can down the road,’ moderate GOP Rep. Tony Gonzales wrote on X, formerly Twitter. ‘Lock Congress in a room until we pass a conservative budget void of excess financial waste.’ 

Conservative Rep. Chip Roy, Texas, came out forcefully against a continuing resolution. 

‘Under no circumstances will I support a ‘continuing resolution’ to fund the government at the bloated, corrupt 2023 levels,’ he said in a statement. ‘This is especially true if it were to stupidly expire in December.’ 

He also suggested Congress should have worked through the August recess to get spending bills done. 

‘I might – might – support a short series of 24 hour ‘CR’s’ to create maximum pain for Congress to do its damned job, which – by the way – we could be doing in Washington right now.’

McCarthy could pass short-term continuing resolution with the help of Democrats, but the pushback from conservatives again prompts the question of how McCarthy will navigate the spending battle and secure budget cuts for fiscal year 2024 without angering the rightward flank. 

Even before the final vote on a short term CR, McCarthy would need the support of almost all Republicans for a procedural vote on the rule for the CR. Democrats typically do not assist the GOP speaker with passing the rule on a bill, even if they do vote for the final bill.  

‘McCarthy has been allegedly talking about, ‘Well, we’ll do a three-month CR into December.’ That’s exactly the playbook to try to get it done and to roll us,’ Roy said in a Spaces conversation on X on Monday. ‘So we’re going to have to throw everything we have in fighting that heading into September.’ 

If the House did a longer-term CR to stretch into the new year, an automatic one percent across-the-board cut would kick in beginning January 1. 

Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said a short-term deal followed by one percent cuts could be preferable to Democrats. 

‘Joe Biden’s going to get 100% of what he wants, followed by 99% of what he wants,’ he said in a Spaces conversation on X Monday night. 

Some of the conservative demands include immediately cutting funding to agencies tied up in Donald Trump’s legal woes. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, said he would not vote for a CR that doesn’t ‘smash’ the Department of Justice’s budget. 

‘I WILL NOT vote for any continuing resolution that doesn’t smash Biden’s DOJ into a million pieces,’ Jackson wrote on X. ‘The DOJ has very rapidly become the enemy of the American people, and if nothing is done soon, our rights will be GONE. We MUST defund it!!’ 

Roy, meanwhile, has said he would not vote for a stopgap or full-year spending bill that funds the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) without policy changes. 

Last week, fourteen other House Republicans from Texas signed on to a letter from Roy promising to oppose DHS funding without major changes. 

McCarthy did not appear to be on board with holding up funding for DHS ahead of the August recess. ‘I want my border secure. I’m going to fund my border,’ McCarthy said. 

Further complicating matters is Ukraine funding. 

President Biden requested $40 billion in supplemental funding, including some $24 billion for Ukraine last week. The House’s right-wing members balked at the request – 12 of them wrote a letter to the White House expressing their outrage. 

‘Americans are tired of funding endless wars and want policies that not only help restore fiscal sanity in Washington, but also put America and American citizens first,’ the lawmakers wrote. 

The White House requested the supplemental aid ‘as part of a potential short-term continuing resolution for the first quarter of FY 2024,’ though it’s not clear if leadership would pair Ukraine aid with the spending bill.

Last month, 89 House Republicans voted for an amendment to strip $300 million in aid for Ukraine from the Pentagon’s yearly spending bill. 

£16m B&M bonus plan for Bobby Arora

By City & Finance Reporter

Updated: 17:00 EDT, 28 July 2023

Some links in this article may be affiliate links. If you click on them we may earn a small commission. That helps us fund This Is Money, and keep it free to use. We do not write articles to promote products. We do not allow any commercial relationship to affect our editorial independence.

POPULAR MONEY SECTIONS
Take me to…

The White House has opened the door to an audacious plan to block sunlight from hitting the surface of the Earth in a bid to halt global warming. 

Despite some scientists warning the effort could have untold side effects from altering the chemical makeup of the atmosphere, President Joe Biden‘s administration have admitted they’re open to the idea, which has never been attempted before. 

In a report released Friday by the White House, officials suggested limiting sunlight to rapidly cool the planet, a process known as solar radiation modification (SRM). 

The administration added a note of skepticism to the report by noting that Congress ordered it, insisting it has not made any decision on ‘geoengineering’ policy. 

The report noted several ways authorities could look to achieve SRM, all of which come with potentially devastating consequences if they backfire. 

One method would be to significantly increase the amount of aerosols in the stratosphere, which would reflect the sun’s rays from the planet. 

Other ideas floated included increasing cloud coverage over oceans, or reducing the amount of cirrus cloud formations, which reflect solar radiation back to the Earth. 

The report noted that undertaking the mammoth task could have severe ramifications weather patterns and food supplies, which would in turn impact biodiversity, geopolitics, and health. 

It also suggested that committing to the idea then backtracking and changing course could lead to abrupt warming as the suns rays suddenly heat the Earth once more. 

While insisting that it was not definitively moving ahead with the plan, the Biden administration insisted in its report that the idea appeared promising.

It said a ‘program of research’ into the practice would ‘enable better-informed decisions about the potential risks and benefits’ of blocking the sun. 

The White House added that exploring the idea would also allow a better understanding of ‘the foundational elements of greenhouse gas emissions mitigation and adaptation.’ 

‘SRM offers the possibility of cooling the planet significantly on a timescale of a few years,’ the report claimed. 

In a statement accompanying the report, the administration said ‘there are no plans underway to establish a comprehensive research program focused on solar radiation modification.’ 

Scientists have been split over the potential benefits of the risky plan, with some warning it could result in a catastrophic change in the earth’s atmosphere. 

Others, however, claim it could be used as a last resort if fears over climate change are realized in the coming years and decades. 

‘The fact that this report even exists is probably the most consequential component of this release,’ said Shuchi Talati, the executive director of the Alliance for Just Deliberation on Solar Geoengineering, to Politico. 

‘This report also signals that the U.S. government is supportive of well-governed research, including outdoor experimentation, which I think is quite significant.’

The Biden administration made climate policy one of its central policy platforms in recent years, inserting the issue into other sectors including infrastructure and transportation. 

This marked a significant shift in policy from Biden’s predecessor, Donald Trump, who famously once described climate change as a hoax created by the Chinese. 

In its report, the White House doubled down on its commitment to tackling climate issues. 

‘Climate change is already having profound effects on the physical and natural world, and on human well-being, and these effects will only grow as greenhouse gas concentrations increase and warming continues,’ the report stated. 

‘Understanding these impacts is crucial to enable informed decisions around a possible role for SRM in addressing human hardships associated with climate change.’