Two people died in a missile attack on the Ukrainian Black Sea port city of Odesa, local officials said, as Moscow and Kyiv exchanged drone and missile attacks.
The Ukrainian air force said Sunday it shot down 10 of the 14 drones and one of the three missiles Russia launched overnight.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Oleh Kiper, Odesa’s regional governor, said the two who died in the suburbs of Odesa on Saturday night were a married couple, and that another person was wounded in the attack.
At least 41 people were wounded Sunday afternoon when a Russian aerial bomb struck a multistory residential building in Kharkiv, Mayor Ihor Terekhov said, adding that the guided bomb hit the 10th floor of the building, with the fire spreading across four stories. Twelve other buildings were also damaged, he said.
Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry said that it downed 29 Ukrainian drones overnight into Sunday over western and southwestern regions, with no damage caused by the falling debris. It also said another Ukrainian drone was shot down Sunday morning over the western Ryazan region.
While Ukraine and Russia regularly launch overnight drone raids on each other’s territory, Ukrainian officials generally don’t confirm or deny attacks within Russia’s borders.
The latest attacks came after Ukraine made a new call Saturday on the West to allow it to use the long-range missiles they have provided to strike targets deep inside Russia, as Ukrainian forces struggle to hold back Russian advances in eastern Ukraine.
So far, the U.S. has allowed Kyiv to use American-provided weapons only in a limited area inside Russia’s border with Ukraine.
Kyiv officials argue the weapons are vital to weaken Russia’s ability to strike Ukraine and force it to move its strike capabilities further from the border.
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy took to social media on Sunday to again appeal for a shift in the West’s policy on the use of long-range weapons, noting that Russia had launched “around 30 missiles of various types, more than 800 guided aerial bombs, and nearly 300 strike drones against Ukraine” this week.
“Ukraine needs strong support from our partners to defend lives against Russian terror — air defense, long-range capabilities, support for our warriors. Everything that will help force Russia to end this war,” Zelenskyy posted on X.
There’s a hidden gender gap when it comes to digestive problems, with women taking the lead in this unpleasant contest. While men are hardly immune to gastrointestinal woes, certain digestive problems are considerably more common in women. “Women aren’t broken—they’re just different,” says Dr. Jeanetta Frye, a gastroenterologist at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville. For one thing, she says, “women have more visceral hypersensitivity so they may feel gastrointestinal symptoms more intensely.”
Symptom sensitivity aside, there’s clear evidence that certain digestive disorders are more likely to affect women than men. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)—a disorder that involves repeated bouts of abdominal pain and changes in bowel movements (diarrhea, constipation, or alternating bouts of the two)—is two to six times more common among women than men. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), including Crohn’s disease and ulcerative colitis, affects twice as many women as men, according to the American College of Gastroenterology.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]In addition, celiac disease—an autoimmune disorder that causes bloating, chronic diarrhea, constipation, gas, and other GI symptoms and is triggered by eating gluten—is diagnosed nearly twice as often in women as in men. And functional dyspepsia (a.k.a. chronic indigestion) is also more common in women. So is a lesser known brain-gut disorder called cyclic vomiting syndrome—characterized by recurrent episodes of nausea, vomiting, and dry heaving, separated by symptom-free periods in between, says Dr. David Levinthal, a gastroenterologist and director of the Neurogastroenterology and Motility Center at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center.
Across the board, “disorders of gut-brain interaction are more prevalent in women than men,” Levinthal says, and the same is true of motility disorders like gastroparesis (delayed emptying of the stomach) and chronic constipation.
Why are women more susceptible to GI disorders? What is it about being born female that puts their digestive systems at risk? The answer is complicated and not completely understood.
This much is known: Reproductive hormones may play a role. “The female hormones estrogen and progesterone have a profound effect on the GI tract in terms of motility, pain sensitization, and how the brain delivers messages to the GI tract,” explains Dr. David Johnson, chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk and past president of the American College of Gastroenterology. As a result, women may experience flare-ups of GI disorders at certain times of the month (such as during menstruation) or during pregnancy.
Read More: 15 Things to Say When Someone Comments on Your Weight
For another thing, “women have a more easily activated immune system than men do,” says Levinthal. This is significant because immune function, including inflammatory processes, plays a role in celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease.
What’s more, the gastrointestinal tract itself is longer in women, and that difference in length can affect transit time through the GI tract, Johnson says. In addition, women’s stomachs empty slightly more slowly than men’s do—“why that is isn’t known,” says Levinthal, but it may explain women’s greater susceptibility to gastroparesis. Research also suggests that the intestine’s nerve cells are more sluggish in women, which may be why IBS and gastroparesis are more common in women.
Another possible contributing factor has to do with psychological issues. “Anxiety and depression, which are more common in women than men, can worsen the severity of disordered gut function,” Levinthal says. “Feeling stressed or depressed or anxious is linked with how our guts work.” When you’re stressed out or anxious, you may be more likely to experience flare-ups of these GI disorders.
Regardless of gender, it’s important to “do everything you can to be proactive about your digestive health rather than just reactive,” Johnson says. That means staying well hydrated and consuming a healthy diet rich in plant-based foods (like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts, and seeds), and lean protein, and avoiding sugary, highly processed foods.
Read More: 9 Weird Symptoms Cardiologists Say You Should Never Ignore
In particular, “fiber helps good bacteria flourish in the gut,” Johnson says, which contributes to the health of the gut microbiome, the community of bacteria and other microbes that naturally live in the GI tract. Research has found a strong correlation between gut bacteria and the risk of GI disorders such as IBS, IBD, and others.
Being proactive about your gut health also means taking steps to manage stress, get plenty of sleep, and exercise regularly. “The more you move your body, the more your gut is moving, too,” says Dr. Samuel Akinyeye, a gastroenterologist at the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center. That movement is likely to help with many of these disorders.
If these measures don’t help sufficiently, there’s no reason to suffer alone. Medications and other treatments are available for all of these digestive disorders. “If you have symptoms you don’t understand, talk to a gastroenterologist,” Frye advises. “A lot of women are embarrassed to talk about their GI symptoms—I want them to feel empowered to discuss them. I tell my patients that it’s a safe space, and I’m not embarrassed to hear anything. This is why I’m here.”
(To get this story in your inbox, subscribe to the TIME CO2 Leadership Report newsletter here.)
When President Biden entered the White House in 2021, before his administration had written any new regulations or signed landmark climate legislation into law, I wrote that his presidency had already advanced efforts to address climate change simply by sending a signal to the marketplace that fossil fuels are not the future.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]That signal was the result of policy plans, campaign pronouncements, and, finally, an executive order signed just days into his presidential tenure that called for officials across the government to make climate change central to policy making. And, almost immediately, companies responded, adjusting their strategic plans to account for a more climate-friendly policymaking outlook from Washington.
This year’s political cycle has offered little in the way of climate campaign promises or platforms. Indeed, some of the deepest discussion on climate and energy came during a few minutes in Tuesday’s presidential debate. While the discussion lacked details, it offered an interesting opportunity to evaluate where climate policy and, to a certain extent, the market may be going.
It’s worth starting with Vice President Kamala Harris. In 2019, she ran as a progressive with bold climate commitments—including a proposal for $10 trillion in climate spending and support for the Green New Deal policy platform. And so even some of the climate activists most skeptical of Biden were ready to rally around her in hopes that she would pursue ambitious new environmental programs.
In this week’s debate, she offered little new on climate. Instead, she emphasized continuity, touting the Biden Administration’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)—the most significant climate law in this country’s history—and calling for a continuation of investments in clean technology manufacturing. “We have invested in clean energy to the point that we are opening up factories around the world,” she said.
In other words, she painted herself as the climate continuity candidate rather than a crusader for a bigger policy agenda. Continuity may not necessarily be something that you can put on a T-shirt, but it would nonetheless aid the deployment of clean technologies. The Biden Administration has spent two years crafting the rules of the road to implement the IRA, including with the creation of programs that investors and developers now rely upon. Simply knowing that those rules will remain can help stabilize the market. That doesn’t necessarily mean that she will have nothing new to offer on climate if she were to serve as president. For one, some policy revisions might actually be helpful to improve implementation of the IRA.
She also promised continuity with regard to oil and gas, saying that “we have got to invest in diverse sources of energy so we reduce our reliance on foreign oil.” The statement disappointed climate activists who would like to see her take an aggressive posture toward the industry. But it also offers some reassurance to energy observers that she doesn’t intend to wreak havoc on oil markets while the world remains in the throes of transition.
Former President Donald Trump meanwhile spoke with even less clarity about his climate plans. Indeed, he avoided talking about climate change when asked and instead used the opportunity to talk about his plans to impose tariffs on Chinese imports. “What they have given to China is unbelievable,” he said. “We’ll put tariffs on those cars so they can’t come into our country.”
It’s a telling answer. The Biden Administration is currently trying to thread a delicate needle with regard to China, hoping to incentivize the creation of a domestic clean energy supply chain in the long-term while relying on Chinese imports in the short term. Trump’s agenda would throw that out, rejiggering supply chains, capital investments, and strategic planning. All told, that would leave domestic clean technology deployment in a delicate place with products critical to the transition missing from the U.S. market
The climate discussion in the debate offered just a snapshot, skimming the surface of the relevant climate questions. But, nonetheless, watching it makes it easy to view Harris as a voice for continuity and Trump as a candidate eager to blow up the country’s climate and clean energy ambitions. Before any law is signed or regulation is promulgated, businesses will respond to those signals.
Kate Middleton, Princess of Wales, announced today on X that she has completed her chemotherapy treatment for cancer.
“As the summer comes to an end, I cannot tell you what a relief it is to have finally completed my chemotherapy treatment,” Middleton says in the announcement. “The last nine months have been incredibly tough for us as a family. Life as you know it can change in an instant and we have had to find a way to navigate the stormy waters and road unknown. The cancer journey is complex, scary and unpredictable for everyone, especially those closest to you.”
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]The announcement was made on Sept. 9 on the official X account for The Prince and Princess of Wales, with an accompanying video of Middleton with her husband William, Prince of Wales, and their three children George, 10, Charlotte, 9, and Louis, 6.
The over three-minute long video shows the five smiling and laughing together on the beach and in a forest. The video was filmed last month in Norfolk, a county in the east of England, according to the New York Times.
In March, Middleton announced that she was diagnosed with cancer following a planned abdominal surgery. In a video message shared on March 22, Middleton said the diagnosis came as a “huge shock” and that she and her family had needed time to process the news. The mother-of-three said she would be undergoing a course of “preventative chemotherapy.” The palace has not confirmed what type of cancer Middleton was treated for or the stage of her disease.
Read More: Kate Middleton Reveals She Was Diagnosed With Cancer
Prior to the announcement, Middleton was the subject of circling rumors and conspiracy theories regarding her whereabouts. Since her diagnosis, she has been taking a break from the more forward-facing duties. She said in the new video that she is “looking forward to being back at work and undertaking a few more public engagements in the coming months when I can.”
Over the summer, Middleton attended a few public events. Trooping the Colour parade in June marked her return to the spotlight, which she then followed by attending Wimbledon in July, and presenting champion Carlos Alcaraz. At Wimbledon, she was joined by her daughter Charlotte, and was applauded by the crowd.
In the video posted on Sept. 9, Middleton shared that she and William have been grateful for the messages she’s received since her diagnosis. “Doing what I can to stay cancer free is now my focus,” she said. “Although I have finished chemotherapy, my path to healing and full recovery is long and I must continue to take each day as it comes.”
MIAMI — Tropical Storm Francine formed Monday off the coast of Mexico and was expected to drench the Texas coast with up to a foot (30 centimeters) of rain before coming ashore in Louisiana Wednesday night as a hurricane.
“We’re going to have a very dangerous situation developing by the time we get into Wednesday for portions of the north-central Gulf Coast, primarily along the coast of Louisiana, where we’re going to see the potential for life threatening storm surge inundation and hurricane force winds,” said Michael Brennan, director of the U.S. National Hurricane Center in Miami.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Francine is taking aim at a stretch of coastline that has yet to fully recover since hurricanes Laura and Delta decimated Lake Charles, Louisiana, four years ago.
The hurricane center said Francine is located about 245 miles (395 kilometers) southeast of the mouth of the Rio Grande, and about 480 miles (770 kilometers) south-southeast of Cameron, Louisiana. Francine’s top winds Monday morning were about 50 miles per hour (85 kilometers per hour). A tropical storm is defined by sustained winds between 39 mph and 73 mph (62 kph and 117 kph).
Francine should be a hurricane as it approaches the northwestern Gulf Coast on Wednesday, pushing a storm surge of up to 10 feet (3 meters), forecasters said.
“Francine is expected to bring heavy rainfall and the risk of considerable flash flooding along the coast of far northeast Mexico, portions of the southernmost Texas coast, the Upper Texas Coast, southern Louisiana, and southern Mississippi into Thursday morning. A risk of flash and urban flooding exists across portions of the Mid-South from Wednesday into Friday morning,” the hurricane center warned.
LOS ANGELES — Kendrick Lamar will pop out on the NFL’s biggest stage next year: The Grammy winner will headline the Apple Music Super Bowl Halftime Show in New Orleans.
The NFL, Apple Music and Roc Nation announced Sunday that Lamar would lead the halftime festivities from the Caesars Superdome on Feb. 9. The rap megastar, who has won 17 Grammys, said he’s looking forward to bringing hip-hop to the NFL’s championship game, where he performed as a guest artist with Dr. Dre and Snoop Dogg in 2022.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]“Rap music is still the most impactful genre to date,” Lamar said in a statement. “And I’ll be there to remind the world why. They got the right one.”
Lamar has experienced massive success since his debut album “good kid, m.A.A.d city” in 2012. Since then, he’s accumulated 17 Grammy wins and became the first non-classical, non-jazz musician to win a Pulitzer Prize for his 2017 album “DAMN.”
The rapper’s latest album “Mr. Morale & The Big Steppers,” was released in 2022. He was featured on the song “Like That” with Future and Metro Boomin on a track that spent three weeks at No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 this year. He also garnered another hit with “Not Like Us.”
Roc Nation founder Jay-Z called Lamar a “once-in-a-generation” artist and performer.
“His deep love for hip-hop and culture informs his artistic vision,” Jay-Z said. “He has an unparalleled ability to define and influence culture globally. Kendrick’s work transcends music, and his impact will be felt for years to come.”
Roc Nation and Emmy-winning producer Jesse Collins will serve as co-executive producers of the halftime show. The creative direction of Lamar’s performance will be provided by pgLang.
Reproductive rights have taken center stage in the lead-up to the 2024 election, and 10 states have measures on the ballot that will allow voters to directly decide whether to protect abortion rights.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]That breaks the previous record of six in 2022 for the highest number of abortion-related ballot measures in a single year, according to Ballotpedia.
Ten states from across the political spectrum—red-leaning ones like Florida, blue-leaning ones like New York, and battlegrounds like Arizona—have put the issue on the ballot this year. Many of the measures are citizen-led initiatives. Polling indicates that the majority of Americans support abortion rights—an Associated Press/NORC poll conducted in June found that roughly 61% of adults think their state should let people obtain a legal abortion for any reason. Fourteen states have banned abortion in almost all circumstances and eight others have banned it at or before 18 weeks’ gestation.
“The disconnect between what the majority of Americans want and the laws on their books in those states have sent people to ballot initiatives,” says Elisabeth Smith, director of state policy and advocacy at the Center for Reproductive Rights.
Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 with the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling, seven states have put abortion on the ballot. So far, in each of those seven states (California, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, Vermont, and Ohio) voters have sided with abortion rights supporters.
The 10 states that will be voting on abortion this year are: Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, and South Dakota. Organizers in another state, Arkansas, collected signatures to add an abortion-rights initiative to the ballot, but the state rejected the proposal—a decision that was upheld by the Arkansas supreme court in August.
Here’s what you need to know about the measures appearing on the ballot in November.
In Arizona, voters will weigh in on citizen-led initiative Proposition 139. A “yes” vote would establish “a fundamental right to abortion under Arizona’s constitution.” It would allow abortions until a fetus could survive outside the womb—usually around the 24th week of pregnancy—but would include exceptions after that in situations where abortion is necessary to protect the life or health of the pregnant person. A “no” vote would reject this change, leaving the current state law in place.
Arizona currently prohibits abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for medical emergencies. If the ballot measure passes—which would require a simple majority—that would effectively upend the state’s current restriction.
Arizona is a key battleground state, and experts have said that having abortion on the ballot in November could have implications for the tumultuous presidential election because it’s an issue that mobilizes voters—since the fall of Roe, especially ones who support Democratic candidates.
In May, Colorado officials confirmed that Initiative 89 would appear on the ballot in November, after organizers said they collected more than 225,000 signatures—almost twice as many as they needed to put the citizen-led initiative on the ballot.
A “yes” vote would enshrine the right to abortion in the state constitution, as well as repeal the state’s nearly four-decade-old ban on state money being used to pay for abortions. A “no” vote would reject the change. The measure needs the support of 55% of voters to pass.
Abortion is allowed at all stages of pregnancy in Colorado. If the measure passes, supporters have said it would ensure that lawmakers wouldn’t be able to undo abortion rights in the future.
Opponents had attempted to put a competing measure on the ballot that would ban abortion, but didn’t turn in enough signatures to get the initiative on the ballot.
Florida voters will weigh in on Amendment 4 in November. A “yes” vote would amend the state constitution to protect the right to abortion until fetal viability or when necessary to protect the pregnant person’s health, while a “no” vote would reject that proposed change. The measure needs the support from at least 60% of voters to pass.
Currently, abortion is banned in Florida after six weeks of pregnancy—before many people know they’re pregnant—with some exceptions for rape, incest, and when the pregnant person’s life is at risk. If the measure passes, the constitutional amendment would effectively outlaw the state’s six-week abortion ban.
While the state attorney general challenged whether the citizen-led initiative could go on the ballot, the Florida supreme court ruled in April that voters will be able to decide on the amendment in November. Supporters gathered almost a million signatures to put the measure on the ballot—exceeding the roughly 892,000 needed.
Voters in Maryland will decide whether to enshrine the right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution via Question 1. A “yes” vote would amend the state constitution with language that would confirm the “fundamental right to reproductive freedom, including but not limited to the ability to make and effectuate decisions to prevent, continue, or end the individual’s pregnancy,” the measure states. A “no” vote would reject the change.
Maryland allows abortions up until fetal viability, and also has laws that protect people seeking or providing abortions there from restrictions or bans in other states.
Unlike most of the other states with the issue on the ballot this year, the measure in Maryland is a legislative initiative, meaning that the Democratic-controlled legislature voted to add the amendment to the ballot. The measure needs a simple majority to pass.
The Missouri secretary of state’s office announced in August that Amendment 3 would appear on the ballot this election cycle, after abortion rights advocates turned in more than 380,000 signatures—more than double the number needed to get the initiative on the ballot.
A “yes” vote would enshrine in the state constitution the right to abortion up until fetal viability, with exceptions for later on in pregnancy in situations where the pregnant person’s life or physical or mental health is at risk. The measure also states that the government “shall not deny or infringe upon a person’s fundamental right to reproductive freedom,” which includes prenatal care, childbirth, birth control, and miscarriage care, among others. A “no” vote would reject this proposal, allowing the state’s current near-total ban on abortion to remain in place. Missouri has one of the strictest laws restricting abortion in the country.
The measure needs a simple majority to pass.
Another voter-initiated abortion measure that will appear on the ballot this November is in Montana. A “yes” vote on CI-128 would amend the state constitution “to expressly provide a right to make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion,” prohibiting the government from “denying or burdening the right to abortion before fetal viability,” the measure states. A “no” vote would reject this change.
Although lawmakers have tried to restrict abortion access in the state, abortion is currently legal in Montana up until fetal viability. If the measure receives the simple majority it needs to pass, the constitutional amendment would further cement protections for abortion access, making it more difficult for lawmakers to roll back rights in the future.
Nebraska is the first state to have two dueling abortion amendments on the same ballot since the Dobbs decision in 2022.
One of the initiatives, which organizers called “Protect the Right to Abortion” in their petition filing, would enshrine the right to abortion until fetal viability—or later if needed to protect the health of the pregnant person—in the state constitution. The other, which backers called “Protect Women and Children” in their petition filing, would amend the state constitution to include a ban on abortion in the second and third trimesters, with exceptions for medical emergencies, rape, or incest.
Nebraska currently bans abortion after 12 weeks of pregnancy, with exceptions for rape, incest, and to save the life of the pregnant person.
Citizen-led ballot measures in Nebraska must receive a majority of the vote, and no less than 35% of the total vote, in order to pass. While it’s possible that voters could approve both of the abortion-related citizen-led initiatives, the one that gets the most “yes” votes will be enacted, according to the Nebraska secretary of state’s office.
Smith at the Center for Reproductive Rights says that creating a competing measure “is an established tactic to try to defeat a ballot initiative,” because having two measures on the ballot can cause confusion among voters.
While the Nebraska secretary of state’s office announced in August that the groups behind the rival initiatives each turned in enough signatures to appear on the ballot, the Nebraska supreme court agreed to hear arguments over a lawsuit that challenges the “Protect the Right to Abortion” measure, which could prevent voters from voting on that one in November, according to The Associated Press. The suit, filed by the conservative nonprofit law firm Thomas More Society, alleges that the abortion-rights measure violates Nebraska’s prohibition against tackling more than one topic in a single ballot measure since the initiative addresses abortion rights until viability, after viability to protect the pregnant person’s health, and whether the state should be permitted to regulate it. The court is set to hear arguments on Sept. 9.
Nevada voters will decide whether to approve or reject the citizen-led initiative Question 6 in November. A “yes” vote would enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution, allowing abortions up until fetal viability, with exceptions after that when necessary to protect the health or life of the pregnant person. A “no” vote would reject this change.
State law already allows for abortions up to the 24th week of pregnancy, and protects people seeking or providing abortions in Nevada from restrictions in other states.
Even if the measure passes in November—and it would need a simple majority to do so—voters would need to approve it again in 2026 in order for the state constitution to be amended.
New York—like Maryland—has a legislative initiative on the ballot.
Proposal 1 doesn’t explicitly mention abortion, but is a broad equal rights amendment. A “yes” vote would support amending the state constitution to declare that no person shall be discriminated against for various factors, including: “pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy.” The proposed amendment mentions other factors in addition to reproductive rights, including ethnicity, sexual orientation, and gender identity. A “no” vote on the proposal would reject this change.
Abortion is currently legal in New York up to fetal viability, and supporters of the ballot measure have said that it would strengthen and cement protections for reproductive rights. “Even in states where abortion is legal and accessible, there are still people in positions of authority or power who don’t support abortion rights, so essentially, the amendment is meant to protect people across the state from someone with authority or power discriminating against them because of pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, gender expression, gender identity, etc.,” Smith says.
The measure needs a simple majority to pass.
Voters in South Dakota will weigh in on the citizen-led initiative Amendment G in November. A “yes” vote on the measure would amend the state constitution to establish the right to abortion in the first trimester, allow the state to regulate abortion in the second trimester “only in ways that are reasonably related to the physical health of the pregnant woman,” and allow the state to regulate or prohibit abortion in the third trimester “except when abortion is necessary… to preserve the life or health of the pregnant woman.” A “no” vote would reject the amendment.
If the measure passes—which would require a simple majority—it would effectively upend the state’s near-total ban on abortion.
There’s a lawsuit pending against this ballot measure, but the outcome likely won’t be settled until after early voting begins.
Brayden Hunter Hervey’s court date was three days too late. The 38-year-old Texas resident was in the midst of applying for a gender marker update—a process he started in May—when a new Texas policy barring transgender people from changing their gender markers on their state IDs went into effect on Aug. 20.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]The change, which was quietly made by the Texas Department of Public Safety without any notice, has left many in the trans community in Texas confused and frustrated. “It made me… disappointed in society,” says Hervey, who was hoping to obtain a court order from a Texas judge to present to the Department of Public Safety, as per the previous gender marker update policy. “I don’t understand [how] a person’s gender affects the next person.” Hervey says that during his virtual court hearing on Aug. 23, the judge advised him to put his pursuit of a gender marker update on pause, calling it “dangerous” and saying that she wasn’t sure what the state was going to do with the data it is gathering on people seeking these changes.
Trans Texans aren’t the only ones without recourse to get a government ID that matches their gender identity; Texas is one of a number of states that have or are considering similar policies. The ACLU legislative tracker found at least 16 bills introduced this legislative year in states from Florida to Iowa that would bar access for trans people to get IDs that match their gender identity.
Proponents of the policies say state IDs should only reflect a person’s sex at birth, and have sought to remove nonbinary as a possible gender marker. But IDs are essential for transgender people to feel safe in everyday lives, advocates say. “We use our IDs for everything—to vote, to open a bank account—and having an ID that matches who you are is just so simple,” says Johnathan Gooch, director of communications at Equality Texas. This year the stakes could be particularly high: Joelle Bayaa-Uzuri Espeut, director at The Normal Anomaly Initiative, a Black LGBTQ+ nonprofit, says she’s concerned about transgender Texans being comfortable voting with their IDs in November.
“[These are] the beginning steps of trying to eradicate us as a people in Texas, making it harder for us to change our gender markers and our names, which a lot of times, is done out of safety for a lot of trans people,” says Mya Wesley, a 32-year-old Texan who is considering leaving her home state given the recent policy changes. “I don’t feel safe here in Texas, especially as a Black trans woman.”
Texas has the second largest LGBTQ+ population in the country, according to the nonpartisan think tank Public Policy Institute of California. It’s also home to more than 125,000 transgender adults. The latest moves there come amid a nationwide wave of laws affecting trans people: This year marked a record-breaking year for anti-trans legislation, with more than 650 bills introduced in 2024, according to the independent research organization Trans Legislation Tracker, compared to 615 bills in 2023.
Read More: As Texas Targets Trans Youth, a Family Leaves in Search of a Better Future
In Texas last week, the state stopped letting trans people update their gender markers on their birth certificates by modifying the birth certificate correction form, the Transgender Education Network of Texas first reported. The Texas Department of State Health Services confirmed to TIME that it is no longer changing sex on birth or death certificates based on court orders due to “recent public reports have highlighted concerns about the validity of court orders purporting to amend sex for purposes of state-issued documents.”
Under the new gender marker update directive, the Department of Public Safety asked employees to send requests for gender marker updates to a specific email, according to an internal email obtained by KUT News, stoking concerns about the possible creation of a database of transgender people.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has previously attempted to obtain information regarding transgender individuals. In 2022, his office requested data on how many Texans had changed their gender marker on their licenses in the past two years, though the request was denied by the Texas Department of Public Safety. The Attorney General’s Office did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
“The surveillance is especially alarming because there was no notice of it,” says Gooch. “So people who were already moving through the process to update their gender markers were involuntarily subsumed into this surveillance project by the Attorney General, having their birth certificates or whatever primary documents they were using to update their gender marker along with their court order and their driver’s license, scanned and sent to this email address.”
Christen Valentine, a 34-year old Texas resident, says the trans community thinks surveillance is part of the point of the ID policy. “I think being scared is exactly what they want,” says Valentine. “The thing about it is us, as trans people, [is] we’ll always have fear. Fear is something that we carry. We honestly carry it on our backs every day.”
Valentine has considered moving from the state in light of the latest policies, but wants to feel she has agency in the choice. “I cannot allow somebody to take me away from something when I’m not ready,” she says. “You’re not going to force me out. Now, when I’m ready and if I want to leave, yes, but not just because you say so.”
The scene inside Bathhouse, a spa in Manhattan, is one of complete serenity. Visitors recline in 105-degree pools, surrounded by cedar tiles and elegant marble slabs from Brazil. But just beyond closed doors, in harshly-lit back rooms, an unexpected source helps forge the bliss: rows and rows of continuously-running Bitcoin mining computers.
The idea of a Bitcoin mine heating a pool sounds strange. The machines run constantly to find new Bitcoin and safeguard the Bitcoin network. The heat they generate from their activity is extracted via pipes, and powers the Bathhouse’s heated pools and marble stones. Co-owner Jason Goodman says the technique allows him to warm his pools more efficiently than traditional methods, while also accruing a stockpile of Bitcoin he hopes will increase in value going forward.
[time-brightcove not-tgx=”true”]Around the world, a handful of establishments are turning to the same methods in an attempt to harness energy from intensive computing for greater societal use, including to heat a town in Finland and an Olympic pool in Paris. But while proponents argue that these solutions could lower local energy costs and reduce electricity and water usage, some environmentalists worry these small-scale methods obscure much bigger problems. Data centers use a massive and increasing amount of energy, with many of them powered by fossil fuels—and most of their heat waste isn’t being channeled into productive uses at all.
“Heating a swimming pool with wasted data center energy on its face is a good idea, but it sort of looks like using a gas-guzzling Hummer’s radiator as a panini press,” Jeremy Fisher, Sierra Club’s principal advisor on climate and energy, wrote to TIME. “Maybe it’s clever, but it doesn’t really address the core issue that we need to power our economy with clean energy in order to avoid the climate crisis.”
Bathhouse started operating in Brooklyn in 2019, offering heated pools, cold plunges and saunas to New Yorkers hoping to relax. Initially, co-owners Goodman and Travis Talmadge heated their pools with electric heaters, which were the cheapest option, Goodman says. “But they’re real electric pigs: you’re adding energy to the water at all times by just sucking power out of the wall,” he says. “Typically, the cheapest way to do something is probably the least energy conservative.”
The pair then came across the YouTube page of a Bitcoin miner who heated his backyard pool with a Bitcoin mining operation. Miners run complex equations on computers in order to find new Bitcoin, and this manic activity generates a massive amount of heat that needs to be cooled to stop from overheating, often with fans. But a scant few miners around the country were instead capturing the heat from the computers via a heat exchanger and a pump, and then channeling it toward keeping their pools warm.
Goodman and Talmadge were inspired to attempt the same method. Bathhouse now has 12 ASIC computers (a type of computer specializing in mining) running in Brooklyn and 20 ASICs in Manhattan, for a total of 5200 terahash (less than 1/100th the power of many industrial size Bitcoin mining rigs). The company is also currently planning an expansion that would triple the size of the Bitcoin operation at the Brooklyn location.
Read More: Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town
Goodman says that Bathhouse’s electricity bills are more or less the same as before: around $20,000 a month in Brooklyn and $40,000 in Manhattan. Their Bitcoin initiative also came with the hefty upfront costs of buying ASICs and other equipment. But Goodman says that their mining operation is more energy efficient than electric heaters and earned the company 1.5 Bitcoin last year: about $90,000 in today’s prices. Goodman plans to hold onto the Bitcoin they earn rather than using it to pay for operating expenses, betting that its price will increase in the long run.
“If the price of Bitcoin tanked and went to zero, and then we would have a bunch of equipment that would be really pointless, and we would definitely be rethinking what we’re doing,” he says. “We are doing it because the economics makes sense in today’s world.”
Goodman’s commitment to Bitcoin is evident from the moment one walks into the Manhattan location: copies of the book “The Bitcoin Standard” by the anonymous author Saifedean Ammous sit on a central shelf in the lobby, flanked by soaps and bathrobes. Polls show that Bitcoin remains unpopular among large swaths of the American population, but Goodman says the backlash they’ve received has been minimal. “We’ve had a few detractors, but the vast majority of our customers don’t don’t care either way. They don’t sit in a pool and wonder how it’s heated,” he says.
Goodman also stresses that the point of the mining rigs isn’t to maximize profitability. In fact, the miners go to sleep whenever the pools reach their desired temperature, which means that Goodman is theoretically leaving Bitcoin on the table. “Bitcoin mining is not really the business I want to be in,” he says. “We’re doing it as an efficiency move. We’re trying to have the happiest customers and the most awesome tech.”
A massive, global boom in data centers has taken place recently, brought on in part by the rise of Bitcoin mining and the explosion of the AI industry. Environmentalists worry that this rise could bring countless negative effects: energy costs for consumers will increase; more fossil fuels will be burned; and climate goals will be cast to the wayside.
Read More: How AI Is Fueling a Boom in Data Centers and Energy Demand
In response, some data center industry players have been working to channel the heat from their operations into more productive uses. In Paris, a data center is turning its hot air waste into water and piping into a local energy system, routing to buildings including the Olympic Aquatics Center. The mayor of the Paris suburb Seine-Saint-Denis claims that using the data center as an energy source will spare the region 1,800 metric tons of CO2 emissions per year.
A British startup, Deep Green, has also been working to provide data centers to hundreds of pools, which were previously heated with water boilers. The startup has advertised that they can install cyclical systems in which cold water from pools is used to cool servers, which heat up and then send that energy back to the pool. “Our data centers are highly energy efficient and support local communities with free heat,” Deep Green’s founder and CEO Mark Bjornsgaard told The Next Web earlier this year.
Industry players and government officials hope that these sorts of solutions could scale upwards, and help the European Union meet ambitious environmental targets, including reducing emissions by 55% by 2030.
Projects capturing and reusing heat for homes, offices or universities have sprung up across the region. But data-center heat redistribution remains a niche market, with companies facing costs and challenges in distributing the heat.
Fisher, of the Sierra Club, likened these efforts to greenwashing, a practice in which companies make deceptive claims to appear more environmentally friendly to consumers. “Rather than heating swimming pools, what we really need is transparency in an industry that has a growing impact on the electric grid, the environment, and public health,” he wrote.
And Sasha Luccioni, an AI researcher and climate lead at the AI platform Hugging Face, says that while these types of solutions could have a positive impact, “they feel like trying to mitigate the downstream aspects instead of making AI less research intensive.”
“These initiatives are definitely good, but to what extent is it going to be something that’s fast or big enough to make a difference?”
Andrew Chow is the author of Cryptomania, a book about the rise and fall of Sam Bankman-Fried and cryptocurrency during the pandemic.
