What Russia Got by Scaring Elon Musk | Separate U.S. Alliances in East Asia Are Obsolete | Parts of the World Already Too Hot for Human Survival, and more

The conundrum is substantially new for Washington. During World War I, wealthy industrialists, such as Henry Ford and J. P. Morgan, poured considerable resources into the American war effort: Ford’s factories produced boats, trucks, and artillery for military use; Morgan lent money. After the war, John D. Rockefeller Jr. funded the League of Nations. But Musk is doing something different. He supplies his product directly to foreign countries, and he retains personal control over which countries can obtain his equipment and how they can use it. That discretion has military and political implications. As one U.S. defense official admitted to The New Yorker, “Living in the world we live in, in which Elon runs this company and it is a private business under his control, we are living off his good graces.”
The dilemma is currently clearest in Ukraine. Starlink satellites, which Musk generously supplied at the start of the conflict so that Ukrainians would not lose internet access, have allowed for satellite-guided drones to help the Ukrainian military observe battlefield movements and target precision missiles. Experts describe Starlink’s military advantage as akin to providing an “Uber for howitzers.” But its disadvantage is Musk’s outsize role in determining the conduct of the war. That influence has come under scrutiny in recent days, with the release of excerpts from a forthcoming biography that highlight Musk’s mercurial decision making in Ukraine.

Amazon Deforestation Continues to Plummet  (Tik Root, Grist)
August was another month of relatively good news for the Amazon rainforest: The rate of deforestation has continued to decline significantly.
Earlier this week, Marina Silva, Brazil’s environment minister, announced a 66.1 percent decrease in Amazon deforestation compared to last August. That amounted to a loss of about 217 square miles, according to Reuters. These figures come during a time of year when destruction of the rainforest is usually quite high, and follows a similar trend seen in July. 
So far this year, the rate of deforestation is 48 percent lower than in 2022 and is at levels not seen since 2018. The numbers are another victory for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who has made protecting the Amazon a policy priority. 
The tenure of Lula’s predecessor, Jair Bolsonaro, saw a rollback of environmental regulations and enforcement, and a spike in deforestation. Since taking office in January, Lula has, among other steps, renewed efforts to combat illegal clearing and reactivated the $630 million Amazon Fund, which is aimed at supporting the government’s push to protect the rainforest.

Parts of the World Have Already Grown Too Hot for Human Survival  (Zoya Teirstein, Grist)
More than a decade ago, two climate scientists defined what they considered at the time to be the upper limit of human survivability: 35 degrees Celsius, or 95 degrees Fahrenheit, at 100 percent humidity, also known as the wet-bulb threshold. In those conditions, a person, no matter who they are or where they live, cannot shed enough heat to stay alive for more than a few hours. The scientists’ operating assumption was that carbon emissions would need to warm the planet 5 to 7 degrees C (9 to 12.6 degrees F) before the world exceeded the wet-bulb threshold every year. Since then, more advanced work has demonstrated the world only needs to warm by about 2 degrees C (3.6 degrees F) before heat waves in the hottest parts of the world first cross that survivability line.
But just looking at the survivability threshold doesn’t paint the full picture of heat-related risk. The theoretical experiment underpinning that threshold was based on two assumptions: that humans are fully adapted to heat, or used to hot conditions, and that people do everything in their power — seek out shade, fan themselves, and douse themselves with water — to stay cool during an extreme heat event. The reality is that death can occur long before wet-bulb conditions are eclipsed for a variety of reasons that have to do with age, health, adaptation, and access.
A study published in Science Advances this week used a more realistic threshold to determine when and where the world will become dangerously hot for humans. The researchers, from the University of Oxford and the Woodwell Climate Research Center, used a framework called the “noncompensable heat threshold,” the conditions under which a human being can no longer maintain a healthy core temperature without taking action to cool off. Six hours of unmitigated exposure to these temperatures would be sufficient to cause death. This threshold can be reached under different combinations of air temperature and humidity — the hotter the temperature, the less humidity needed to cross the limit. At 40 degrees C (104 degrees F), for example, you need about 50 percent relative humidity to cross the noncompensable threshold.
The researchers found that parts of the world have already surpassed this threshold. They identified 21 weather stations that clocked conditions exceeding the noncompensable threshold between 1970 and 2020, mainly along coastlines in the hottest regions of the planet such as the Persian Gulf and South Asia. Even more people will face such conditions as the planet continues to warm from fossil fuel combustion. 

Can India Challenge China for Leadership of the ‘Global South’?  (Damien Cave, Mujib Mashal and David Pierson, New York Times)
For more than a decade, China has courted developing countries frustrated with the West. Beijing’s rise from poverty was a source of inspiration. And as it challenged the postwar order, especially with its global focus on development through trade, loans and infrastructure projects, it sent billions of much-needed dollars to poor nations.
But now, China is facing competition from another Asian giant in the contest to lead what has come to be called the “global south.” A newly confident India is presenting itself as a different kind of leader for developing countries — one that is big, important and better positioned than China in an increasingly polarized world to push the West to alter its ways.

IAEA Head Concerned at ‘Decrease in Interest’ in Iran Nuclear Escalation  (AFP / VOA News)
The head of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said on Monday he was concerned the international community was losing interest in holding Iran to account over its advancing nuclear program.
The comments follow an easing of tensions between Iran and the United States, who announced a prisoner swap last month.
Last week, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said in confidential reports seen by AFP that Iran had made “no progress” on several outstanding nuclear issues.
These include reinstalling IAEA monitoring cameras that Tehran had removed from its nuclear sites and explaining the presence of uranium particles found in Iran.
IAEA director general Rafael Grossi said on Monday he had noticed a “decrease in interest” from IAEA member states, without naming them.

Separate U.S. Alliances in East Asia Are Obsolete  (Christopher B. Johnstone and Jeffrey W. Hornung, Foreign Policy)
When U.S. President Joe Biden, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, and South Korean President Yoon Suk-yeol met at Camp David last month, it was the three countries’ first-ever summit.
The announcements related to defense cooperation were particularly significant. The three governments were quick to deny that their understanding constitutes a formal trilateral defense alliance or other binding commitment. Nevertheless, the Camp David announcements include language on threat consultations normally reserved for allies, and they create a solid foundation for lasting defense and other ties.
If the three countries’ joint plans are implemented, it will be an unprecedented step toward integrating the two most critical U.S. alliances in East Asia. Today, Washington manages its alliances with Tokyo and Seoul separately, as bilateral arrangements that operate with little connection despite dealing with common threats in close geographic proximity. Contingency planning, military exercises, and operations in case of war are entirely separate.
This structure is a relic of history, and for much of the post-World War II era, it made sense.  Not anymore.