Pope Leo’s brother’s home targeted with false bomb threat

(NEW YORK) — Scientists have factored damage to the ocean into the social cost of carbon for the first time — finding it nearly doubles the economic impact from climate change.

Ocean damage from climate change — dubbed the “blue” social cost of carbon — causes the global cost of carbon dioxide emissions to society to nearly double, according to new findings by researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego.

The researchers calculated an additional $46.2 per ton of carbon dioxide — amounting to a total of $97.2 per ton of carbon dioxide, a 91% increase, according to the study, published Thursday in Nature Climate Change. Global carbon dioxide emissions were estimated to be 41.6 billion tons in 2024, according to the Global Carbon Budget, implying nearly $2 trillion in ocean-related damages in one year that are currently missing from standard climate cost estimates.

The ocean has never been accounted into the economic harm caused by greenhouse gas emissions before, the researchers said. The ocean was largely overlooked in the standard accounting of the social cost of carbon, despite widespread degradation to coral reef ecosystems, losses from fisheries and damage to coastal infrastructure — all of which are “well documented” and have impacted millions of people globally.

In addition, the distribution of impacts is “highly unequal” across the globe, according to the paper. Islands and small economies will be disproportionately affected, given the regions’ dependence on seafood and nutrition, according to the study.

Scripps researchers felt the need to put a price tag on the harm that climate change causes to the ocean in order to properly inform key decision-makers with a cost-benefit analysis, said environmental economist and assistant professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico Bernardo Bastien-Olvera, who led the study during a postdoctoral fellowship at Scripps Oceanography.

“The ocean was the big missing piece in these models that calculate the climate impacts on humans,” Bastien-Olvera told ABC News.

Human-amplified climate change damages oceans by warming temperatures and altering its chemistry, according to the Scripps researchers. The changes then alter the distribution of species and damages ecosystems such as reefs, mangroves, seagrass beds and kelp forests.

Coastal infrastructure, such as shipping ports, can also be damaged by increased flooding and stronger storms.

The social cost of carbon is an economic metric used in climate policy to estimate the damages that a ton of carbon dioxide causes to humans today, Bastien-Olvera said.

The researchers estimated the social cost of carbon by using integrated assessment models to run different future scenarios of how people and the economy might behave during the next century, also incorporating the potential climate impacts on systems such as coral reefs, mangroves, fisheries and seaports, Bastien-Olvera said.

The accounting was further developed by looking at straightforward market-use values, such as decreased fisheries revenue or diminished trade, as well as non-market values such as health impacts of reduced nutrition availability from impacted fisheries and recreational opportunities at the ocean, according to Scripps.

The research accounted for reduced availability of key nutrients in seafood, including calcium, omega-3 fatty acids, protein and iron — the loss of which can be linked to increases in disease risk and additional deaths.

The economic cost is caused by losses in the fishing industry, damage to coastal communities and impacts to systems that help fortify those communities, like mangroves and reefs.

The social cost of carbon is considered a more accurate accounting of harm from climate change than other calculations used as the basis of carbon credits or carbon offsets to travelers, according to Scripps.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — U.S. Judge Aileen Cannon on Wednesday sentenced Ryan Routh to spend the rest of his life in prison for attempting to assassinate President Donald Trump on his Florida golf course in September 2024.

Prosecutors argued that Routh, 60, should get a life sentence after a jury last year convicted him on five counts for allegedly plotting “painstakingly to kill President Trump, and [taking] significant steps toward making that happen.” 

“Routh’s crimes undeniably warrant a life sentence — he took steps over the course of months to assassinate a major presidential candidate, demonstrated the will to kill anybody in the way, and has since expressed neither regret nor remorse to his victims,” prosecutors argued in a court filing. 

After a two-and-a-half-week trial in September, a jury quickly found Routh guilty on five felony counts, including attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate and assaulting a federal officer. 

Routh allegedly hid in the bushes of the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach and pointed a military-grade SKS rifle towards Trump and a Secret Service agent. 

“Routh’s crimes of conviction reflect careful plotting, extensive premeditation, and a cowardly disregard for human life,” prosecutors wrote. “Routh’s motive for his crimes was unconscionable – preventing the American people from electing the candidate of their choice for President. Routh’s gloss on his crimes has always been that anything he may have done was justified by events in Ukraine or American domestic politics.”

Routh represented himself at trial and attempted to argue that he never intended to harm Trump or the Secret Service agent, framing his actions as a form of protest against the president’s policies. After he was found guilty, he attempted to harm himself in front of the jury by stabbing himself with a pen. 

Since his conviction, Routh was appointed an attorney and has requested a 27-year sentence that would allow him to “experience freedom again as opposed to dying in prison.” His lawyer argued that Routh could not have a fair trial because he represented himself, even though Routh made that decision after repeated warnings about the potential consequences. 

“Defendant recognizes that he was found guilty by the jury but asserts that the jury was misled by his inability to effectively confront witnesses, use exhibits, or affirmatively introduce impeachment evidence designed to prove his lack of intent to cause injury to anyone,” his defense lawyer wrote. 

Routh had attempted to bolster his push for a lighter sentence by submitting multiple letters from friends attesting to his character and undergoing a psychiatric examination, which suggested he suffers from narcissistic personality disorder and bipolar II disorder. 

“Ryan has already shown, through his actions, that he is an asset to his community, not a threat. He deserves the chance to one day return home, where he can continue to be a loving father, partner, and a peaceful, contributing member of society,” wrote Darya Trotsenko, a Kyiv resident who said she met Routh when he attempted to volunteer to support Ukraine’s defense. 

But prosecutors argued that Routh continues to show little remorse for his actions, pointing to recent writings in which he referenced an earlier attempt on Trump’s life and wrote, “I hate our dictator missed the trial, can my appeal be heard in 30 years when he is gone.” 

In another court filing, Routh suggested he prefers that Trump personally punish him for his actions. 

“If the President wished to pummel the defendant just for good measure, put on the handcuffs and shackles and give it your worst. No cameras, no complaints, no charges/charges. Just good fun. Don’t be a p—-. (Can I say p—- or coward – sorry),” Routh wrote. 

Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge, dismissed the criminal case against the president in 2024 related to his handling of classified documents. Routh unsuccessfully attempted to have Cannon removed from the case by arguing her appointment by Trump is a conflict of interest.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — The federal judge who tossed then-special counsel Jack Smith’s classified documents case against President Donald Trump has permanently barred the release of Smith’s final report on his probe.

U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the case in 2024 after deciding that Smith’s appointment as special counsel was unlawful, then blocked the release of the Smith’s report on his investigation.

She ruled Monday that the report should be sealed for good, after Trump and his co-defendants in the case sought a court order barring the report’s release.

The public release of the report “would contravene the conclusions in the Court’s final Dismissal Order that Special Counsel Smith acted without lawful appointment or funding authority in this proceeding and that his actions taken in connection herewith are therefore invalid,” Cannon’s order said.

Cannon, a Trump appointee, also scolded Smith for preparing the report in the first place even though she had ruled his appointment was unlawful, calling it a “concerning breach of the spirit of the Dismissal Order.”

“Nevertheless, rather than seek a stay of the Order, or clarification, Special Counsel Smith and his team chose to circumvent it, for months, by taking the discovery generated in this case and compiling it in a final report for transmission to then-Attorney General Garland, to Congress, and then beyond,” Cannon wrote in her order.

“The Court need not countenance this brazen stratagem or effectively perpetuate the Special Counsel’s breach of this Court’s own order,” she wrote.

Trump pleaded not guilty in June 2023 to 40 criminal counts related to his handling of classified materials after leaving the White House in 2021, after prosecutors said he repeatedly refused to return hundreds of documents containing classified information and took steps to thwart the government’s efforts to get the documents back. Trump asserted that he had every right to possess the documents.

Smith, testifying publicly before the GOP-led House Judiciary Committee last month, said his investigation “developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity” — and that partisan politics did not play a role in his decision to charge Trump.

Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.