This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Bird flu has been detected in a pig in the US. Why does that matter?

David MG/Shutterstock

C Raina MacIntyre, UNSW Sydney and Haley Stone, UNSW Sydney

The United States Department of Agriculture last week reported that a pig on a backyard farm in Oregon was infected with bird flu.

As the bird flu situation has evolved, we’ve heard about the A/H5N1 strain of the virus infecting a range of animals, including a variety of birds, wild animals and dairy cattle.

Fortunately, we haven’t seen any sustained spread between humans at this stage. But the detection of the virus in a pig marks a worrying development in the trajectory of this virus.

How did we get here?

The most concerning type of bird flu currently circulating is clade 2.3.4.4b of A/H5N1, a strain of influenza A.

Since 2020, A/H5N1 2.3.4.4b has spread to a vast range of birds, wild animals and farm animals that have never been infected with bird flu before.

While Europe is a hotspot for A/H5N1, attention is currently focused on the US. Dairy cattle were infected for the first time in 2024, with more than 400 herds affected across at least 14 US states.

Bird flu has enormous impacts on farming and commercial food production, because infected poultry flocks have to be culled, and infected cows can result in contaminated diary products. That said, pasteurisation should make milk safe to drink.

While farmers have suffered major losses due to H5N1 bird flu, it also has the potential to mutate to cause a human pandemic.

Birds and humans have different types of receptors in their respiratory tract that flu viruses attach to, like a lock (receptors) and key (virus). The attachment of the virus allows it to invade a cell and the body and cause illness. Avian flu viruses are adapted to birds, and spread easily among birds, but not in humans.

So far, human cases have mainly occurred in people who have been in close contact with infected farm animals or birds. In the US, most have been farm workers.

The concern is that the virus will mutate and adapt to humans. One of the key steps for this to happen would be a shift in the virus’ affinity from the bird receptors to those found in the human respiratory tract. In other words, if the virus’ “key” mutated to better fit with the human “lock”.

A recent study of a sample of A/H5N1 2.3.4.4b from an infected human had worrying findings, identifying mutations in the virus with the potential to increase transmission between human hosts.

Why are pigs a problem?

A human pandemic strain of influenza can arise in several ways. One involves close contact between humans and animals infected with their own specific flu viruses, creating opportunities for genetic mixing between avian and human viruses.

Pigs are the ideal genetic mixing vessel to generate a human pandemic influenza strain, because they have receptors in their respiratory tracts which both avian and human flu viruses can bind to.

This means pigs can be infected with a bird flu virus and a human flu virus at the same time. These viruses can exchange genetic material to mutate and become easily transmissible in humans.

The Conversation, CC BY-SA

Interestingly, in the past pigs were less susceptible to A/H5N1 viruses. However, the virus has recently mutated to infect pigs more readily.

In the recent case in Oregon, A/H5N1 was detected in a pig on a non-commercial farm after an outbreak occurred among the poultry housed on the same farm. This strain of A/H5N1 was from wild birds, not the one that is widespread in US dairy cows.

The infection of a pig is a warning. If the virus enters commercial piggeries, it would create a far greater level of risk of a pandemic, especially as the US goes into winter, when human seasonal flu starts to rise.

How can we mitigate the risk?

Surveillance is key to early detection of a possible pandemic. This includes comprehensive testing and reporting of infections in birds and animals, alongside financial compensation and support measures for farmers to encourage timely reporting.

Strengthening global influenza surveillance is crucial, as unusual spikes in pneumonia and severe respiratory illnesses could signal a human pandemic. Our EPIWATCH system looks for early warnings of such activity, which can speed up vaccine development.

If a cluster of human cases occurs, and influenza A is detected, further testing (called subtyping) is essential to ascertain whether it’s a seasonal strain, an avian strain from a spillover event, or a novel pandemic strain.

Early identification can prevent a pandemic. Any delay in identifying an emerging pandemic strain enables the virus to spread widely across international borders.

Australia’s first human case of A/H5N1 occurred in a child who acquired the infection while travelling in India, and was hospitalised with illness in March 2024. At the time, testing revealed Influenza A (which could be seasonal flu or avian flu), but subtyping to identify A/H5N1 was delayed.

This kind of delay can be costly if a human-transmissible A/H5N1 arises and is assumed to be seasonal flu because the test is positive for influenza A. Only about 5% of tests positive for influenza A are subtyped further in Australia and most countries.

In light of the current situation, there should be a low threshold for subtyping influenza A strains in humans. Rapid tests which can distinguish between seasonal and H5 influenza A are emerging, and should form part of governments’ pandemic preparedness.

A higher risk than ever before

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention states that the current risk posed by H5N1 to the general public remains low.

But with H5N1 now able to infect pigs, and showing worrying mutations for human adaptation, the level of risk has increased. Given the virus is so widespread in animals and birds, the statistical probability of a pandemic arising is higher than ever before.

The good news is, we are better prepared for an influenza pandemic than other pandemics, because vaccines can be made in the same way as seasonal flu vaccines. As soon as the genome of a pandemic influenza virus is known, the vaccines can be updated to match it.

Partially matched vaccines are already available, and some countries such as Finland are vaccinating high-risk farm workers.

C Raina MacIntyre, Professor of Global Biosecurity, NHMRC L3 Research Fellow, Head, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute, UNSW Sydney and Haley Stone, Research Associate, Biosecurity Program, Kirby Institute & CRUISE lab, Computer Science and Engineering, UNSW Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

New Apostolic Reformation evangelicals see Trump as God’s warrior in their battle to win America from satanic forces and Christianize it

President-elect Donald Trump, joined by Melania Trump and Barron Trump, on Nov. 6, 2024, in West Palm Beach, Fla. AP Photo/Alex Brandon

Art Jipson, University of Dayton

A growing movement believes President-elect Donald Trump is fighting a spiritual war against demonic forces within the United States. Trump himself stated in his acceptance speech on Nov. 6, 2024, that the reason that “God spared my life” was to “restore America to greatness.”

I have studied various religious movements that seek to shape and control American society. One of these is the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, whose followers believe that they are waging a spiritual battle for control of the United States. NAR is an offshoot of Protestant Christian evangelicalism.

NAR advocates claim they receive divine guidance in reconstructing modern society based on Christian spiritual beliefs. In 2015, an estimated 3 million adult Americans attended churches that were openly part of NAR. Some scholars estimate that the number of active NAR adherents may be larger, as the movement may include members of Protestant Christian churches that are not directly aligned with the NAR movement.

The beginning of the movement

NAR emerged in the late 1990s when theologian C. Peter Wagner popularized the term “New Apostolic Reformation.” Wagner argued that God was creating modern-day apostles and prophets who would lead Christianity in remaking American society.

The roots of the New Apostolic Reformation can be traced to the broader charismatic movement that sees spiritual forces as an active part of everyday life.

This view does not separate sacred experience from regular everyday life. For the much larger network of charismatic Christians and Pentecostal movements that emphasize a personal relationship with God, the world is full of the active presence of the Holy Spirit, spiritual gifts and direct divine experiences.

Core beliefs

Central to NAR is the belief that Christian religious leaders should be the main source of cultural and political authority in America.

NAR proponents argue that select leaders receive direct revelation from God, guiding the direction of churches and fighting spiritual warfare against demonic influences, which they believe corrupt the behavior of individuals and nations.

NAR advocates for a hierarchical structure in which religious leaders and their political allies hold authority in society.

They believe in “The Seven Mountains Mandate,” a way to represent Christian control of society through a strategy that Christians should infiltrate, influence and eventually control seven key areas in society – business, government, media, arts and entertainment, education, family and religion – to bring about cultural transformation.

By doing so, NAR proponents believe they can establish a pure and true form of what they believe is a society ruled by divine guidance and strict adherence to biblical ideas.

Lance Wallnau, a prominent Christian author, speaker, social media influencer and consultant associated with NAR, has promoted the idea that such engagement where NAR Christian leaders hold authority through a government tied to divine will is essential for advancing societal transformation.

Wallnau has been a vocal supporter of Trump, viewing him as a significant figure in NAR’s vision.

Spiritual warfare

Followers of the NAR believe that they must engage in spiritual warfare, which includes prayers and actions aimed at combating perceived demonic influences in society.

Evangelist Lance Wallnau speaks during a September 2022 rally for Republican gubernatorial candidate Doug Mastriano in Chambersburg, Pa. Doug Kapustin/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

This practice often involves identifying “strongholds” of evil, around cultural issues, such as gay marriage, transgender rights and LGBTQ+ activism, and working to dismantle them. An example of this is a recent series of religious-based political rallies led by NAR leaders known as “The Courage Tour” that advocated directly for Trump’s second election.

The NAR emphasizes that Christians should expect to see miraculous signs, where extraordinary events, such as Trump’s survival of an assassination attempt, are interpreted to be explained only by divine or spiritual intervention.

The movement’s adherents also believe in faith-based healing and supernatural experiences, such as prophetic utterances and speech.

Trump as divinely ordained

Many NAR leaders and followers support Trump, viewing him as a divinely appointed figure who would facilitate NAR’s goals for societal reconstruction, believing he was chosen by God to fulfill a prophetic destiny.

They position Trump as a warrior against a so-called demonically controlled – and therefore corrupted – “deep state,” aligning with NAR’s emphasis on spiritual warfare and cultural dominion as outlined in the “Seven Mountains” mandate. NAR leaders followed Trump’s understanding of a corrupt government.

The NAR led a “Million Women” worship rally on Oct. 12, 2024, to Washington, D.C., in which the organizers sought to encourage 1 million women NAR adherents to come to pray, protest and support Trump’s campaign. The event was promoted as a “last stand moment” to save the nation by helping Trump win the election as a champion against dark, satanic forces.

Several prominent politicians, legislators and members of the judiciary, such as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, have flown the NAR-based “Appeal to Heaven” flag.

For NAR evangelicals, the presidential election is interpreted through a Christian apocalyptic rhetoric. In this rhetoric one candidate is a force for good, a warrior for God – Trump – and the other is led by demonic forces such as Harris. Trump’s 2024 win is seen as a critical moment of spiritual warfare where the forces of God defeat the forces of evil.

Criticism from many Christian denominations

Despite its growing popularity, NAR faces substantial criticism. Many mainstream Christian churches argue that the movement’s teachings deviate from traditional Christian orthodoxy.

Critics highlight abuse of authority by people who claim God is directing their actions and the potential for abuse of authority by those claiming apostolic roles. The embrace of Trump raises concerns about blending evangelical faith and political ambition.

Critics argue that the NAR’s support for Trump compromised the integrity of the gospel, prioritizing political power over spiritual integrity. The events surrounding the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol further complicated this relationship, exposing the potential dangers of conflating religious beliefs with partisan politics.

Moreover, the NAR’s emphasis on spiritual warfare and the idea of taking control over society has raised other Christian groups’ concerns about its potential to foster an “us versus them” mentality, leading to increased polarization within society.

The New Apostolic Reformation represents a significant development, blending charismatic practices with a strong emphasis on politics and cultural transformation.

However, a large majority of Americans disagree that society should be remade based on religious theology. Thus, for now, the NAR movement’s fundamental views about religion and government are starkly at odds with most Americans.

Art Jipson, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Dayton

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

What Trump can do to reverse US climate policy − and what he probably can’t change

Donald Trump tours a liquefied natural gas terminal under construction in Louisiana in 2019. AP Photo/Evan Vucci

Gautam Jain, Columbia University

As the U.S. prepares for another Trump administration, one area unambiguously in the incoming president’s crosshairs is climate policy.

Although he has not released an official climate agenda, Donald Trump’s playbook from his last stint in the Oval Office and his frequent complaints about clean energy offer some clues to what’s ahead.

Exiting the Paris climate agreement

Less than six months into his first presidency, Trump in 2017 formally announced that he was withdrawing the United States from the Paris climate accord – the 2015 international agreement signed by nearly every country as a pledge to work toward keeping rising temperatures and other impacts of climate change in check.

This time, a greater but underappreciated risk is that Trump will not stop at the Paris Agreement.

In addition to exiting the Paris Agreement again, Trump could try to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The 1992 treaty is the foundation for international climate talks. A withdrawal from that treaty would make it nearly impossible for a future administration to reenter the UNFCCC treaty because doing so would require the consent of two-thirds of the Senate.

The reverberation of such a step would be felt around the world. While the Paris Agreement is not legally binding and is based on trust and leadership, the stance taken by the world’s largest economy affects what other countries are willing to do.

It would also hand the climate leadership mantle to China.

U.S. funding to help other countries scale up clean energy and adapt to climate change rose significantly during the Biden administration. The first U.S. International Climate Finance Plan provided US$11 billion in 2024 to help emerging and developing economies. And commitments from the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation surged to almost $14 billion in the first two years of Biden’s presidency, versus $12 billion during the four years of Trump. Biden also pledged $3 billion to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund.

Under President Trump, all these efforts will likely be scaled back again.

Targeting clean energy might not be so simple

In other areas, however, Trump may be less successful.

He has been vocal about rolling back clean energy policies. However, it may be harder for him to eliminate the Biden administration’s massive investments in clean energy, which are interwoven with much-needed investments in infrastructure and manufacturing in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and the Inflation Reduction Act.

Since both are laws that Congress passed, Trump would need majorities in both Houses to repeal them.

Even if Republicans end up with a trifecta – controlling both houses of Congress and the White House – repealing these laws will be challenging. That’s because the laws’ benefits are flowing heavily to red states. Trump’s allies in the oil and gas industry also benefit from the law’s tax credits for carbon capture, advanced biofuels and hydrogen.

However, while the Inflation Reduction Act may not be repealed, it will almost certainly be tweaked. The tax credit to consumers who buy electric vehicles is likely on the chopping block, as is the EPA regulation tightening tailpipe pollution standards, making battery-powered cars uneconomical for many.

Trump may also slow the work of the Department of Energy’s Loan Program Office, which has helped boost several clean energy industries. Again, this is not a surprise – he did it in the first term – except that the impact would be greater given that the office’s lending capacity has since skyrocketed to over $200 billion, thanks to the Inflation Reduction Act. So far, only about a quarter of the total has been doled out, so there is a rush to ramp up the pace before the new administration starts in January.

Drill, baby, drill?

Trump also talks about increasing fossil fuel production, and he almost certainly will take steps to boost the industry via deregulation and opening up more federal lands for drilling. But prospects of massively ramping up oil and gas production seem dim.

The United States is already producing more crude oil than any country ever. Oil and gas companies are buying back stocks and paying dividends to shareholders at a record pace, which they wouldn’t do if they saw better investment opportunities.

The futures curve indicates lower oil prices ahead, which could be further weighed down by slowing demand from any resulting economic weakness if Trump follows through on his threat to impose tariffs on all imports, leading to the risk of lower profitability.

Trump will likely try to roll back climate policies related to fossil fuels and emissions, which are the leading source of climate change, as he did with dozens of policies in his first administration.

That includes eliminating a new federal charge for methane emissions from certain facilities – the first attempt by the U.S. government to impose a fee or tax on greenhouse gas emissions. Methane is the primary component of natural gas and a potent greenhouse gas.

Trump has also promised to support approvals of new liquefied natural gas, or LNG, export terminals, which the Biden administration tried to pause and is still working to slow down.

The markets have a say in clean energy’s future

One clean energy source that Trump is likely to rally behind is nuclear energy.

And despite his criticism of wind and solar power, investments in renewable energy will likely continue rising because of market dynamics, especially with onshore wind and utility-scale solar projects becoming more cost effective than coal or gas.

Nevertheless, a U.S. withdrawal from the Paris Agreement and the regulatory and policy uncertainty under Trump would likely slow the pace of investments. The expected inflationary impact of his economic policies is likely to negate the benefits of lower cost of capital that were expected to flow through with central banks lowering interest rates this year. It’s an outcome that the warming planet can ill afford.

Gautam Jain, Senior Research Scholar in Financing the Energy Transition, Columbia University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.