Kevin Mueller
LightNews LightNews
banner
kevin-e-mueller.bsky.social
Kevin Mueller
@kevin-e-mueller.bsky.social
210 followers 410 following 150 posts
scientist at Cleveland State U. other things too. earth. people. plants. ecology. cities.
Posts Replies Media Videos
Pinned
kevin-e-mueller.bsky.social
Kevin Mueller @kevin-e-mueller.bsky.social · Oct 9
are economic valuations of ecosystem services a slippery slope? or worse, a trick? here is a case study for pondering, told in a creative way by my colleague John Van Stan
🧪🍁🌐

doi.org/10.1093/bios...
A cautionary tale about urban trees: could ecoservice monetary estimates become economic sleights of hand?
Abstract. Estimating the monetary value of ecosystem services bridges biophysical and economic systems, facilitating dialogue and decision-making among div
doi.org
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
glenpeters.bsky.social
Global fossil CO2 emissions are projected to rise 1.1% in 2025, but there is some good news underneath that.

There are 35 economies where fossil CO2 emissions have declined in the last decade while growing their economies, even after accounting for variability.

theconversation.com/the-worlds-c...
November 13, 2025 at 11:42 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
robbieandrew.bsky.social
Many more charts available in English here: robbieandrew.github.io/GCB2025/
Figures from the Global Carbon Budget 2025
The Global Carbon Budget 2025 was released on 13 November 2025. This page presents all of the figures in the Budget's presentation materials, in a variety of formats and often with data files.
robbieandrew.github.io
November 13, 2025 at 11:55 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
milanchytry.bsky.social
Our new paper in Ecology Letters, led by Jan Divíšek, shows that non-invasive alien plant species that successfully establish within local plant communities tend to resemble the resident native species. In contrast, invasive alien species usually differ from native plants.
doi.org/10.1111/ele....
November 10, 2025 at 7:26 PM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
bistline.bsky.social
The U.S. is on track for another record year for clean electricity in 2025: 59 GW additions, which is 92% of new builds. Solar leads again, and storage nearly doubles. The grid is changing fast.
November 12, 2025 at 8:08 PM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
acritschristoph.bsky.social
This is a great thread. But three points.

1. Agree: profit in publishing is the central issue, but it needed the APC to go into overdrive. The mistake of the 2010s OA movement was to shift culture around access and not profit. This damanged sci publishing bc APCs incentivize quantity over quality
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 2d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
cmarin.bsky.social
Very happy to write this Species spotlight for #Nature Ecol. Evol. about our beloved Alerce.
Its been a huge privilige to work with this #AMF conifer for many years now.
Thx to the E-i-C for the invite & Mateo Barrenengoa for the pic.
#Alerce #Mycorrhiza #Chile

cesar-marin.com/publications/
November 11, 2025 at 2:19 PM
kevin-e-mueller.bsky.social
there are other interesting things in this thread, but it is worth a look to discover (or refresh your memory of) the disgusting profit margins of journal publishers, and the fact that governments don't have to accept this awful system
hansonmark.bsky.social Mark A. Hanson @hansonmark.bsky.social · 2d
We wrote the Strain on scientific publishing to highlight the problems of time & trust. With a fantastic group of co-authors, we present The Drain of Scientific Publishing:

a 🧵 1/n

Drain: arxiv.org/abs/2511.04820
Strain: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
Oligopoly: direct.mit.edu/qss/article/...
A table showing profit margins of major publishers. A snippet of text related to this table is below. 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. A figure detailing the drain on researcher time. 1. The four-fold drain 1.2 Time The number of papers published each year is growing faster than the scientific workforce, with the number of papers per researcher almost doubling between 1996 and 2022 (Figure 1A). This reflects the fact that publishers’ commercial desire to publish (sell) more material has aligned well with the competitive prestige culture in which publications help secure jobs, grants, promotions, and awards. To the extent that this growth is driven by a pressure for profit, rather than scholarly imperatives, it distorts the way researchers spend their time. The publishing system depends on unpaid reviewer labour, estimated to be over 130 million unpaid hours annually in 2020 alone (9). Researchers have complained about the demands of peer-review for decades, but the scale of the problem is now worse, with editors reporting widespread difficulties recruiting reviewers. The growth in publications involves not only the authors’ time, but that of academic editors and reviewers who are dealing with so many review demands. Even more seriously, the imperative to produce ever more articles reshapes the nature of scientific inquiry. Evidence across multiple fields shows that more papers result in ‘ossification’, not new ideas (10). It may seem paradoxical that more papers can slow progress until one considers how it affects researchers’ time. While rewards remain tied to volume, prestige, and impact of publications, researchers will be nudged away from riskier, local, interdisciplinary, and long-term work. The result is a treadmill of constant activity with limited progress whereas core scholarly practices – such as reading, reflecting and engaging with others’ contributions – is de-prioritized. What looks like productivity often masks intellectual exhaustion built on a demoralizing, narrowing scientific vision. A table of profit margins across industries. The section of text related to this table is below: 1. The four-fold drain 1.1 Money Currently, academic publishing is dominated by profit-oriented, multinational companies for whom scientific knowledge is a commodity to be sold back to the academic community who created it. The dominant four are Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley and Taylor & Francis, which collectively generated over US$7.1 billion in revenue from journal publishing in 2024 alone, and over US$12 billion in profits between 2019 and 2024 (Table 1A). Their profit margins have always been over 30% in the last five years, and for the largest publisher (Elsevier) always over 37%. Against many comparators, across many sectors, scientific publishing is one of the most consistently profitable industries (Table S1). These financial arrangements make a substantial difference to science budgets. In 2024, 46% of Elsevier revenues and 53% of Taylor & Francis revenues were generated in North America, meaning that North American researchers were charged over US$2.27 billion by just two for-profit publishers. The Canadian research councils and the US National Science Foundation were allocated US$9.3 billion in that year. The costs of inaction are plain: wasted public funds, lost researcher time, compromised scientific integrity and eroded public trust. Today, the system rewards commercial publishers first, and science second. Without bold action from the funders we risk continuing to pour resources into a system that prioritizes profit over the advancement of scientific knowledge.
November 11, 2025 at 1:23 PM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
organiccarbon.bsky.social
A particular interest of mine has been how Earth system processes, including terrestrial methane cycling, have been perturbed by past warming events. Our new paper, led by Wuhan colleagues, is another contribution to that understanding!

pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/...
November 11, 2025 at 10:19 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
filipecampante.bsky.social
The evidence keeps accumulating that Brexit was an astonishing self-inflicted economic policy disaster. The fact that it is a slow-moving one bodes ill for those who think that populist economic mismanagement will translate into voters punishing populists. www.nber.org/system/files...
November 10, 2025 at 4:26 PM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
thomasnhale.bsky.social
📈 Climate policy is growing and getting stronger📈
New rules continue to be added at a fast pace. More importantly, our detailed assessment allows us to measure their quality. Ambition has risen significantly since 2020, and a bit less (but still some) since 2024.
November 10, 2025 at 11:17 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
scottlincicome.bsky.social
New @nberpubs: "The Economic Impact of Brexit" www.nber.org/papers/w34459
"by 2025, Brexit had reduced UK GDP by 6% to 8%, with the impact accumulating gradually over time." 😲
November 10, 2025 at 11:45 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
sammyroth.bsky.social
Arizona has paused development of hundreds of thousands of homes on the far Phoenix fringes due to insufficient groundwater supplies, @highcountrynews.org finds: www.hcn.org/issues/57-10...
The dried-out subdivisions of Phoenix - High Country News
A groundwater crisis halted the construction of thousands of homes and pitted affordability against environmental concerns.
www.hcn.org
November 10, 2025 at 5:25 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
debtcollective.bsky.social
November 10, 2025 at 3:14 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
zacklabe.com
📣 We just released a new free resource at @climatecentral.org - a 72-slide deck introducing key facts about climate change, including its causes, impacts, and solutions. It also comes with speaker notes and links for local storytelling.

➡️ www.climatecentral.org/climate-matt... (English & Spanish)
Screenshot of at least 20 slides on Climate Change: Key facts from Climate Central.
November 10, 2025 at 12:52 PM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
yalee360.bsky.social
Analysis: China is not only powering the shift to clean energy, but becoming a driving force in climate diplomacy, filling a vacuum left by the U.S. and E.U.

As U.N. climate negotiations get underway, China is staking its claim to the leadership role.
As U.S. and E.U. Retreat on Climate, China Takes the Leadership Role
As U.N. talks get underway, China is emerging as a key leader in international climate efforts. It is empowering the global energy transition, and along with India and Brazil, is becoming the driving ...
e360.yale.edu
November 10, 2025 at 1:27 PM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
mrgeorgewallace.bsky.social
How come you only hear about last ditch efforts? Shout out to everyone givin' effort on the first few ditches and whatnot.
November 10, 2025 at 2:38 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
climatologist49.bsky.social
Timeline cleanse. Another picture of snow. ❄️❄️❄️
November 10, 2025 at 3:12 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
mariannedenton.bsky.social
More globemallow & bees from last week 🧡💚
A green peridot sweat bee wrapped around the yellow pollen stamens of an orange globemallow. A green peridot sweat bee wrapped around the yellow pollen stamens of an orange globemallow. A green peridot sweat bee walking across the bud an orange globemallow. A small black bee walking along the petals of an orange globemallow.
November 9, 2025 at 2:36 PM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
jmbecologist.bsky.social
If you engage with the public about the climate & biodiversity crises

It becomes clear that much of the denial is not because people do not believe these things are happening

But because they don’t want to face the terrifying truth
November 9, 2025 at 8:39 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
biodiversitypix.bsky.social
👹 Book of monsters
Washington, National Geographic Society, 1914.

[Source]
Black and white historical illustration of a spiny caterpillar from the 1914 "Book of Monsters," published by the National Geographic Society. The caterpillar is shown in close-up profile on a thin branch, featuring a large rounded head with prominent mandibles and a body densely covered in long, sharp spines. The detailed texture of its hairy, segmented body and the spiky projections give it a menacing, monstrous appearance. The illustration emphasizes the creature’s defensive features, highlighting its intimidating form despite its small size.
November 9, 2025 at 9:23 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
organiccarbon.bsky.social
In old, wet forests, the moss goes up and up.
Beech tree, illuminated from the right by the mid-day sun. Bright green moss covers its trunk. Its leaves have turned bright, autumn yellow, contrasting with the dark green leaves of the holly tree on the left. From the Angidy Valley, just off the Wye Valley near Tintern.
November 9, 2025 at 11:20 AM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
doctorjackpine.bsky.social
www.change.org/p/stop-the-d...
Sign the Petition
Stop the Dismantling of NASA Science Center at Goddard
www.change.org
November 9, 2025 at 12:33 PM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
mackenwells.bsky.social
At some point I played my last game of chasing with my friends in school, without realising it would be our last game.

However, that means one of us is still IT, and doesn't even know. Forever chasing people who don't know they're being chased.

I think about this all the time. Is it me? Am I IT?
November 9, 2025 at 12:22 PM
kevin-e-mueller.bsky.social
is it bad, if in your dreams, you are having conversations with imaginary people about the suitability of different statistical analyses for imaginary datasets?

🧪
#academiclife
November 9, 2025 at 1:02 PM
Reposted by Kevin Mueller
tjalamont.bsky.social
Here's one from the archives of a tiny and quite fuzzy longhorn beetle (Lophopogonius crinitus) that I found in my backyard. It's the only species in its genus. I haven't seen one since, which isn't surprising given that they're virtually invisible on bark. 🐙🌿📷 #Bugsky
A macro photo looking down at a small longhorn beetle next to a shiny penny, both sitting on weathered, gray wood. The beetle's body length is only about half the diameter of the penny. The beetle is perfectly camouflaged on the wood; it has antennae longer than its body and is covered in fine, fuzzy hairs.
November 8, 2025 at 6:26 PM