When someone "adopts", whether it's a child (usually) or, as in this case, an embryo, it is generally understood as "relieving any previous donor from any future child support claim".

Otherwise it's not a real adoption.
If a couple takes an embryo and raise the resulting child, while keeping the possibility of suing one or both of the biological parents in case they get into trouble financially at some point, I'm sorry, but they didn't really adopt in my opinion.

Separate case I guess. But Apple is a much worst offender. At least on Android you just have to click "allow unknown sources" to install a 3rd party app store. Apple is still blocking that. And no, it's not because of security, it's because of greed.

who's "they"? Nowhere in the article they talk about the biological father consenting to the adoption.

Maybe Archerd was given a blank check during divorce. But it could be an instance of he got trapped because he never thought she would/could do that.

Technically here the baby has to parents, a man and a woman, who "adopted" the embryo and raised him from birth. So I don't think there are any risks of child support having to be paid by the "biological father". Otherwise all sperm donors would be at risk.
Not sure I see why would a couple chose an embryo from a divorced couple unless BOTH donors agree to the adoption. And why would the "embryo bank" even allow it.

I'd say one of the main risk here is that baby growing up and at some point would like to meet the biological father and the answer could be that he's long dead because they kept the embryo frozen for 30 years.

How about: that man may be divorced but that doesn't mean he wants a child resulting in 50% of his DNA and 50% of his ex-wife's to be born? And not 30 years later?
That's not about raising them. If wanted babies from his DNA that he wouldn't raise, he'd go make a donation to a sperm bank.

I think he deserves a say in it. Maybe he was OK with giving the embyros to his ex-wife so that she could have a second baby on her own (and sibling to his own kid), but that doesn't mean he was OK with strangers "adopting" the embryos.

"Archerd was awarded custody of the embryos after divorcing her husband"

I hope the husband was OK with that. Otherwise I think the moral thing would be to ask for BOTH persons if they are OK to give their embryo for adoption.

Well, instead of talking about anecdotal evidence, here are the actual numbers:

https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hydroquebec.com%2Fda...
The most interesting part is the last chart, the average number of downtime per year per region. The numbers are a bit higher than I expected, but it probably means that there are many failures that I do not notice maybe because I am sleeping or a work (work places power could be more reliable than individual residences).

It turns out "urban dwellers" from Montreal experience much more power failures than the average (at least in 2023, even if their 5 year average is lower than the average). And many rural areas have a very reliable grid, which likely explain why I never saw the point of having a backup generator or UPS. There is no obvious city/rural split when looking at these numbers.

I do live in a rural area. You must be part of the few unlucky.

No I don't. Dorval is urban, I live in a rural area 4 hours from there.

I live in a very small town yes

Either you are part of the unlucky few, or your grid and power companies seem to suck. I live just north of you (Quebec) and never experienced a 2 days power failure. Worst case in the last 40 years must be something like a couple hours.

Almost nobody uses UPS at home. Backup generator are pretty much non-existent for residential areas as well. And most people heat with electricity only (with some also using wood or propane).

I'm not saying major outages don't exist (we had one in 1998) but they are not something common that we have to get used to.

And that's outside. Inside buildings with a lot of people breathing, CO2 levels will be higher.

1000 is too high. Good level for the human is 400-800.
So if you are in a room full of people, you want to remain under 800. It can be achieved with simple ventilation, as long as the outside air has much less than 800 ppm. If the outside air is at 1000 ppm, it gets very expensive to keep it under 800 inside in a room full of people.

Even if you ignore deserts and global warming, anything above 500-600 ppm, I think, will start being problematic for buildings and mass transit ventilation.

Even if the price of carbon is set to below its real cost, that doesn't make geoengineering any more useful. On the contrary, there won't be enough geoengineering made. Just like there won't be enough coal power plants shutdown. Just like there won't be enough reduction in distance driven on pick up trucks. All these happens because the price of carbon is not internalized.

It's not independent from the cost of carbon.
If it cost $100 to do a geoengineering project which will reduce impact of climate change the same way as if we removed 1 ton of CO2, it would be damn stupid to do it if we can remove 1 ton of CO2 for $30.

The main problem with climate change is the freeloaders, especially across borders. Ideally every person would pay for its own emissions, but at least every country should pay for its own emissions.