NewzIntel.com

Category: Academic Analysis

  • MIL-OSI Global: Paying fishers to release sharks accidentally caught in their nets can incentivise conservation action – but there’s a catch

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Hollie Booth, Research Associate, Conservation Science, University of Oxford

    An Indonesian fisher safely releases a critically endangered wedgefish. Francesca Page. Francesca Page, CC BY-NC-ND

    Sharks and rays are among the world’s most threatened species, mainly due to overfishing. They are sometimes targeted for their fins and meat, but more often caught as bycatch in nets aiming to catch other fish. Declines in these ocean predators can disrupt food webs, harm tourism income and worsen climate change by undermining the resilience of ocean ecosystems.

    However, halting overfishing of sharks and rays is difficult because the social dynamics around it are complex. Many threatened species are caught in small-scale, mixed-species fisheries in tropical coastal areas, where households depend on the fish they catch – including endangered sharks and rays – for food and income.

    For the past five years, I have been investigating how to support both marine life and the people who rely on catching fish. I’m part of a global team of interdisciplinary researchers focusing on shark and ray conservation in small-scale fisheries in Indonesia.

    Our new study, just published in Science Advances, suggests that paying fishers to release endangered species can incentivise conservation behaviours and promote fisher welfare. However, such payments can also have unintended consequences, which may undermine conservation goals, so it’s really important to design incentives carefully and rigorously evaluate initiatives as they progress.

    Though sharks and rays are not necessarily targeted by small-scale fishers, threatened species such as wedgefish and hammerhead sharks are frequently captured. In our 2020 study, fishers often told us that wedgefish and hammerheads are “just bycatch”. However, further investigation revealed that fishers remain reluctant to reduce catches of these species because they would lose food and income.

    “It brings more money even though it’s not the target” one fisher told us. “It is rezeki” (a gift from God). “If I return it to the ocean, it is mubazir” (wasteful and God will be displeased).

    Knowing this, we explored the different positive and negative incentives that might motivate fishers to change their behaviour. We found that conditional cash payments, which compensate fishers for safely releasing wedgefish and hammerheads back into the sea, could be a cost-effective way to conserve these species without damaging fisher livelihoods.

    Inspired by our results, I worked with students and collaborators to establish a small local charitable organisation to put our findings into practice – Kebersamaan Untuk Lautan (an Indonesian phrase meaning “togetherness for the ocean”). We agreed to compensates fishers with cash payments – typically US$2-7 (£1.50-5) per fish – if they submit videos of wedgefish and hammerhead being safely released.

    Testing the incentive

    However, incentives can change fishing behaviour in unforeseen ways. For example, fishers may increase their catches to receive more payments at the expense of conservation goals. Payments may also end up going to people who would reduce catches anyway, or could release budget constraints allowing fishers to purchase more nets.

    To see if and how the conservation payments worked in practice, we carried out a controlled experiment, randomly splitting 87 vessels from Aceh and West Nusa Tenggara into two groups. One group was offered compensation for live releases while the other was not. We collected data on reported live releases and retained catches of wedgefish and hammerheads, and on fishers’ levels of satisfaction with the programme and life in general. Then we compared the two groups.

    Since we launched the pay-to-release programme in May 2022, more than 1,200 wedgefish and hammerheads have been safely released. All participating fishers and their families felt satisfied.

    “We use the compensation money to cover our daily needs. We hope that the programme continues in the future,” said the wife of one participating fisher.

    Hollie Booth has been collaborating with fishers in Indonesia to reduce bycatch of sharks. Film by Liam Webb.

    However, our experimental data from the first 16 months of the programme (May 2022 – July 2023) revealed a plot twist. Even though the compensation incentivised live releases, results suggested that some fishers had purposefully increased their catches to gain more payments.

    My team and I were initially distressed by the result. However, without the rigorous controlled experiment we would never have detected these unintended consequences. Based on our results, we revised the compensation pricing and limited how many compensated releases each vessel can claim per week. We are also piloting a new gear swap scheme, where fishers trade their nets for fish traps, which have much lower bycatch rates. Preliminary data suggest these changes have boosted the programme’s effectiveness.

    Our team at Oxford works closely with other local researchers and conservation organisations to help them design and assess their own locally appropriate incentive programmes. Another recent study from conservation charity Thresher Shark Indonesia shows that their alternative livelihood programme reduced catches of endangered thresher sharks by over 90%.

    Positive incentives are an important instrument for solving the biodiversity crisis in an equitable way. It is unfair and unjust to expect small-scale resources users in developing countries to bear most of the costs of conservation. Especially when wealthier and more powerful ocean users – such as commercial seafood companies – cause major negative impacts through overfishing while extracting huge profits. However, conservation incentives must be well designed and robustly evaluated to ensure they incentivise the right actions and deliver intended results.

    Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

    Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.

    Hollie Booth is the founder and Chair of Kebersamaan Untuk Lautan. The program and this research was funded by Save Our Seas Foundation and the UK Darwin Initiative.

    – ref. Paying fishers to release sharks accidentally caught in their nets can incentivise conservation action – but there’s a catch – https://theconversation.com/paying-fishers-to-release-sharks-accidentally-caught-in-their-nets-can-incentivise-conservation-action-but-theres-a-catch-253797

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Is China the new cool? How Beijing is using pop culture to win the soft power war

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Shaoyu Yuan, Research Scientist at the Division of Global Affairs, Rutgers University – Newark

    IShowSpeed, a 20-year-old American YouTuber and internet star, recently livestreamed hourslong tours of Chinese cities including Beijing and Shanghai, showcasing the locations to some of his nearly 40 million viewers.

    During the March events, IShowSpeed, whose real name is Darren Jason Watkins Jr., marveled at friendly locals, spotless streets and the high-speed Wi-Fi available on the subway; Chinese fans mobbed him for selfies on the Great Wall.

    Beijing’s state media lapped up the attention, with one Chinese blogger proclaiming that the American influencer had “eliminated all Western propaganda about China” in the eyes of a new generation.

    IShowSpeed’s YouTube page attests to this assessment.

    “China is so underrated wtf,” reads one top comment. “After watching this video, I realized how foolish my previous views on China were,” reads another.

    The providence of such comments isn’t clear. Nonetheless, to someone who researches the use of Chinese soft power, I find the spectacle of a young American burnishing China’s image to Western audiences hugely significant. It provides an example of how soft power norms have been upended in recent years – and how China appears to be having some success in winning over the global youth.

    Mixing pop and politics

    Soft power refers to a country’s ability to influence others, not through coercion but through attraction – by shaping preferences through culture, values and public diplomacy. Coined by political scientist Joseph Nye, the term captures how nations project power by making others want what they have, rather than forcing outcomes through military or economic pressure.

    Throughout the Cold War and into the 21st century, U.S. soft power didn’t have to try that hard. It came wrapped in denim, was broadcast on MTV and blasted from boom boxes. Rock music crossed the Iron Curtain when diplomacy couldn’t, with artists like Bruce Springsteen and Madonna reaching Soviet youth more effectively than any ambassador.

    And in China, Michael Jackson became a pop icon well before McDonald’s or Hollywood blockbusters arrived, symbolizing a glamorous, open America that millions dreamed of. To many growing up in China in the 1990s, American culture wasn’t just entertainment – it was persuasion, aspiration, even subversion.

    Beijing’s blockbusters

    The U.S. is, of course, still a cultural powerhouse; American stars of film and music continue to be recognizable around the world.

    But there are signs that China is chipping away at that dominance.

    Take cinema. Not so long ago, Chinese films were considered niche abroad. Yet in January 2025, an animated Chinese feature film, “Ne Zha 2,” smashed box-office records. The movie, a dazzling retelling of a mythic boy-god, has grossed an astonishing US$2 billion worldwide, outperforming many Hollywood releases.

    It’s now the highest-grossing animated movie of all time, and it wasn’t made by Disney or Pixar but by a Chinese studio employing hundreds of local animators.

    An artist paints an image of Ne Zha, a character from the animated blockbuster, on an electricity distribution box in a farm field in southwest China.
    Zhong Min/Feature China/Future Publishing via Getty Images

    Beijing lost no time in co-opting “Ne Zha 2” as a symbol of China’s creative rise and cultural “soft power moment.” State media touted the film’s success as proof that Chinese folklore and artistry can captivate the globe just as powerfully as Marvel superheroes.

    “Ne Zha 2” isn’t a one-off. “Detective Chinatown 1900,” released in January by the Beijing-based Wanda Films, is 2025’s third-biggest grossing movie to date.

    Hollywood, once confident in its cultural monopoly, suddenly faces a colossal new competitor on the global stage – one backed by 1.4 billion people and a government eager to topple Western pop-cultural dominance. And the audience isn’t all domestic. “Ne Zha 2” also proved successful when it opened in the U.S.

    Gamers journey to the East

    And it’s not just movies.

    For decades, video games were an American and Japanese stronghold. Yet it is a Chinese-developed game, Black Myth: Wukong – developed by a studio in Hangzhou – that has become the talk of gamers worldwide.

    When its gameplay trailers first appeared in 2020, they went viral, with Black Myth: Wukong promising AAA-level graphics and action rooted in China’s classic “Journey to the West” tale.

    Skeptics wondered whether the final product could really compete with the likes of established franchise God of War or the George R. R. Martin-inspired Elden Ring. But those doubts evaporated when the game finally launched in 2024. Black Myth: Wukong debuted to massive global fanfare in summer 2024, instantly claiming a spot alongside the biggest Western franchises.

    Reviewers around the globe have hailed it as China’s first true blockbuster video game and evidence that the country can produce world-class entertainment.

    Black Myth: Wukong won Best Action Game and Players’ Voice awards at The Game Awards 2024 on Dec. 13, 2024.
    VCG/VCG via Getty Images

    I’d argue that this isn’t just about bragging rights in China’s gaming community; it’s about narrative power for the Chinese state. When millions of young people around the world spend 30 or 40 hours a week immersed in the adventures of Sun Wukong, the Monkey King hero, rather than, say, a Marvel superhero or a Tolkien epic, that subtly shifts the cultural center of gravity eastward.

    It suggests that Chinese myths are becoming as cool as Western ones to a global audience. And that is soft power.

    Small screen, big impact

    Meanwhile, on the smaller screens we carry in our pockets, another Chinese export has embedded itself deeply into global culture: TikTok.

    As of 2025, TikTok boasts over 1.6 billion monthly users worldwide.

    More striking is TikTok’s cultural reach. The app’s algorithm has propelled songs from musicians in South Korea or Nigeria to the top of global charts; it has teenagers in Kansas learning Indonesian dance moves, and grandmothers in Italy trying Mexican recipes they saw on a viral Chinese app.

    In effect, TikTok has built a new transnational pop culture commons – one owned by a Beijing-based company. Yes, the content on TikTok is created by users everywhere, not dictated by the Chinese state, but the platform’s very existence is a triumph of Chinese tech entrepreneurship and global ambition.

    Every minute that Western youths spend scrolling TikTok is a minute they’re within a Chinese-designed cultural sphere. Little wonder the U.S. government has fretted about TikTok’s influence – it’s not just about data security, it’s about cultural security.

    Banning it outright has proven politically difficult, and so TikTok remains, steadily entrenching its position as a staple of global youth culture.

    All these strands – blockbuster films, hit video games, viral apps – tie into a larger truth: China is rapidly building its soft power as America risks letting its own erode. At a time when the U.S. slashes foreign aid, China expands its influence through the Belt and Road Initiative and development loans. And while the U.S. curtails visas for students and scientists, China’s universities – some of which now rank in the global top 20 – become more attractive destinations.

    Can the US maintain a cultural edge?

    Assessing the impact of soft power is notoriously hard – nations that employ it are typically playing a very long game. And Beijing’s soft power push is not guaranteed success everywhere. Many societies remain skeptical of Beijing’s intentions, and China’s authoritarian system limits the appeal of its political model in democratic nations.

    Yet there are clear signs that China’s cultural exports are gaining traction among the younger generation.

    The U.S. once set the global cultural tempo almost by default. But today, as China invests heavily in its creative industries and digital platforms, it is increasingly shaping the soundtrack and storylines for a rising global generation.

    The question is no longer whether China can compete for soft power influence but whether America has a plan to hold its ground.

    Shaoyu Yuan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Is China the new cool? How Beijing is using pop culture to win the soft power war – https://theconversation.com/is-china-the-new-cool-how-beijing-is-using-pop-culture-to-win-the-soft-power-war-254923

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From Doing Business to B-READY: World Bank’s new rankings represent a rebrand, not a revamp

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Fernanda G Nicola, Professor of Law, American University

    The 2025 spring meetings of the World Bank Group and the International Monetary Fund takes place in Washington, D.C. Bryan Dozier/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

    In 2021, the World Bank shut down one of its flagship projects: the Doing Business index, a global ranking system that measured how easy it was to start and run a business in 190 countries.

    It followed an independent investigation that found World Bank officials had manipulated the rankings to favor powerful countries, including China and Saudi Arabia. The scandal raised serious concerns about the use of global benchmarks to shape development policy.

    Now, the Bank is trying again. In October 2024, it launched its newest flagship report, Business Ready. The 2025 spring meeting of the World Bank and its sister institution, the International Monetary Fund, mark the first time the report will be formally presented to delegates as part of the institutions’ high-level agenda.

    Nicknamed B-READY, the report aims to evaluate business environments through more transparent data. This time, the annual assessment has a broader ambition: to go beyond laws and efficiency and also measure social inclusion, environmental sustainability and public service delivery.

    As experts on international organizations, law and development, we have given B-READY a closer look. While we appreciate that a global assessment of the economic health of countries through data collection and participation of private stakeholders is a worthwhile endeavor, we worry that the World Bank’s latest effort risks recreating many of the same flaws that plagued its predecessor.

    From Doing Business to doing what?

    To understand what’s at stake, it’s worth recalling what the Doing Business index measured. From 2003 to 2021, the flagship report was used by governments, investors and World Bank officials alike to assess the business environment of any given country. It ranked countries based on how easy it was to start and run a business in 190 economies.

    In prioritizing that as its marker, the index often celebrated reforms that stripped away labor protections, environmental safeguards and corporate taxes in the name of greater “efficiency” of common law versus civil law jurisdictions.

    As economist Joseph E. Stiglitz argued in 2021, from its creation, the Doing Business index reflected the values of the so-called Washington Consensus − a development model rooted in deregulation, privatization and market liberalization.

    The World Bank building in Washington, D.C.
    AP Photo/Andrew Harnik

    Critics warned for years that the Doing Business index encouraged a global “race to the bottom.” Countries competed to improve their rankings, often by adopting symbolic legal reforms with little real impact.

    In some cases, internal data manipulation at the World Bank penalized governments that did not appear sufficiently business-friendly. These structural flaws − and the political pressures behind them − ultimately led to the project’s demise in 2021.

    What is B-READY?

    B-READY is the World Bank’s attempt to regain credibility after the Doing Business scandal. In recent years, there has been both internal and external pressure to create a successor − and B-READY responds to that demand while aiming to fix the methodological flaws.

    In theory, while it retains a focus on the business environment, B-READY shifts away from a narrow deregulatory logic and instead seeks to capture how regulations interact with infrastructure, services and equity considerations.

    B-READY, which in the pilot stage covers a mix of 50 countries, does not rank countries with a single score. Rather, it provides more accurate data across 10 topics grouped into three pillars: regulatory framework, public services and operational efficiency. The report also introduces new themes such as digital access, environmental sustainability and gender equity.

    Unlike the Doing Business index, B-READY publishes its full methodology and makes its data publicly available.

    On the surface, this looks like progress. But a criticism of B-READY is that in practice, the changes offer only a more fragmented ranking system — one that is harder to interpret and still shaped by the same investor driven macroeconomic assumptions.

    In our view, the framework continues to reflect a narrow view of what constitutes a healthy legal and economic system, not just for investors but for society as a whole.

    Labor flexibility over labor rights

    A key concern is how B-READY handles labor standards. The report relies on two main data sources: expert consultations and firm-level surveys.

    For assessing labor and social security regulations, the World Bank consults lawyers with expertise in each country. But when it comes to how these laws function in practice, the report relies on surveys that ask businesses whether labor costs, dismissal protections and public services are “burdens.”

    This approach captures the employer’s perspective, but leaves out workers’ experiences and the real impact on labor rights. In some cases, the scoring system even rewards weaker protections. For example, countries are encouraged to have a minimum-wage law on the books − but are penalized if the wage is “too high” relative to gross domestic product per capita. This creates pressure to keep wages low in order to appear competitive. And while that might be good news for international companies seeking to reduce their labor costs, it isn’t necessarily good for the local workforce or a country’s economic well-being.

    According to the International Trade Union Confederation, this approach risks encouraging symbolic reforms while doing little to protect workers. Georgia, for example, ranks near the top of the B-READY labor assessment, despite not having updated its minimum wage since 1999 and setting it below the subsistence level.

    Courts that work − for whom?

    Another troubling area, to us as comparative law experts, is how B-READY evaluates legal issues. It measures how quickly commercial courts resolve disputes but ignores judicial independence or respect for the rule of law. As a result, countries such as Hungary and Georgia, which have been widely criticized for democratic backsliding and the erosion of the rule of law, score surprisingly high. Not coincidentally, both governments have already used these scores for propaganda and political gain.

    This reflects a deeper problem, we believe. B-READY treats the legal system primarily as a means to attract investment, not as a framework for public accountability. It assumes that making life easier for businesses will automatically benefit everyone. But that assumption risks ignoring the people most affected by these laws and institutions − workers, communities and civil society groups.

    Be … better?

    B-READY introduces greater transparency and public data − and that, for sure, is a step up from its predecessor. But in our opinion it still reflects a narrow view of what a “good” legal system looks like: one that might deliver efficiency for firms but not necessarily justice or equity for society.

    Whether B-Ready becomes a tool for meaningful reform − or just another scoreboard for deregulation − will depend on the World Bank’s willingness to confront its long-standing biases and listen to its critics.

    The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. From Doing Business to B-READY: World Bank’s new rankings represent a rebrand, not a revamp – https://theconversation.com/from-doing-business-to-b-ready-world-banks-new-rankings-represent-a-rebrand-not-a-revamp-254958

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: IMF World Economic Outlook: economic uncertainty is now higher than it ever was during COVID

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Sergi Basco, Profesor Agregado de Economia, Universitat de Barcelona

    Skorzewiak/Shutterstock

    The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has just published its World Economic Outlook, and it does not take an expert to deduce that, even among some of the world’s top economic minds, confident predictions are currently hard to come by.

    Every spring the IMF and World Bank hold their Spring Meetings in Washington DC: a week of seminars, briefings and press conferences focusing on the global economy, international development and world financial markets. At both the Spring Meetings and the Annual Meeting, held each autumn, the IMF publishes its global economic growth forecasts.

    For its 2025 Spring Meeting the IMF has published a baseline forecast, as well as an addendum analysing the tariff events that took place between 9 and 14 April. According to the Fund’s report, world GDP will grow by 2.8% in 2025 and 3.0% in 2026. For the euro area, growth will be 0.8% and 1.2% for 2025 and 2026 respectively.

    These forecasts represent a substantial downward revision from IMF figures published just three months ago. Globally, growth in 2025 is down by 0.5% compared to the Fund’s January update, with a reduction of 0.2% for the euro area.

    One major shift is key to understanding the most recent IMF report and its pessimistic predictions: we live in a much more uncertain world than we did three months ago.

    Trump, tariffs and uncertainty

    If one had to sum up the new US tariff policy in a word, “unpredictable” would suffice, as the so-called “Liberation Day” of 2 April 2025 represented the largest tariff increase in modern history.

    Just one week later, the US president then made two further announcements. First, a 90-day freeze on tariff hikes, apparently in search of bilateral agreements with the countries to which he had applied tariffs above 10%. Second, that China would be excluded from this exception, with tariffs on its products being raised to 145%.

    This freeze means that until July EU goods being sold to the US will have a 10% tariff instead of the 20% that was announced on 2 April. However, the 10% applied by the new US administration is still much higher than the average tariff of 1.34% that was in force before 5 April.

    But what will the tariff be after these 90 days? What about in December? What about in 2 years’ time? What goods will be exempted? How far will the trade war between China and the US go? The answer to all of these questions is: nobody knows. This uncertainty is evident in of the IMF’s spring forecast.

    Uncertainty is off the charts

    The IMF’s world trade uncertainty index is currently 7 times higher than it was in October 2024, much higher than in the pandemic.

    As far as the economy is concerned, this uncertainty is far worse than a high but definitive tariff. With a tariff, companies can at least reorganise their production chain, and consumers can look for alternative products. There is a cost, but at least businesses and consumers can plan for it.

    However, nobody can calculate these costs today because nobody knows how tariffs will evolve. An American company may decide today to buy a particular product from the EU thinking that the tariff will be 10%, but upon the product’s arrival in the US it turns out the tariff has risen to 100% because a presidential advisor said it would be good for the US economy to raise tariffs on that product.

    Unbelievable though it may sound, this appears to be how the tariffs are being decided and enacted. According to one account, the US Treasury and Commerce Secretaries were only able to persuade Trump to freeze recent tariff hikes because Peter Navarro – the president’s economic advisor and tariff ideologue – was in another room at the time.

    The end result of this unpredictability is that the best course of action, for consumers and businesses alike, is inaction.



    Leer más:
    Trump tariff chaos: radical uncertainty will likely make companies delay investments

    Fear and volatility

    It is no surprise that these constant changes of plans are causing great instability in financial markets. Although Trump may have triumphantly celebrated rising stock prices immediately after the tariff freeze was announced, financial markets are now subject to levels of uncertainty and fear similar to those seen during COVID-19.

    Five years ago, volatility was associated with increased demand for US government debt due to the “flight to safety” effect: investors selling higher risk investments and buying safer assets, such as gold and government bonds, in times of uncertainty.

    Now we are seeing the exact opposite. The price of US bonds has fallen since “Liberation Day”, and this means that investors are selling them. In other words, markets no longer believe that US government debt is a safe asset. Given the role of the dollar and US debt in international markets, this paradigm shift may generate even more financial instability down the line.

    Supply chains are breaking (again)

    COVID-19, the last major global economic crisis, has one thing in common with the current situation: disruption of global supply chains. During the pandemic it was confinement that forced production to stop. Today, it is the imposition of tariffs.

    However, there is another major difference. During COVID people knew it was a matter of time before vaccines became available and normality returned. Today, instability in financial markets comes not from any virus, but from President Trump’s own advisors selling him all manner of plans to protect US economic interests.

    Sergi Basco no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.

    – ref. IMF World Economic Outlook: economic uncertainty is now higher than it ever was during COVID – https://theconversation.com/imf-world-economic-outlook-economic-uncertainty-is-now-higher-than-it-ever-was-during-covid-255055

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Developments in AI need to be properly regulated as the world scrambles for advantage

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nisreen Ameen, Senior Lecturer (Associate Professor) in Digital Marketing, Royal Holloway University of London

    AlinStock/Shutterstock

    Artificial intelligence (AI) is often hailed as the defining technology of the 21st century, shaping everything from economic growth to national security. But as global investment in AI accelerates, many experts are beginning to ask whether the world has embarked on an AI “arms race”.

    With China, the US, UK and the European Union each pledging billions to advance AI, competition in research, infrastructure and industrial applications for the new technology is intensifying. But, at the same time, regulation is struggling to keep pace with rapid development in some regions. This is raising concerns about ethical risks, economic inequality and global AI governance.

    There have been rapid advances in AI in the past few years. Companies such as America’s Accenture and China’s DeepSeek have developed large-scale generative AI systems – which can learn from existing content to generate new material such as text, images, music, or videos.

    The UK government recently announced its intention to “shape the AI revolution rather than wait to see how it shapes us” through its AI Opportunities Action Plan. This will have a strong focus on regulation, skills and ethical governance.

    If the UK and continental Europe are prioritising regulation, China is using its sheer size and appetite for innovation to develop rapidly into what has been described as an “AI super market”, and the US is balancing innovation with national security concerns.

    China recently released details of new regulations, which come into force in September, that will require explicit labelling of AI-generated content and providing metadata to link such content to the service provider that generated it. The onus will be on platforms that feature AI generated content to provide such information.

    But the different approaches highlight the growing geopolitical dimension of AI development which risks divergence of standards. While competition can drive innovation, without international cooperation on safety, ethics and governance, the global AI race could lead to regulatory gaps and fragmented oversight.

    Many analysts fear this would bring significant downsides. Most worryingly there is the prospect of unchecked AI-generated disinformation undermining elections and democratic institutions.

    Why does this matter?

    AI is more than just another technological breakthrough – it’s a strategic driver of economic power and influence. The countries leading in AI today will play an important role in shaping the future of automation, digital economies and international regulatory frameworks.

    AI’s global expansion is driven by several key motivations. It has the potential to massively boost productivity and creativity. It can create new business models and transform entire industries. Governments investing in AI aim to secure long-term economic advantages, particularly in sectors such as finance, healthcare and advanced manufacturing.

    Meanwhile AI is increasingly integrated into defence, cybersecurity and intelligence. Governments are exploring ways to use AI for strategic advantage, while also ensuring resilience against AI-enabled threats.

    But as AI investment surges it is increasingly important to ensure that the challenges the new technology will bring are not overlooked in the rush.

    Risks of rapid AI investment

    As AI advances, ethical issues become more pressing. AI-powered surveillance systems raise privacy concerns. Deepfake technology, meanwhile, which is capable of generating hyper-realistic video and audio, is already being used for disinformation. Without clear regulatory oversight this could seriously undermine trust and security and threaten democratic institutions.

    At the same time, we are already seeing inequality baked into AI development. Many AI-driven innovations cater to wealthy markets and corporations. Meanwhile, marginalised communities face barriers to accessing AI-enhanced education, healthcare and job opportunities – the latter was demonstrated as long ago as 2018 when Amazon reportedly withdrew a recruitment tool that was shown to discriminate against women.

    One AI application was withdraws after it was found to discriminate against women.
    metamorworks/Shutterstock

    Ensuring that AI development benefits society as a whole will require a strategic approach to skills, education and governance. I have conducted studies into how AI tools are being harnessed with a great deal of success in the UK and US and also in China. The research showed how AI capabilities can be combined with strategic agility to drive product and service innovation in many contexts.

    But the AI race is not just about economic progress, it also has geopolitical implications. Restrictions on AI-related exports, particularly in semiconductor technology, highlight growing concerns over technological dependencies and national security. Without greater international cooperation, uncoordinated AI policies could lead to economic fragmentation, regulatory inconsistencies across borders and the inevitable risks those bring.

    Although some nations are advocating for global AI agreements, these discussions remain in their early stages, so enforcement mechanisms remain limited.

    The way forward

    This will require multilateral governance, similar to global frameworks on cybersecurity and climate change. Existing discussions by the United Nations as well as the G7 and the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) need to incorporate stronger AI-specific enforcement mechanisms that guide development responsibly.

    There are signs of progress. The G7’s Hiroshima AI Process has resulted in shared guiding principles and a voluntary code of conduct for advanced AI systems. The OECD’s AI Policy Observatory, meanwhile, is helping coordinate best practices across member states. But binding international enforcement mechanisms are still in their infancy.

    Individual countries, meanwhile, need to develop flexible regulatory frameworks that balance innovation with accountability. The EU’s AI Act, the first major attempt to comprehensively regulate AI, classifies AI systems by risk and imposes obligations on developers accordingly.

    This has included bans on certain high-risk applications, such as social scoring – which ranks individuals based on behaviour and can lead to discrimination. It’s a step in the right direction, but broader cooperation is still needed to ensure coherent global AI standards.

    An enforceable set of rules governing AI development is needed – and quickly. AI could pose more risks than opportunities if left unchecked.

    Nisreen Ameen does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Developments in AI need to be properly regulated as the world scrambles for advantage – https://theconversation.com/developments-in-ai-need-to-be-properly-regulated-as-the-world-scrambles-for-advantage-248404

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Dreams delayed’ no longer: Report identifies key changes needed around Black students’ education

    Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Tanitiã Munroe, PhD candidate (ABD) and researcher, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto

    As Langston Hughes, the influential Harlem Renaissance poet, playwright and social activist, once wrote: “What happens to a dream deferred? Does it dry up like a raisin in the sun?”

    This poignant question is echoed in the title of the Ontario Human Rights Commission’s recently released Dreams Delayed report, which shines a spotlight on how systemic racism has continued to derail the educational aspirations of Black students across Ontario.

    Laying out a clear and urgent roadmap, Dreams Delayed: Addressing Systemic Anti-Black Racism and Discrimination in Ontario’s Public Education System captures both institutional responsibilities — for example, what the provincial government, school boards, faculties of education and educators must do — and the long-standing demands of Black families, students and communities who have been calling for meaningful change for decades.

    Call for important benchmarks

    The report’s title reflects a painful truth: the dreams of Black students have too often been deferred by persistent barriers in classrooms, hallways and boardrooms.

    For generations, Black families, students and community advocates have chronicled these injustices. By weaving their testimonies with data and legal analysis (including 83 reports), Dreams Delayed brings their struggle into sharp focus and translates it into a concrete policy blueprint.

    Its benchmarks are for measurable improvement in graduation rates, fewer suspensions, an elimination of biased academic streaming and an increase in Black teacher representation within four years.

    I am a doctoral researcher specializing in the kindergarten to Grade 12 experiences of Black students and their families. I also serve as senior research co-ordinator at the the Centre of Excellence for Black Student Achievement (CEBSA) with the Toronto District School Board.

    I’ve seen the very principles this report highlights in action at CEBSA. By grounding our work in evidence and partnering closely with students, families and communities, sustained effort can transform long‑deferred dreams into meaningful, lasting change. In this process, students’ voices and agency must be at the heart of every decision.

    Turning commitments into action

    Over multiple generations, parents and activists have pushed schools to treat Black students fairly.

    In 1992, provincial adviser and former politician Stephen Lewis reported that Black students felt unwelcome and overlooked in their schools. Unfortunately, many of the same issues kept appearing in study after study over the next 30 years.

    Researchers found that Black students were often treated differently by teachers and administrators, leading to feelings of not belonging at school. They noted a lack of Black teachers and lessons that did not include Black history or contributions, which made it hard for Black youth to see themselves reflected in their education.



    Read more:
    Black History: How racism in Ontario schools today is connected to a history of segregation

    Black students and their families have consistently described varied unfair treatment. Discipline is one major example. For a long time, Black children have been punished more harshly at school. One Toronto study found that between 2006 and 2011, 42 per cent of Black high school students were suspended at least once, compared to 18 per cent of white students. This huge disparity showed that Black youth were far more likely to be removed from class for what educators judged as misbehaviour.

    Anti-Black racism, alienation in schools

    In daily school life, many Black students across Ontario have faced anti-Black racism and bias.

    They’ve endured racial slurs like the “n-word” from peers (and occasionally staff), and too often these incidents were not taken seriously by schools. Being one of the few Black students in a classroom, or studying a curriculum focused almost entirely on European or white perspectives, can make school feel alienating.



    Read more:
    Anti-Black racism is not a ‘consensual schoolyard fight’

    These conditions — disproportionate suspensions, low expectations, not enough Black representation among staff and repeated racist incidents — have undermined Black students’ well‑being and achievement for years. Awareness of these systemic problems is growing.

    Despite the slow pace of change, community advocacy has led to important victories. In 2017, the Toronto District School Board ended the School Resource Officer (SRO) program.

    This decision came after Black students, families and advocacy groups like Black Lives Matter, Education Not Incarceration and Policing-Free Schools voiced concerns about the program’s harmful and criminalizing impact on Black and racialized youth.

    This decision underscored the power of organized resistance and the importance of listening to students’ lived experiences.

    However, to address anti-Black racism in schools meaningfully, we need sustained action, transparent accountability and continued school, family and community involvement. Every day, Black students should learn in an environment where they are safe, respected and empowered to succeed.

    Recommendations for systemic change

    Dreams Delayed outlines specific recommendations across three main areas: accountability, data monitoring and student well-being.

    Accountability and transparency: Under accountability, the report emphasizes openly recognizing anti-Black racism. It recommends creating human rights offices in school boards to handle discrimination complaints effectively. Schools and teachers’ unions must hire more Black educators and address workplace racism to create representative and supportive environments. The Ministry of Education must establish clear anti-racism frameworks and hold schools accountable for human rights standards.

    Monitoring and evaluation: Monitoring data is crucial because we can’t fix what isn’t measured. The OHRC recommends standardized data collection across all school boards, tracking suspensions, academic outcomes and incidents of discrimination. Publicly available data allows communities to hold schools accountable and track progress transparently. An innovative recommendation is implementing early intervention systems to identify and address patterns of racial harassment proactively.

    Student well-being is central. Ultimately, the goal is for Black students to feel fully supported and able to succeed. The Dreams Delayed plan calls for expanding initiatives that directly support Black youth, including the graduation coach for Black Students. This program places dedicated coaches (often Black mentors) in schools to help Black students with academics and career planning, and has shown promise in improving graduation rates.

    Another recommendation is to grow student and family advocate programs so that more Black families have access to advocacy when dealing with schools, and creating affirming education spaces for Black students. Such spaces and important resources are offered through CEBSA, such as programs to connect Black students with STEM opportunties and post-secondary pathway planning.

    Turning advocacy into action

    By acting on the report’s key recommendations — building accountability, collecting race‑based data, transforming curriculum and expanding student supports — those long‑deferred dreams can finally begin to materialize.

    Meaningful progress, however, will demand collective resolve and sustained action. Educators, policymakers and communities must move beyond acknowledging the problem and dedicate themselves to reshaping the system so every Black student is seen, heard, valued and afforded an equal chance to succeed.

    The next few years will be critical. The measure of success will be simple: when Black students across Ontario no longer have to fight for the basics — dignity, safety, respect — but can focus fully on learning, growing and pursuing their futures with confidence.

    Dreams Delayed offers a pivotal opportunity to transform Ontario’s schools into spaces of belonging and possibility.

    Embracing its recommendations with urgency and sincerity would honour generations of advocacy and finally create an education system where every student, especially every Black student, is empowered to thrive.

    Tanitiã Munroe is a Senior Research Coordinator at the Toronto District School Board.

    – ref. ‘Dreams delayed’ no longer: Report identifies key changes needed around Black students’ education – https://theconversation.com/dreams-delayed-no-longer-report-identifies-key-changes-needed-around-black-students-education-254439

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How will a new pope be chosen? An expert explains the conclave

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Darius von Guttner Sporzynski, Historian, Australian Catholic University

    Following the death of Pope Francis, we’ll soon be seeing a new leader in the Vatican. The conclave – a strictly confidential gathering of Roman Catholic cardinals – is due to meet in a matter of weeks to elect a new earthly head.

    The word conclave is derived from the Latin con (together) and clāvis (key). It means “a locked room” or “chamber”, reflecting its historical use to describe the locked gathering of cardinals to elect a pope.

    Held in the Sistine Chapel, the meeting follows a centuries-old process designed to ensure secrecy and prayerful deliberation. A two-thirds majority vote will be needed to successfully elect the 267th pope.

    History of the conclave

    The formalised papal conclave dates back centuries. And various popes have shaped the process in response to the church’s needs.

    In the 13th century, for example, Pope Gregory X introduced strict regulations to prevent unduly long elections.

    Pope Gregory X brought in the rules to prevent a repeat of his own experience. The conclave that elected him in September 1271 (following the death of Pope Clement IV in 1268) lasted almost three years.

    Further adjustments were made to streamline the process and emphasise secrecy, culminating in Pope John Paul II’s 1996 constitution, Universi Dominici gregis (The Lord’s whole flock). This document set the modern framework for the conclave.

    In 2007 and 2013, Benedict XVI reiterated that a two-thirds majority of written votes would be required to elect a new pope. He also reaffirmed penalties for breaches of secrecy.

    The secrecy surrounding the conclave ensures the casting of ballots remains confidential, and without any external interference.

    The last known attempt at external interference in a papal conclave occurred in 1903 when Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria sought to prevent the election of Cardinal Mariano Rampolla. However, the assembled cardinals rejected this intervention, asserting the independence of the electoral process.

    How does voting work?

    The conclave formally begins between 15 and 20 days after the papal vacancy, but can start earlier if all cardinals eligible to vote have arrived. Logistical details, such as the funeral rites for the deceased pope, can also influence the overall timeline.

    Historically, the exact number of votes required to elect a new pope has fluctuated. Under current rules, a minimum two-thirds majority is needed. If multiple rounds of balloting fail to yield a result, the process can continue for days, or even weeks.

    After every few inconclusive rounds, cardinals pause for prayer and reflection. This process continues until one candidate receives the two-thirds majority required to win. The final candidates do not vote for themselves in the decisive round.

    The ballot paper formerly used in the conclave, with ‘I elect as Supreme Pontiff’ written in Latin.
    Wikimedia Commons

    How is voting kept secret?

    The papal conclave is entirely closed to the public. Voting is conducted by secret ballot within the Sistine Chapel in the Apostolic Palace, the pope’s official residence.

    During the conclave, the Sistine Chapel is sealed off from outside communication. No cameras are allowed, and there is no live broadcast.

    The cardinals involved swear an oath of absolute secrecy, and face the threat of excommunication if it is violated. This ensures all discussions and voting remain strictly confidential.

    The iconic white smoke, produced by burning ballots once a pope has been chosen, is the only public signal that the election has concluded.

    Who can be elected?

    Only cardinals who are under 80 years of age at the time of conclave’s commencement can vote. Older cardinals are free to attend preparatory meetings, but can not cast ballots.

    While the total number of electors is intended to not exceed 120, the fluctuating nature of cardinal appointments, as well as age restrictions, make it difficult to predict the exact number of eligible voters at any given conclave.

    Technically, any baptised Catholic man can be elected pope. In practice, however, the College of Cardinals traditionally chooses one of its own members. Electing an “outsider” is extremely rare, and has not occurred in modern times.

    What makes a good candidate?

    When faced with criticism from a member of the public about his weight, John XXIII (who was pope from 1958-1963) retorted the papal conclave was “not a exactly beauty contest”.

    Merit, theological understanding, administrative skill and global perspective matter greatly. But there is also a collegial element – something of a “popularity” factor. It is an election, after all.

    Cardinals discuss the church’s current priorities – be they evangelisation strategies, administrative reforms or pastoral concerns – before settling on the individual they believe is best suited to lead.

    The cardinal electors seek someone who can unify the faithful, navigate modern challenges and maintain doctrinal continuity.

    Controversies and criticisms

    The conclave process has faced criticism for its strict secrecy, which can foster speculation about potential “politicking”.

    Critics argue a tightly controlled environment might not reflect the broader concerns of the global church.

    Some have also questioned whether age limits on voting cardinals limit the wisdom and experience found among older members.

    Nonetheless, defenders maintain that secrecy encourages free and sincere deliberation, minimising external pressure and allowing cardinals to choose the best leader without fear of reprisal, or of public opinion swaying the vote.

    Challenges facing the new pope

    The next pope will inherit a mixed situation: a church that has grown stronger in certain areas under Francis, yet which grapples with internal divisions and external challenges.

    Like other religions, the church faces secularisation, issues with financial transparency and a waning following in some parts of the globe.

    One of the earliest trials faced by the new pope will be unifying the global Catholic community around a shared vision – an obstacle almost every pope has faced. Striking the right balance between doctrine and pastoral sensitivity remains crucial.

    Addressing sexual abuse scandals and their aftermath will require decisive action, transparency and continued pastoral care for survivors.

    Practical concerns also loom large. The new pope will have to manage the Vatican bureaucracy and interfaith relations, while maintaining the church’s stance on global crises such as migration and poverty – two issues on which Francis insisted mercy could not be optional.

    The cardinal electors have a tough decision ahead of them. The Catholic community can only pray that, through their deliberations, they identify a shepherd who can guide the church through the complexities of the modern world.

    Darius von Guttner Sporzynski does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. How will a new pope be chosen? An expert explains the conclave – https://theconversation.com/how-will-a-new-pope-be-chosen-an-expert-explains-the-conclave-250506

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Albanese government announces $1.2 billion plan to purchase critical minerals

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    A re-elected Albanese government will take the unprecedented step of buying or obtaining options over key critical minerals to protect Australia’s national interest and boost its economic resilience.

    The move follows US President Donald Trump’s ordering a review into American reliance on imported processed critical minerals and Australia’s discussions with the United States about a possible agreement on these minerals as part of negotiations to get a better deal on US tariffs.

    Australia has major deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. But almost all the processing of critical minerals is done by China, which uses this as leverage in disputes with other countries. As part of its tariff dispute with the US, China this month suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets.

    Critical minerals are vital in the production of many items, including defence equipment, batteries, electronics, fibre optic cables, electric vehicles, magnets and wind turbines.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese flagged recently that Australia would establish a critical minerals reserve and the government has now released details of its plan.

    The government investment in critical minerals would come through two new mechanisms:

    • national offtake agreements

    • selective stockpiling

    The government would acquire, through voluntary contracts, agreed volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects, or establish an option to purchase them at a given price.

    It would also establish a government stockpile of key minerals produced under offtake agreements.

    “The primary consideration for entering into offtake agreements will be securing priority critical minerals for strategic reasons,” the government said in a statement.

    Minerals held by the reserve would be made available to domestic industry and key international partners.

    This would cover a deal with the US, if that can be reached.

    “The Reserve will be focused on a subset of critical minerals that are most important for Australia’s national security and the security of our key partners, including rare earths,” the statement said.

    As its holdings matured, the reserve would generate cash-flow from sales of offtake on global markets and to key partners, the statement said.

    “The Strategic Reserve will also accumulate stockpiles of priority minerals when warranted by market conditions and strategic considerations, but it is anticipated that these will be modest and time-limited in most cases.”

    The government would make an initial investment of $1.2 billion in the reserve, including through a $1 billion increase in the existing Critical Minerals Facility. This would take the government’s investment in the facility to $5 billion.

    The facility, established in 2021, provides financing to selected projects that are aligned with the government’s critical minerals strategy.

    The government plans to consult with states and companies on the scope and design on the Strategic Reserve, which it would aim to have operating in the second half of next year.

    ALbanese said: “In a time of global uncertainty, Australia will be stronger and safer by developing our critical national assets to create economic opportunity and resilience.

    “The Strategic Reserve will mean the government has the power to purchase, own and sell critical minerals found here in Australia.

    “It will mean we can deal with trade and market disruptions from a position of strength. Because Australia will be able to call on an internationally-significant quantity of resources in global demand.”

    Resources Minister Madeleine King said: “Critical minerals and rare earths and essential not only to reducing emissions but also for our security and the security of our key partners.

    “While we will continue to supply the world with critical minerals, it’s also important that Australia has access to the critical minerals and rare earths we need for a Future Made in Australia.”

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Albanese government announces $1.2 billion plan to purchase critical minerals – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-announces-1-2-billion-plan-to-purchase-critical-minerals-254994

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Politics with Michelle Grattan: historian Frank Bongiorno on dramatic shifts in how elections are fought and won

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    This election has been lacklustre, without the touch of excitement of some past campaigns. Through the decades, campaigning has changed dramatically, adopting new techniques and technologies. This time, we’ve seen politicians try to jump onto viral podcasts.

    To discuss old and new campaigning, we’re joined by professor of history at the Australian National University, Frank Bongiorno.

    Many decades ago, campaigns were marked by lots of public meetings, and with them came hecklers. Bongiorno says politicians

    needed to be able to command an audience and to deal with interjectors in a big public meeting. Radio was really coming into its own.

    Very famously – not in a political campaign and not as prime minister – but Menzies made a number of broadcasts that are still remembered. [That was] back in the earlier part of the 1940s, when he was out of government. The most famous of which is the “Forgotten People” broadcast in 1942.

    Over time, campaigns have focused more on the leaders, in the style of the United States.

    [It’s] another aspect perhaps of the Americanisation and presidentialisation of our political system, that focus on party leaders in that kind of way. The 1984 debate was between Bob Hawke as prime minister and Andrew Peacock. I think many people thought that Peacock actually got the better of Hawke on that occasion and that was really, in some ways, the assessment of the whole campaign.

    …That does speak to the American influence in particular. Very famously of course there was the 1960 presidential debate between Nixon and Kennedy, that is such an important part of the collective memory of Kennedy’s success in that election in 1960.

    Do debates still have any impact on campaigns? Bongiorno says “they have become something that I think a lot of people shun.”

    They do seem rather neutral affairs, in which the pundits’ ideas about who won don’t seem to probably matter very much to most voters.

    On the move from traditional media sources to an online campaign, Bongiorno says,

    A lot of the campaign now is fought online. And I guess that trend began really as long ago as the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the parties would maintain campaign websites. It seems so long ago and so primitive, compared to where we are now.

    And social media took off from about the middle of the first decade of this century. Facebook and YouTube came into their own in 2007. Twitter, now called X, in 2010… The use of memes really took off about 2019. And I think TikTok, which is often particularly used by younger people, from about 2022.

    He says scare campaigns have become harder to report on or rebut, due to more targeted online campaigns and advertising.

    Everything depends on your algorithm. The election campaign that I’m seeing when I go into my feed for X or for Facebook will be quite different to my next door neighbour’s, for instance, who could have a totally different sense of what’s happening in the campaign, what are the issues that matter, where the sort of balance of public opinion is.

    On this year’s record start to pre-poll voting, Bongiorno says it makes timing more important than ever.

    It means that whatever the parties are saying now, whatever candidates are saying and doing in the media over the next little while, is going to have no impact on anyone who’s already voted. So it can only be those who are still to vote.

    It probably makes leaving the release of policy – and perhaps even costings as well – to the last minute a riskier venture, because if you do have goodies on offer, they’re going to miss anyone who has already voted.

    It does mean that the parties need to be pretty careful in how they’re timing the release of particular aspects of their policy offerings.

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Politics with Michelle Grattan: historian Frank Bongiorno on dramatic shifts in how elections are fought and won – https://theconversation.com/politics-with-michelle-grattan-historian-frank-bongiorno-on-dramatic-shifts-in-how-elections-are-fought-and-won-255113

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Birkin v Wirkin: the backlash against the global elite and their luxury bags – podcast

    Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

    Tony Neil Thompson/Shutterstock

    The Birkin bag made by French luxury retailer Hermès has become a status symbol for some of the global elite. Notoriously difficult to obtain, a select few obsess over how to get their hands on one.

    But when US retailer Walmart recently launched a much cheaper bag that looked very similar to the Birkin, nicknamed a “Wirkin” by others, it sparked discussions about wealth disparity and the ethics of conspicuous consumption.

    In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast, we speak to two sociologists about the Birkin and what it symbolises.

    For the rich housewives of Delhi, the Birkin bag is a must have, says Parul Bhandari. A sociologist at the University of Cambridge in the UK, she’s spent time interviewing wealthy Indian women about their lives and preoccupations. She told us:

     A bag that is carried by rich women of New York, of London, of Paris, is something that you desire as well, so it’s a ticket of entry into the global elite.

    Birkins are also used by some of these rich women as a way to show off their husband’s affection, Bhandari says: “ Not only from the point of view of money, because obviously this bag is extremely expensive, but also because it is difficult to procure.” The harder your husband tries to help you get the bag, the more getting one is a testimony of conjugal love.

    Manufactured scarcity

    Named after the British actress Jane Birkin, Hermès’s signature bag can cost tens of thousands of dollars, or more on the resale market for those made in rare colours or out of rare leathers. But you can’t just walk into any Hermès store to buy one, as Aarushi Bhandari, a sociologist at Davidson College in the US who studies the internet – and is no relation to Parul – explains.

    You need to have a record of spending tens of thousands of dollars even before you’re offered to buy one. But spending that money doesn’t automatically mean you get a bag. You have to develop a relationship with a sales associate at a particular Hermès store and the sales associate really gets to decide, if there’s availability, whether or not you get offered a bag.

    Bhandari became intrigued by online communities where people discuss the best strategies for obtaining an Hermès. So when US retailer Walmart launched a bag in late 2024 that looked very similar to a Birkin, and the internet went wild, Bhandari was fascinated.

    She began to see posts on TikTok discussing the bag. First it was fashion accounts talking it up, but then a backlash began, with some users criticising those who would spend thousands on a real Birkin and praising the “Wirkin” as a way to make an iconic design accessible to regular people. Bhandari sees this as an example of an accelerating form of anti-elitism taking hold within parts of online culture.

    In February, the chief executive of Hermès, Axel Dumas, admitted that he was “irritated” by the Walmart bag and that the company took counterfeiting “very seriously”.

    The Walmart bag quickly sold out and no more were put on sale. It has since entered into a partnership with a secondhand luxury resale platform called Rebag, meaning customers can buy real Birkins secondhand through Walmart’s online marketplace.

    The Conversation approached Hermès for comment on the Walmart bag, and to confirm how the company decides who is eligible to buy a Birkin. Hermès did not respond.

    Listen to the full episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast to hear our conversation with Parul Bhandari and Aarushi Bhandari, plus an introduction from Nick Lehr, arts and culture editor at The Conversation in the US.

    This episode of The Conversation Weekly was written and produced by Katie Flood. Mixing and sound design by Eloise Stevens and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

    TikTok clips in this episode from babydoll2184, chronicallychaotic and pamelawurstvetrini.

    Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here.

    Parul Bhandari and Aarushi Bhandari do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Birkin v Wirkin: the backlash against the global elite and their luxury bags – podcast – https://theconversation.com/birkin-v-wirkin-the-backlash-against-the-global-elite-and-their-luxury-bags-podcast-254723

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump’s obsession with trade deficits has no basis in economics. And it’s a bad reason for tariffs

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Nigel Driffield, Professor of International Business, Warwick Business School, University of Warwick

    Those of us who study trade and investment for a living are, I suspect, becoming exasperated with both the White House stance on tariffs and the way that this is reported in much of the media. US president Donald Trump believes that if a country has a trade surplus with the US it is somehow playing unfairly and needs to be dealt with. But anyone who understands the basics of international economics will recognise the fallacy in both of these beliefs.

    Trade takes place based on what economists call “comparative advantage” – countries import those goods that are otherwise relatively expensive for them to produce. And they export what they produce cheaply relative to other countries.

    So the UK, for example, has a trade surplus in services but a deficit in goods that are made in low-cost locations. This is similar to the position of the US.

    To understand what the US is seeking to achieve, the first questions must be: what are tariffs designed to do? And when are they typically applied? These issues lead to another point. If Trump is so convinced that his tariffs will produce a win-win, why haven’t they succeeded before?

    Trade policy in the form of tariffs is designed to make imports more expensive and encourage buyers to switch to domestic producers. This may be an attempt to protect or support local industry, or as part of a bargaining strategy to access others’ markets.

    But this assumes two things. First, that the demand for such imports is relatively price sensitive (that is, buyers will be put off by price rises). And second, that there are domestic producers able to fill this gap at an appropriate price.

    But tariffs can also cause what is known as “trade substitution” – where the country imports the goods from alternative sources instead.

    To illustrate how this can work in practice, the US has long applied tariffs on European whisky, ranging from 10% to 25% in recent years.

    The US already produces various drinks that are considered to be similar to whisky. So the reason for importing is likely for variety, or possibly the allure of consuming a premium product like a Scottish single malt. As such, price increases may not encourage substitution away from imports – or it may trigger substitution to other imports with lower tariffs.

    An alternative example of the case for tariffs is the steel industry. Many countries believe that they should have a steel industry for strategic reasons, but also because steel is an input into so many aspects of the economy.

    There have also been concerns globally in the industry about the pricing of Chinese steel, and whether it should attract tariffs to balance what is seen as unfair competition. Chinese steel receives subsidies from the Chinese government, after all.

    While this may be a valid concern, it also forces governments to make choices about what they see as “strategic industries”. A good example of this is the desire to protect steel jobs in richer countries, in contrast to the willingness to import cheap clothes from Asia in order to keep inflation down.

    This is typically why, if tariffs are used at all, they tend to be targeted to certain industries.

    The wrinkle in Trump’s plan

    So will the US tariffs plan work? Unfortunately for Trump, the answer is probably not. This type of trade policy has been tried, but has seldom been shown to be effective.

    The second point is whether the president of a large global power should be concerned about its trade balance with another country. Unless he believes that the country is engaging in large-scale subsidy in order to dump goods on foreign markets, the answer is almost certainly no.

    Casual inspection of trade statistics for the US and Canada suggests that the most common exports from Canada to the US include crude petroleum, petroleum gas, refined petroleum and motor vehicle parts and accessories.

    Tariffs on the first three will simply push prices up for US consumers. The last one demonstrates, often to the frustration of policymakers who seek to intervene on trade, that there is little that governments can do to influence modern supply chains, unless they seek to break them all together.

    ‘We don’t need anything Canada has.’

    Firms will locate activities based on combinations of efficiency and where their customers are. So seeking to change these patterns through tariffs will simply increase the cost of imported inputs and make production in the US less competitive.

    In simple terms, complaining that you have a trade deficit with one country is like complaining that you have a trade deficit with your corner shop. They sell you things, you give them money, but they never buy from you. They provide goods that you want for money that you earn elsewhere.

    You could shop elsewhere (and have a deficit with the new shop), you can give up your job and even grow your own food. But were you to impose a “tariff” on your corner shop, it would simply put up the prices that you have to pay.

    That the US has a trade deficit is not a sign that the rest of the world is “ripping it off”. It is a reflection of an affluent society with relatively high wages buying products from countries that can produce them more cheaply. Trump’s tariffs will hurt Americans first – basic international economics is clear on that too.

    Nigel Driffield receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council. He is an inactive member of the Labour Party and an advisor to the mayor of the West Midlands

    – ref. Trump’s obsession with trade deficits has no basis in economics. And it’s a bad reason for tariffs – https://theconversation.com/trumps-obsession-with-trade-deficits-has-no-basis-in-economics-and-its-a-bad-reason-for-tariffs-254512

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: How Pope Francis changed the Catholic Church’s foreign policy

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Massimo D’Angelo, Research Associate in the Institute for Diplomacy and International Affairs, Loughborough University

    Pope Francis greets visitors at Saint Peter’s Square, Vatican City. Ricardo Perna / Shutterstock

    When the late Pope Francis first stepped on to the balcony of Saint Peter’s Basilica following his election 12 years ago, he remarked that he had been called almost from the “end of the world”. He was the first non-European pontiff since Gregory III, elected in AD731, who was of Syrian origin. And he was the first pope in history to come from Latin America.

    This is not merely a biographical detail. His papacy was transformative in shaping a Catholic Church that was not focused solely on Europe. He shifted its attention from the old continent to the world’s peripheries, aspiring to create a truly global church.

    Before his election, Pope Francis was called Jorge Mario Bergoglio and had, since 1998, held the office of Archbishop of Buenos Aires. In Argentina, he worked to expand and support the efforts of priests serving in the slums.

    The Catholic Church has maintained a presence in the peripheries of Buenos Aires since the 1960s, when a group called Priests for the Third World established itself in impoverished neighbourhoods. These priests advocated for the rights of their parishioners and preached liberation theology, a movement that aligns the Catholic Church with the struggles of marginalised groups.

    The theme of the peripheries became a defining thread of Pope Francis’s papacy. Days before he became pope, Francis told the cardinals that elected him that the Church must “come out of herself and to go to the peripheries, not only geographically, but also the existential peripheries”.

    Without doing so, he warned, the Church risks becoming structurally disconnected from the ambivalent and contradictory processes that shape the modern global era.



    Read more:
    Pope Francis dies: an unconventional pontiff who sought to modernise Catholicism

    Pope Francis navigated a complex relationship with liberation theology. Some interpretations of the movement, which gained prominence in the late 1960s, incorporate Marxist elements. This raised concerns within the Church hierarchy and among western governments during the cold war.

    As a young Jesuit in Argentina, Bergoglio was influenced by the 1969 Declaration of San Miguel. This rejected Marxist interpretations of liberation theology and developed an alternative called the “theology of the people”. Rather than drawing on Marxist analysis, it emphasises the faith, culture and spiritual expressions of ordinary people, especially the poor.

    And from 1976 to 1983, when Argentina was ruled by a military dictatorship, Bergoglio distanced himself from radical priests engaged in liberation theology. His caution not to alienate military hierarchy led to tensions, most notably in the 1976 abduction of two Jesuits, Orlando Yorio and Franz Jalics.

    The then Father Bergoglio was accused of withdrawing his protection from the priests, which allegedly left them exposed to the regime. In 2005, a secret dossier was anonymously circulated among cardinals accusing him of complicity in the abduction, based on a complaint by human rights lawyer Marcelo Parrilli.

    Some sources claimed this was smear campaign orchestrated by Jesuits who had previously clashed with Bergoglio. And in his testimony, Bergoglio stated that he met on two occasions with the dictators and members of the military, Jorge Videla and Emilio Massera, but to intercede on behalf of the detained priests. The Vatican denied he was guilty of any wrongdoing.

    Despite his cautious stance, Bergoglio consistently upheld the Church’s priority of addressing the needs of the poor. This was a principle that later defined his papacy. As Pope Francis, he softened the Vatican’s previous opposition to liberation theology, reaffirming its emphasis on social justice while distancing it from Marxist rhetoric.

    A post-European Pope

    Pope Francis’s predecessor, Joseph Ratzinger, maintained a profound engagement with Europe. This shaped his thinking as a theologian, cardinal and later as Pope Benedict XVI. His papacy was marked by numerous visits across the continent, where he delivered significant speeches on the Church’s role and Europe’s intellectual and spiritual challenges.

    One of his most notable speeches, delivered at the University of Regensburg in Germany in 2006, sparked considerable controversy in the Muslim world. The lecture explored Europe’s relationship with Christianity and its future responsibilities.

    But it became infamous for his quotation of Manuel II Palaiologos, a Byzantine emperor who characterised aspects of Islam as violent. This remark provoked widespread anger and protests across the Muslim world, highlighting the sensitivities surrounding interfaith dialogue and the role of religion in global politics.

    In contrast, Pope Francis recognised that Christians must go “beyond the walls” to embrace humanity as a whole. In his vision, the Church should function as a “field hospital”, extending its care even to the so-called “churches of the decimal point” – those with only a tiny percentage of Catholics relative to the populations in which they exist.

    Under his leadership, the Vatican’s geopolitical focus shifted significantly. The composition of the College of Cardinals, which will elect his successor, has changed. The historic European influence has been diluted.

    The regional distribution of the 135 cardinal electors now includes 23 from Asia, 20 from North America, 18 each from South America and Africa, and three from Oceania. Europe, which comprised a slight majority of the body when Francis was elected in 2013, has 53 cardinals.

    This diversification aligns with Francis’s vision of a Church that is truly present across the globe. Pope Francis’s apostolic journeys further reflected this global reorientation, taking him to places such as Iraq, Kazakhstan, the United Arab Emirates and South Korea.

    Pope Francis during his visit to Iraq in 2021.
    Jon_photographi / Shutterstock

    Another major transformation has been in the Church’s relationship with political power. While Ratzinger often saw alliances with political parties as necessary to safeguard the Church’s survival in an era of secular decline, Francis rejected this approach.

    As he stated in Kazakhstan in 2022, “the sacred must not be instrumentalised by the profane”. This stance has drawn criticism, particularly in relation to his responses to conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza. His constant appeals for peace, rather than direct condemnation of religious or political leaders, led some to perceive his position as one of “neutralism” or even pro-Russian.

    Yet his approach appears to have been rooted in the conviction that dialogue is essential, even with the most controversial figures. This was evident in his willingness to engage with General Min Aung Hlaing, the head of Myanmar’s military government, further underscoring his effort to desacralise worldly power.

    Massimo D’Angelo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. How Pope Francis changed the Catholic Church’s foreign policy – https://theconversation.com/how-pope-francis-changed-the-catholic-churchs-foreign-policy-255051

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: US universities lose millions of dollars chasing patents, research shows

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Joshua M. Pearce, John M. Thompson Chair in Information Technology and Innovation and Professor, Western University

    Every year, American universities spend millions of dollars patenting inventions developed on their campuses. Big names such as Stanford and the University of California system lead the pack in patent activity, but hundreds of other universities are also trying to strike gold by monetizing intellectual property. The idea is simple: By investing in patents and selling or licensing them to industry, the university will profit.

    But in practice, this strategy rarely pays off.

    Indeed, the results of a recent study I conducted using full-cost accounting shows the average American research university is losing millions of dollars on patents annually. One school I examined as a case study lost a staggering $9 million on intellectual property investments in one year.

    These findings come at a critical moment. Universities across the U.S. are under serious financial strain and at risk of losing federal funding under the current administration. Speaking as an engineer and innovation expert, I believe universities can no longer afford to be losing money on schemes meant to generate revenue.

    How universities got into the patent business

    The current system was born out of the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which standardized federal policy to encourage university grant recipients to patent their inventions. The goal was to commercialize taxpayer-funded research and to make universities money in the process.

    One result was the rapid expansion of technology transfer offices at universities across the country. These offices are designed to support the commercialization of academic research and development.

    On the surface, this strategy might seem promising. Years of data from the Association of University Technology Managers, which surveys tech transfer offices, suggested large, growing revenues from licensing intellectual property.

    But there’s a major caveat: It costs money for a university to do all this, and the association’s figures don’t take all of those costs into account. They exclude big expenses such as the costs of running technology transfer offices and litigation. When these are included, previous research has shown, just under half of the tech transfer offices pay for themselves.

    And even these analyses are incomplete, as they ignore the opportunity costs to faculty participating in the time-consuming patenting process. After all, every hour a professor spends on patenting is an hour not spent writing grant proposals.

    This raises a crucial question: Do university investments in patenting, taking into account all the costs, actually deliver a positive return on investment?

    To answer this, I developed a formula to determine exactly how much universities spend in patenting, including the costs of faculty time. I then applied that formula to an average R1 research university − about halfway down the list of annual National Science Foundation funding − using real numbers.

    The hidden cost of faculty time

    For the case study university, I found that every single cost category exceeded the intellectual property-related income. The opportunity cost for writing patents instead of grants was more than 33 times the income realized.

    This means that the average U.S. university is literally losing millions of dollars pursuing patents. Research universities could increase research income by simply ignoring intellectual property entirely.

    Using this full-cost accounting method is something university administrators would be wise to consider in their decision-making, given the real opportunity costs of faculty time.

    Administrators may argue that because faculty are salaried, there’s no additional cost to making them spend time writing patents. But this ignores reality: Faculty are among the university’s most productive assets. They generate income through tuition and research grants. Their time isn’t free − and using it inefficiently can come at a steep cost.

    My study looked only at one university that happens to have a very high invention disclosure rate and would, if viewed from afar, seem to be doing really well on intellectual property investment. When all costs are accounted for the university, it becomes apparent that its intellectual property policy is causing the school to hemorrhage money.

    The easy-to-follow methodology I set up can be used by any university to determine its intellectual property’s real return on income. Each university will be slightly different, but for the vast majority, the return on investment will be strongly negative.

    As the costs of university education become increasingly challenging for many Americans, I think it’s time to take a hard look at university “investments” in technology transfer with a negative return.

    Joshua M. Pearce has received funding for research from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canada Foundation for Innovation, Mitacs, the U.S. Department of Energy and the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, U.S. Department of Defense, The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and the National Science Foundation. His past and present consulting work and research is funded by the United Nations, the National Academies of Science, Engineering and Medicine, and many companies in the energy and solar photovoltaic fields. He does not have any direct conflicts of interest.

    – ref. US universities lose millions of dollars chasing patents, research shows – https://theconversation.com/us-universities-lose-millions-of-dollars-chasing-patents-research-shows-244270

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump administration pauses new mine safety regulation − here’s how those rules benefit companies as well as workers

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Jeremy M. Gernand, Associate Professor of Environmental Health and Safety Engineering, Penn State

    Federal officials in white hard hats speak with miners in an Indiana coal mine in 2015. AP Photo/Timothy D. Easley

    President Donald Trump’s administration has announced its intention to pause or reverse regulations on mine safety, saying it wants to loosen rules that constrain companies. But as a scholar of both engineering and public policy, with a focus on the risk of exposures to air pollutants and other safety issues, I have seen how safety regulations are designed to benefit not only workers but also companies and the public as a whole.

    Federal laws and other regulations require that rules written by federal agencies use scientific evidence about how to minimize risk. And under an executive order signed by President Bill Clinton in 1993 that is still in effect, regulations must be evaluated to make sure they produce more economic benefit for the nation than they cost.

    This is not a simple or quick process. Let’s look at one rule as an example of how this plays out, and how the democratic process of scientific study, public debate and comment helps regulators arrive at a rule that balances the needs and interests of workers, companies and the public.

    Silica dust exposure in mines

    The Trump administration is pausing enforcement of a rule that requires coal-mining companies to protect their workers from exposure to silica dust, a fine powder generated when pulverizing rock that can damage their lungs to the point of needing supplemental oxygen or a lung transplant. Since the 1930s, federal officials have warned about this problem, which was identified in miners as far back as 1700.

    In 1938, the U.S. secretary of labor made a short video warning miners of the dangers of inhaling silica dust.

    The first U.S. regulations about miners’ exposure to silica dust were created in the early 1970s. But over time, safety practices and technology advances become less costly. And life expectancy and national wealth increase, raising the value of preventing a fatality or a disability.

    Efforts to tighten the regulations began in earnest in 1996. Much of that work involved research into how inhaling silica affects a person’s health and how much exposure is required to lead to disease.

    In 2019, the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Labor, opened an opportunity for the public, including mining companies, independent experts, regular citizens and anyone interested, to comment on the idea of reducing mine workers’ exposure to silica.

    Based on all that information, in July 2023 the agency published a proposed rule. Then the agency held three public hearings – in Virginia, West Virginia and Colorado – which were collectively attended by 525 people, with 48 speakers and 157 submissions of written comments.

    In April 2024 the agency published a final rule, which included responses to those comments. It was slated to take effect in April 2025 for coal mines and April 2026 for other types of mines. That final rule runs to 268 pages in the Federal Register, the official publication of all federal documents. It cut in half the amount of silica dust allowed in the air in mines from 100 micrograms per cubic meter to 50.

    The rule was set to begin protecting coal miners on April 14, 2025. But just days before that deadline, the Trump administration announced it would pause enforcement of the rule for an undetermined period.

    National Black Lung Association President Gary Hairston speaks during a public hearing hosted by the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration in August 2023 about its draft rule to limit worker exposure to silica dust.
    AP Photo/Leah Willingham

    Costs and benefits

    Evaluating costs and benefits of rule changes can be complicated. Each instance of injury, illness or death that is avoided doesn’t need medical treatment, doesn’t cause people to miss work, earn less and be less productive, and doesn’t shorten someone’s life.

    The Mine Safety and Health Administration estimated that across the mining industry, its rule would avoid 531 deaths and 1,836 cases of silica-related illnesses over the next 60 years. Officials calculated those benefits were worth $294 million a year.

    Regulations do have costs. Some rules may require buying equipment, such as new respirators, ventilation machinery and sensors to monitor dust levels in mines. Workers need to be trained on new procedures and equipment, too. Often, as with the silica dust rule, companies must monitor employees’ health to ensure the measures are working and take steps to correct problems that arise. The estimated total cost of the silica dust rule to all affected companies was $89 million a year.

    The value of the benefits and the expenses of the costs, including of this regulation, often end up being debated in court. Ultimately, the estimated costs of compliance with the rule not only are far less than the estimated benefits, but are just 0.07% of the $124.2 billion in estimated annual revenues for the mining industry.

    Uneven effects

    The effects of the costs and benefits are not always spread evenly. Some companies that are struggling to remain profitable and are using aging, inefficient equipment or working in a particularly challenging mining environment may not have enough money to comply. They might have to shut down operations or sell to a new owner.

    But companies that are more successful would have the money to invest to comply – and perhaps less need for new or upgraded equipment to meet the standards while keeping their workers productive.

    And in fact, many companies already met the standard, even before it was slated to take effect. In a study running from 2016 to 2021, the Mine Safety and Health Administration found that more than 93% of coal miners were exposed to lower levels of silica dust than the proposed new limit. But that meant that about 7% of coal miners were not – and 1.3% of them were exposed to levels higher than the then-current limit of 100 micrograms per cubic meter.

    The effect of a reversal

    When regulations are paused or rescinded, companies may be able to save a little money. They don’t have to immediately take action to reduce exposure and avoid fines.

    Rescinding a regulation is not a trivial task. That process must also involve risk assessment and economic justifications, according to the Administrative Procedure Act.

    And even if a rule is paused or reversed, the dangers still exist. The documentation in the rulemaking history provides a ready recipe for a liability claim against an organization that ignores that information. A worker who developed cancer due to heightened silica exposure would have a mountain of public evidence available for a lawsuit seeking damages.

    Why are regulations necessary?

    Regulations help workers by giving them an understanding of the risks they face in these jobs. Workers don’t have the time, equipment or expertise to conduct their own analyses in each mine operated by each company.

    Regulations also help companies: They ensure competition is on an even playing field by preventing some firms from cutting corners and lowering their prices at the expense of worker safety and health. The companies also have a lower risk of losing experienced workers to illness, injury, death or better working conditions elsewhere. More experienced workers are more productive, earning the companies more money. And longtime workers contribute to safer workplaces, which incur fewer company costs for workers’ compensation claims.

    The public benefits too. Without regulations, companies may be able to escape paying the long-term costs of chronic diseases that appear years after exposure. That cost then falls on the overall health insurance marketplace, or on taxpayer-funded Medicare and Medicaid services, driving up expenses for everyone.

    Jeremy M. Gernand receives funding from the Health Effects Institute and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

    – ref. Trump administration pauses new mine safety regulation − here’s how those rules benefit companies as well as workers – https://theconversation.com/trump-administration-pauses-new-mine-safety-regulation-heres-how-those-rules-benefit-companies-as-well-as-workers-254178

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Controlled burns reduce wildfire risk, but they require trained staff and funding − this could be a rough year

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Laura Dee, Associate Professor of Ecology, University of Colorado Boulder

    Prescribed burns like this one are intentional, controlled fires used to clear out dry grass and underbrush that could fuel more destructive wildfires. Ethan Swope/Getty Images

    Red skies in August, longer fire seasons and checking air quality before taking my toddler to the park. This has become the new norm in the western United States as wildfires become more frequent, larger and more catastrophic.

    As an ecologist at the University of Colorado Boulder, I know that fires are part of the natural processes that forests need to stay healthy. But the combined effects of a warmer and drier climate, more people living in fire-prone areas and vegetation and debris built up over years of fire suppression are leading to more severe fires that spread faster. And that’s putting humans, ecosystems and economies at risk.

    To help prevent catastrophic fires, the U.S. Forest Service issued a 10-year strategy in 2022 that includes scaling up the use of controlled burns and other techniques to remove excess plant growth and dry, dead materials that fuel wildfires.

    However, the Forest Service’s wildfire management activities have been thrown into turmoil in 2025 with funding cuts and disruptions and uncertainty from the federal government.

    The planet just saw its hottest year on record. If spring and summer 2025 are also dry and hot, conditions could be prime for severe fires again.

    More severe fires harm forest recovery and people

    Today’s severe wildfires have been pushing societies, emergency response systems and forests beyond what they have evolved to handle.

    Extreme fires have burned into cities, including destroying thousands of homes in the Los Angeles area in 2025 and near Boulder, Colorado, in 2021. They threaten downstream public drinking water by increasing sediments and contaminants in water supplies, as well as infrastructure, air quality and rural economies. They also increase the risk of flooding and mudslides from soil erosion. And they undermine efforts to mitigate climate change by releasing carbon stored in these ecosystems.

    In some cases, fires burned so hot and deep into the soil that the forests are not growing back.

    While many species are adapted to survive low-level fires, severe blazes can damage the seeds and cones needed for forests to regrow. My team has seen this trend outside of Fort Collins, Colorado, where four years after the Cameron Peak fire, forests have still not come back the way ecologists would expect them to under past, less severe fires. Returning to a strategy of fire suppression − or trying to “go toe-to-toe with every fire” − will make these cases more common.

    Parts of Cameron Peak, burned in a severe fire in 2020, still showed little evidence of recovery in 2024. Efforts have been underway to try to replant parts of the burned areas by hand.
    Bella Oleksy/University of Colorado

    Proactive wildfire management can help reduce the risk to forests and property.

    Measures such as prescribed burns have proven to be effective for maintaining healthy forests and reducing the severity of subsequent wildfires. A recent review found that selective thinning followed by prescribed fire reduced subsequent fire severity by 72% on average, and prescribed fire on its own reduced severity by 62%.

    Prescribed burns and forest thinning tend to reduce the risk of extremely destructive wildfires.
    Kimberley T. Davis, et al., Forest Ecology and Management, 2024, CC BY

    But managing forests well requires knowing how forests are changing, where trees are dying and where undergrowth has built up and increased fire hazards. And, for federal lands, these are some of the jobs that are being targeted by the Trump administration.

    Some of the Forest Service staff who were fired or put in limbo by the Trump administration are those who do research or collect and communicate critical data about forests and fire risk. Other fired staff provided support so crews could clear flammable debris and carry out fuel treatments such as prescribed burns, thinning forests and building fire breaks.

    Losing people in these roles is like firing all primary care doctors and leaving only EMTs. Both are clearly needed. As many people know from emergency room bills, preventing emergencies is less costly than dealing with the damage later.

    Logging is not a long-term fire solution

    The Trump administration cited “wildfire risk reduction” when it issued an emergency order to increase logging in national forests by 25%.

    But private − unregulated − forest management looks a lot different than managing forests to prevent destructive fires.

    Logging, depending on the practice, can involve clear-cutting trees and other techniques that compromise soils. Exposing a forest’s soils and dead vegetation to more sunlight also dries them out, which can increase fire risk in the near term.

    Forest-thinning operations involve carefully removing young trees and brush that could easily burn, with a goal of creating conditions less likely to send fire into the crowns of trees.
    AP Photo/Godofredo A. Vásquez

    In general, logging that focuses on extracting the highest-value trees leaves thinner trees that are more vulnerable to fires. A study in the Pacific Northwest found that replanting logged land with the same age and size of trees can lead to more severe fires in the future.

    Research and data are essential

    For many people in the western U.S., these risks hit close to home.

    I’ve seen neighborhoods burn and friends and family displaced, and I have contended with regular air quality warnings and red flag days signaling a high fire risk. I’ve also seen beloved landscapes, such as those on Cameron Peak, transform when conifers that once made up the forest have not regrown.

    Recovery has been slow on Cameron Peak after a severe fire in 2020. This photo was taken in 2024.
    Bella Oleksy/University of Colorado

    My scientific research group and collaborations with other scientists have been helping to identify cost-effective solutions. That includes which fuel-treatment methods are most effective, which types of forests and conditions they work best in and how often they are needed. We’re also planning research projects to better understand which forests are at greatest risk of not recovering after fires.

    This sort of research is what robust, cost-effective land management is based on.

    When careful, evidence-based forest management is replaced with a heavy emphasis on suppressing every fire or clear-cutting forests, I worry that human lives, property and economies, as well as the natural legacy of public lands left to every American, are at risk.

    Laura Dee receives funding from NASA.

    – ref. Controlled burns reduce wildfire risk, but they require trained staff and funding − this could be a rough year – https://theconversation.com/controlled-burns-reduce-wildfire-risk-but-they-require-trained-staff-and-funding-this-could-be-a-rough-year-251705

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Trump is stripping protections from marine protected areas – why that’s a problem for fishing’s future, and for whales, corals and other ocean life

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By David Shiffman, Faculty Research Associate in Marine Biology, Arizona State University

    The coral reefs of Palmyra Atoll, part of Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, provide nurseries for many fish species. Andrew S. Wright/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via Flickr, CC BY-SA

    The single greatest threat to the diversity of life in our oceans over the past 50 years, more than climate change or plastic pollution, has been unsustainable fishing practices.

    In much of the ocean, there is little to no regulation or oversight of commercial fishing or other human activities. That’s part of the reason about a tenth of marine plant and animal species are considered threatened or at risk.

    It’s also why countries around the world have been creating marine protected areas.

    These protected areas, covering over 11.6 million square miles (30 million square kilometers) in 16,000 locations, offer refuge away from human activities for a wide variety of living creatures, from corals to sea turtles and whales. They give fish stocks a place to thrive, and those fish spread out into the surrounding waters, which helps fishing industries and local economies.

    In the U.S., however, marine protection is being dismantled by President Donald Trump.

    Marine protected areas as of 2022. Fully or highly protected areas represented less than 3% of the ocean, according to the Marine Protection Atlas.
    Marine Conservation Institute via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA

    Trump issued a proclamation on April 17, 2025, titled “Unleashing American commercial fishing in the Pacific,” ordering the removal of key protections to allow commercial fishing in parts of a nearly-500,000-square-mile marine protected area called the Pacific Island Heritage National Marine Monument.

    He also called for a review of all other marine national monuments to decide if they should be opened to commercial fishing too. In addition, the Trump administration is proposing to redefine “harm” under the Endangered Species Act in a way that would allow for more damage to these species’ habitats.

    I’m a marine biologist and scuba diver, and it’s no accident that all my favorite dive sites are within marine protected areas. I’ve found what scientific studies from across the world show: Protected areas have much healthier marine life populations and healthier ecosystems.

    What’s at risk in the Pacific

    The Pacific Island Heritage National Marine Monument, about 750 miles west of Hawaii, is dotted by coral reefs and atolls, with species of fish, marine mammals and birds rarely found anywhere else.

    It is home to protected and endangered species, including turtles, whales and Hawaiian monk seals. Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef, both within the area, are considered among the most pristine coral reefs in the world, each providing habitats for a wide range of fish and other species.

    These marine species are able to thrive there and spread out into the surrounding waters because their habitats have been protected.

    A tour of several marine protected areas and their inhabitants in 2016.

    President George W. Bush, a conservative Republican, created this protected area in 2009, restricting fishing there, and President Barack Obama later expanded it. Trump, whose administration has made no secret of its aim to strip away environmental protections across the country’s land and waters, is now reopening much of the marine protected area to industrial-scale fishing.

    The risks from industrial fishing

    When too many fish are killed and too few young fish are left to replace them, it’s considered overfishing, and this has become a growing problem around the world.

    In 1974, about 10% of the world’s fish stocks were overfished. By 2021, that number had risen to 37.7%, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization’s annual State of Fisheries and Aquaculture Report.

    A fishing net caught on a coral reef can destroy habitat.
    Kampee Patisena/Moment/Getty Images

    Modern industrial-scale fishing practices can also harm other species.

    Bycatch, or catching animals that fishermen don’t want but are inadvertently caught up in nets and other gear, is a threat to many endangered species. Many seabirds, sea turtles and whales die this way each year. Some types of fishing gear, such as trawls and dredges that drag along the sea floor to scoop up sea life, can destroy ocean habitat itself.

    Without regulations or protected areas, fishing can turn into a competitive free-for-all that can deplete fish stocks.

    How marine protected areas protect species

    Marine protected areas are designed to safeguard parts of the ocean from human impacts, including offshore oil and gas extraction and industrial fishing practices.

    Studies have found that these areas can produce many benefits for both marine life and fishermen by allowing overfished species to recover and ensuring their health for the future.

    A decade after Mexico established the Cabo Pulmo protected area, for example, fish biomass increased by nearly 500%.

    How marine protected areas help marine life and local economies.

    Successful marine protected areas tend to have healthier habitats, more fish, more species of fish, and bigger fish than otherwise-similar unprotected areas. Studies have found the average size of organisms to be 28% bigger in these areas than in fished areas with no protections. How many babies a fish has is directly related to the size of the mother.

    All of this helps create jobs through ecotourism and support local fishing communities outside the marine protected area.

    Marine protected areas also have a “spillover effect” – the offspring of healthy fish populations that spawn inside these areas often spread beyond them, helping fish populations outside the boundaries thrive as well.

    Ultimately, the fishing industry benefits from a continuing supply. And all of this happens at little cost.

    A need for more protected areas, not fewer

    Claims by the Trump administration that marine protected areas are a heavy-handed restriction on the U.S. fishing industry do not hold water. As science and my own experience show, these refuges for sea life can instead help local economies and the industry by allowing fish populations to thrive.

    For the future of the planet’s whales, sea turtles, coral reefs and the health of fishing itself, scientists like me recommend creating more marine protected areas to help species thrive, not dismantling them.

    David Shiffman has consulted for many environmental non-profit groups including the Ocean Conservancy, as well as fishing industry groups and fisheries managment agencies.

    – ref. Trump is stripping protections from marine protected areas – why that’s a problem for fishing’s future, and for whales, corals and other ocean life – https://theconversation.com/trump-is-stripping-protections-from-marine-protected-areas-why-thats-a-problem-for-fishings-future-and-for-whales-corals-and-other-ocean-life-254925

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: From help to harm: How the government is quietly repurposing everyone’s data for surveillance

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Nicole M. Bennett, Ph.D. Candidate in Geography and Assistant Director at the Center for Refugee Studies, Indiana University

    DOGE has been key to attempts to consolidate Americans’ personal data for the government. Jim Watson/AFP via Getty Images

    A whistleblower at the National Labor Relations Board reported an unusual spike in potentially sensitive data flowing out of the agency’s network in early March 2025 when staffers from the Department of Government Efficiency, which goes by DOGE, were granted access to the agency’s databases. On April 7, the Department of Homeland Security gained access to Internal Revenue Service tax data.

    These seemingly unrelated events are examples of recent developments in the transformation of the structure and purpose of federal government data repositories. I am a researcher who studies the intersection of migration, data governance and digital technologies. I’m tracking how data that people provide to U.S. government agencies for public services such as tax filing, health care enrollment, unemployment assistance and education support is increasingly being redirected toward surveillance and law enforcement.

    Originally collected to facilitate health care, eligibility for services and the administration of public services, this information is now shared across government agencies and with private companies, reshaping the infrastructure of public services into a mechanism of control. Once confined to separate bureaucracies, data now flows freely through a network of interagency agreements, outsourcing contracts and commercial partnerships built up in recent decades.

    These data-sharing arrangements often take place outside public scrutiny, driven by national security justifications, fraud prevention initiatives and digital modernization efforts. The result is that the structure of government is quietly transforming into an integrated surveillance apparatus, capable of monitoring, predicting and flagging behavior at an unprecedented scale.

    Executive orders signed by President Donald Trump aim to remove remaining institutional and legal barriers to completing this massive surveillance system.

    DOGE and the private sector

    Central to this transformation is DOGE, which is tasked via an executive order to “promote inter-operability between agency networks and systems, ensure data integrity, and facilitate responsible data collection and synchronization.” An additional executive order calls for the federal government to eliminate its information silos.

    By building interoperable systems, DOGE can enable real-time, cross-agency access to sensitive information and create a centralized database on people within the U.S. These developments are framed as administrative streamlining but lay the groundwork for mass surveillance.

    Key to this data repurposing are public-private partnerships. The DHS and other agencies have turned to third-party contractors and data brokers to bypass direct restrictions. These intermediaries also consolidate data from social media, utility companies, supermarkets and many other sources, enabling enforcement agencies to construct detailed digital profiles of people without explicit consent or judicial oversight.

    Palantir, a private data firm and prominent federal contractor, supplies investigative platforms to agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Defense, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Internal Revenue Service. These platforms aggregate data from various sources – driver’s license photos, social services, financial information, educational data – and present it in centralized dashboards designed for predictive policing and algorithmic profiling. These tools extend government reach in ways that challenge existing norms of privacy and consent.

    The role of AI

    Artificial intelligence has further accelerated this shift.

    Predictive algorithms now scan vast amounts of data to generate risk scores, detect anomalies and flag potential threats.

    These systems ingest data from school enrollment records, housing applications, utility usage and even social media, all made available through contracts with data brokers and tech companies. Because these systems rely on machine learning, their inner workings are often proprietary, unexplainable and beyond meaningful public accountability.

    Data privacy researcher Justin Sherman explains the astonishing amount of information data brokers have about you.

    Sometimes the results are inaccurate, generated by AI hallucinations – responses AI systems produce that sound convincing but are incorrect, made up or irrelevant. Minor data discrepancies can lead to major consequences: job loss, denial of benefits and wrongful targeting in law enforcement operations. Once flagged, individuals rarely have a clear pathway to contest the system’s conclusions.

    Digital profiling

    Participation in civic life, applying for a loan, seeking disaster relief and requesting student aid now contribute to a person’s digital footprint. Government entities could later interpret that data in ways that allow them to deny access to assistance. Data collected under the banner of care could be mined for evidence to justify placing someone under surveillance. And with growing dependence on private contractors, the boundaries between public governance and corporate surveillance continue to erode.

    Artificial intelligence, facial recognition systems and predictive profiling systems lack oversight. They also disproportionately affect low-income individuals, immigrants and people of color, who are more frequently flagged as risks.

    Initially built for benefits verification or crisis response, these data systems now feed into broader surveillance networks. The implications are profound. What began as a system targeting noncitizens and fraud suspects could easily be generalized to everyone in the country.

    Eyes on everyone

    This is not merely a question of data privacy. It is a broader transformation in the logic of governance. Systems once designed for administration have become tools for tracking and predicting people’s behavior. In this new paradigm, oversight is sparse and accountability is minimal.

    AI allows for the interpretation of behavioral patterns at scale without direct interrogation or verification. Inferences replace facts. Correlations replace testimony.

    The risk extends to everyone. While these technologies are often first deployed at the margins of society – against migrants, welfare recipients or those deemed “high risk” – there’s little to limit their scope. As the infrastructure expands, so does its reach into the lives of all citizens.

    With every form submitted, interaction logged and device used, a digital profile deepens, often out of sight. The infrastructure for pervasive surveillance is in place. What remains uncertain is how far it will be allowed to go.

    Nicole Bennett is affiliated with Indiana University’s Center for Refugee Studies and the Indiana University Refugee Task Force.

    – ref. From help to harm: How the government is quietly repurposing everyone’s data for surveillance – https://theconversation.com/from-help-to-harm-how-the-government-is-quietly-repurposing-everyones-data-for-surveillance-254690

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Justice Department lawyers work for justice and the Constitution – not the White House

    Source: The Conversation – USA – By Cassandra Burke Robertson, Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Professional Ethics, Case Western Reserve University

    The U.S. flag flies above Department of Justice headquarters on Jan. 20, 2024, in Washington. J. David Ake/Getty Images

    In the 1970s, President Richard Nixon tried to fire the Department of Justice prosecutor leading an investigation into the president’s involvement in wiretapping the Democratic National Committee’s headquarters.

    Since then, the DOJ has generally been run as an impartial law enforcement agency, separated from the executive office and partisan politics.

    Those guardrails are now being severely tested under the Trump administration.

    In February 2025, seven DOJ attorneys resigned, rather than follow orders from Attorney General Pam Bondi to dismiss corruption charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams. Adams was indicted in September 2024, during the Biden administration, for alleged bribery and campaign finance violations.

    One DOJ prosecutor, Hagan Scotten, wrote in his Feb. 15 resignation letter that while he held no negative views of the Trump administration, he believed the dismissal request violated DOJ’s ethical standards.

    Among more than a dozen DOJ attorneys who have recently been terminated, the DOJ fired Erez Reuveni, acting deputy chief of the department’s Office of Immigration Litigation, on April 15. Reuveni lost his job for speaking honestly to the court about the facts of an immigration case, instead of following political directives from Bondi and other superiors.

    Reuveni was terminated for acknowledging in court on April 14 that the Department of Homeland Security had made an “administrative error” in deporting Kilmar Abrego Garcia to El Salvador, against court orders. DOJ leadership placed Reuveni on leave the very next day.

    Bondi defended the decision, arguing that Reuveni had failed to “vigorously advocate” for the administration’s position.

    I’m a legal ethics scholar, and I know that as more DOJ lawyers face choices between following political directives and upholding their profession’s ethical standards, they confront a critical question: To whom do they ultimately owe their loyalty?

    President Donald Trump speaks before Pam Bondi is sworn in as attorney general at the White House on Feb. 5, 2025.
    Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

    Identifying the real client

    All attorneys have core ethical obligations, including loyalty to clients, confidentiality and honesty to the courts. DOJ lawyers have additional professional obligations: They have a duty to seek justice, rather than merely win cases, as well as to protect constitutional rights even when inconvenient.

    DOJ attorneys typically answer to multiple authorities, including the attorney general. But their highest loyalty belongs to the U.S. Constitution and justice itself.

    The Supreme Court established in a 1935 case that DOJ attorneys have a special mission to ensure that “justice shall be done.”

    DOJ attorneys reinforce their commitment to this mission by taking an oath to uphold the Constitution when they join the department. They also have training programs, internal guidelines and a long-standing institutional culture that emphasizes their unique responsibility to pursue justice, rather than simply win cases.

    This creates a professional identity that goes beyond simply carrying out the wishes of political appointees.

    Playing by stricter rules

    All lawyers also follow special professional rules in order to receive and maintain a license to practice law. These professional rules are established by state bar associations and supreme courts as part of the state-based licensing system for attorneys.

    But the more than 10,000 attorneys at the DOJ face even tougher standards.

    The McDade Amendment, passed in 1998, requires federal government lawyers to follow both the ethics rules of the state where they are licensed to practice and federal regulations. This includes rules that prohibit DOJ attorneys from participating in cases where they have personal or political relationships with involved parties, for example.

    This law also explicitly subjects federal prosecutors to state bar discipline. Such discipline could range from private reprimands to suspension or even permanent disbarment, effectively ending an attorney’s legal career.

    This means DOJ lawyers might have to refuse a supervisor’s orders if those directives would violate professional conduct standards – even at the risk of their jobs.

    This is what Assistant U.S. Attorney Danielle Sassoon wrote in a Feb. 12, 2025, letter to Bondi, explaining why she could not drop the charges against Adams. Sassoon instead resigned from her position at the DOJ.

    “Because the law does not support a dismissal, and because I am confident that Adams has committed the crimes with which he is charged, I cannot agree to seek a dismissal driven by improper considerations … because I do not see any good-faith basis for the proposed position, I cannot make such arguments consistent with my duty of candor,” Sassoon wrote.

    As DOJ’s own guidance states, attorneys “must satisfy themselves that their behavior comports with the applicable rules of professional conduct” regardless of what their bosses say.

    Post-Watergate principles under pressure

    The president nominates the attorney general, who must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate.

    That can create the perception and even the reality that the attorney general is indebted to, and loyal to, the president. To counter that, Attorney General Griffin Bell, in 1978, spelled out three principles established after Watergate to maintain a deliberate separation between the White House and the Justice Department.

    First, Bell called for procedures to prevent personal or partisan interests from influencing legal judgments.

    Second, Bell said that public confidence in the department’s objectivity is essential to democracy, with DOJ serving as the “acknowledged guardian and keeper of the law.”

    Third, these principles ultimately depend on DOJ lawyers committed to good judgment and integrity, even under intense political pressure. These principles apply to all employees throughout the department – including the attorney general.

    Recent ethics tests

    These principles face a stark test in the current political climate.

    The March 2025 firing of Elizabeth Oyer, a career pardon attorney with the Justice Department, raises questions about the boundaries between political directives and professional obligations.

    Oyer was fired by Bondi shortly after declining to recommend the restoration of gun rights to actor Mel Gibson, a known Donald Trump supporter. Gibson lost his gun rights after pleading no contest to a misdemeanor domestic battery charge in 2011.

    Oyer initially expressed concern to her superiors about restoring Gibson’s gun rights without a sufficient background investigation, particularly given Gibson’s history of domestic violence.

    When Oyer later agreed to testify before Congress in a hearing about the White House’s handling of the Justice Department, the administration initially planned to send armed U.S. Marshals officers to deliver a warning letter to her home, saying that she could not disclose records about firearms rights to lawmakers.

    Oyer was away from home when she received an urgent alert that the marshals were en route to her home, where her teenage child was alone. Oyer’s attorney described this plan as “both unprecedented and completely inappropriate.”

    Officials called off the marshals only after Oyer confirmed receipt of the letter via email.

    Elizabeth Oyer, a former U.S. pardon attorney at the Justice Department, speaks at a Senate hearing on April 7, 2025, in Washington.
    Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

    Why independence matters

    In my research, I found that lawyers sometimes have lapses in judgment because of the “partisan kinship,” conscious or not, they develop with clients. This partisan kinship can lead attorneys to overlook serious red flags that outsiders would easily spot.

    When lawyers become too politically aligned with clients – or their superiors – their judgment suffers. They miss ethical problems and legal flaws that would otherwise be obvious. Professional distance allows attorneys to provide the highest quality legal counsel, even if that means saying “no” to powerful people.

    That’s why DOJ attorneys sometimes make decisions that frustrate political objectives. When they refuse to target political opponents, when they won’t let allies off easily, or when they disclose information their superiors wanted hidden, they’re not being insubordinate.

    They’re fulfilling their highest ethical duties to the Constitution and rule of law.

    Cassandra Burke Robertson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Justice Department lawyers work for justice and the Constitution – not the White House – https://theconversation.com/justice-department-lawyers-work-for-justice-and-the-constitution-not-the-white-house-254763

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: VAT hikes can raise tax without hurting the poor: an economist sets out the evidence

    Source: The Conversation – Africa – By Imraan Valodia, Pro Vice-Chancellor, Climate, Sustainability and Inequality and Director, Southern Centre for Inequality Studies, University of the Witwatersrand

    South Africa’s 2025-6 budget has been subjected to more comment than usual. This is due to the political tensions generated by a proposed increase in value added tax (VAT).

    South Africa’s choices on how it manages the revenue and expenditure issues in the budget are critical for how the larger issues of the country’s debt and its economic policies are handled. As things stand, the economy is locked into a low-growth trajectory which make the debt, revenue and expenditure issues more difficult to deal with.

    This piece draws on a longer article which explores these issues in greater detail. Here, I focus only on the VAT issue.

    The finance minister originally tabled an increase of 2 percentage points, then changed it to 0.5 percentage points. Still, it is threatening to end the country’s government of national unity, which was set up after elections in 2024.



    Read more:
    South Africa’s finance minister wanted to raise VAT: the pros and cons of a tricky tax

    Most commentators, including the political parties that have opposed the proposal, many academics, and non-governmental organisations claiming to represent low-income groups, have argued that an increase in VAT places an undue burden on low-income groups. This would make it regressive.

    Based on work as an academic economist over the past three decades, I believe that the debate has been based largely on conjecture and ideological opposition to VAT, rather than on the evidence of its impact.

    This is a pity as there is empirical evidence rooted in research that a VAT increase is, in fact, not regressive and is therefore a good policy decision.

    Tax experts usually refer to the three Es in taxes – equity, efficiency and ease of administration – for evaluating tax policy proposals. New taxes should ideally promote equity (they should be progressive and not regressive), be efficient and be easy to administer.

    An increase in VAT in South Africa ticks all these boxes.

    First, contrary to what many commentators have been arguing, VAT isn’t always regressive – it depends on how it’s implemented. As proposed by the finance minister it would not be regressive because, while it would add to the burden of low-income households, most of the VAT would be collected from higher-income households. Added to this is that the proposed expansion of the existing list of zero-rated items would protect the lowest-income households.

    Second, VAT is a very efficient tax. For relatively low increases in the rate, government is able to raise a large amount of revenue.

    Finally, the system is easy to administer and adds very little cost to collection.

    Key to its efficacy is the way VAT is implemented, including the choice of products to zero rate, and the political credibility of government.

    The case for a VAT increase

    VAT is a consumption tax, so it only affects the income that a household consumes.

    According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), VAT is now the mainstay of tax systems in over 160 countries, raising on average one-third of total government revenues.

    In theory, there are good reasons to be concerned about the impact of VAT. First, it can place a high burden on low-income households because they spend a large proportion of their incomes on consumption goods such as food.

    Second, VAT may also place a heavy burden of tax on women. In South Africa and many other countries, women-led households tend to be clustered in the lower end of the income distribution. And women disproportionately take responsibility for feeding and caring for family members.

    So, at least in theory, VAT is a regressive tax. But is it really so in practice?

    Three studies that have explored this issue in some detail have concluded that, in South Africa, VAT is not regressive.

    In 2008, I worked with colleagues in eight countries (South Africa, Ghana, Uganda, Morocco, Mexico, Argentina, India and the United Kingdom) on the gender issues related to tax. In particular we looked at the burden of VAT on low-income and women-headed households.

    Our findings were that, in general, VAT is regressive and discriminates against women, but it depends on how it is implemented.

    In South Africa, the zero-rating of basic consumption goods is very effective, protecting low-income and female-headed households from VAT. It’s an example of a VAT system that is neutral – neither regressive nor progressive.

    A more recent study by South African economist Ingrid Woolard and colleagues reached a similar conclusion in 2018.

    A third study was done in the same year when VAT was increased from 14% to 15%. Following a similar emotive debate, the finance minister appointed an independent committee which I served on and which was chaired by Woolard, to advise on further zero-rating.

    Our conclusion – again – was that zero-rating is highly effective at protecting low-income groups from the deleterious effects of VAT.

    How it’s done matters

    The challenge with zero-rating is that while low-income households benefit, high-income households benefit more (because they spend more, in absolute terms, on zero-rated goods). Large amounts of potential VAT revenue are lost to high-income groups that don’t need protection.

    The trick is to find a basket of goods that low-income households consume a lot of, but which high-income households don’t consume in large quantities. Some typical examples are beans, canned pilchards and cabbage. These are all goods that low-income households consume and high-income households do not.

    National Treasury’s proposals for increasing the basket of goods to be zero-rated are based on solid research.

    A good example of the trade-offs to consider is the case of chicken. Chicken is an important source of protein for low-income households, but also for high-income households. So, if all chicken were zero-rated, this would protect poor households, but a large amount of VAT revenue would be lost.

    In our 2018 zero-rating report, at 2018 prices and consumption patterns, we calculated that zero-rating all chicken products would be equivalent to R1.3 billion (US$67.6 million) but government would lose R4.6 billion (US$244.4 million) to high income households.

    Not a good trade-off.

    However, some chicken products, such as chicken heads and feet, are mostly consumed by low-income groups, and are therefore good candidates for zero-rating.

    The two other Es – efficiency and ease of administration – of taxes are also key to consider.

    On these two considerations, VAT has big advantages.

    It’s very difficult to avoid or evade VAT because it’s collected along the chain of production. There’s evidence that South Africa has very little leakage in the system.

    So it is relatively easy to increase the VAT rate without needing to invest additional resources to collect the tax.

    Credibility is key

    Apart from the economic considerations, tax policy has to be politically credible. People should believe that their tax contributions are being used effectively, and government should be seen to be acting in line with this.

    If people don’t believe in government’s ability to spend wisely, resistance to taxes increases. Then tax avoidance and evasion increases.

    It would be fair to say that, with the high levels of corruption in South Africa’s political system, government’s credibility is low.

    Thus, if VAT is to be increased, government has to do a lot more to improve its credibility and reassure South Africans that the tax revenues will be well spent.

    Imraan Valodia receives funding from a number of foundations and governments that support academic research.

    – ref. VAT hikes can raise tax without hurting the poor: an economist sets out the evidence – https://theconversation.com/vat-hikes-can-raise-tax-without-hurting-the-poor-an-economist-sets-out-the-evidence-254213

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Could Trump be leading the world into recession?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Steve Schifferes, Honorary Research Fellow, City Political Economy Research Centre, City St George’s, University of London

    Carolyn Franks/Shutterstock

    Growth forecasts for the US and other advanced economies have been sharply downgraded by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in the wake of dramatic swings in US president Donald Trump’s economic policy. But could the uncertainty and the turmoil in financial markets eventually be enough to push the world into a recession?

    The IMF says that global growth has already been hit by the decline in business and consumer confidence as “major policy shifts” by the US unfold. These are leading to less spending and less investment.

    It also predicts further damage from the disruption in global supply chains and inflation caused by tariff increases.

    But while the IMF forecasts a sharp reduction in world economic growth in 2025 and 2026, it is not projecting a recession – for now. However, it says the chances of a global recession have risen sharply from 17% to 30%. And there is now a 40% chance of a recession in the US.

    The head of the IMF, Kristalina Georgieva, has blamed the slowdown on the ongoing “reboot of the global trading system” by the US. She said this is leading to downgrades in growth estimates, while volatility in financial markets is “up” and trade policy uncertainty is “literally off the charts”.

    As part of the IMF forecasts, growth projections for the world’s richest countries in 2025 have been sharply reduced. In the US it is down 0.5% to just 1.8%, while growth in the euro area is projected to be just 0.8%. Japan will be growing by even less at 0.6%. Germany – the EU’s largest economy – is projected to have no growth at all.

    And for the UK, growth has been cut by 0.5%, to a very weak 1.1%, which is in line with forecasts from March. This is well below the 2% projected at the time of the last budget in the autumn. And despite the adjustments made in the UK’s spring statement, the downgrade is likely to mean more tax increases, spending cuts, or both.

    Some developing countries are doing much better, with India projected to have one of the highest annual GDP growth rates at 6.2% in 2025. Meanwhile, China’s growth forecast has been cut sharply due to the effect of US tariffs. It is now projected by the IMF to be down by 1.3% to just 4%.

    Other poorer developing countries will also be negatively affected, but most will continue to grow at a faster pace than major industrial nations.

    What the forecast underscores is that the era of rapid globalisation, spurred by trade and integration of financial markets, seems to be coming to an end.

    Its rapid spread since the 1950s, which accelerated in the 1980s, led to a huge expansion of the world economy. But it created winners and losers, both between nations and within them.

    The Trump administration’s answer to this is massive tariff increases
    hitting countries that stand accused of “ripping off America”. The tariffs have several contradictory objectives, including raising money pay for tax cuts; acting as a bargaining chip to open foreign markets to American goods; and encouraging manufacturers to relocate to the US.

    Trump has swung between these objectives, and backed down when market reaction became too fierce. These swings have destabilised trade and investment, as well as business and consumer confidence.



    Read more:
    Trump has shown he will backtrack on tariffs. What does that say about how to wage a trade war?

    Tariffs do not change the fact that many countries can produce the goods Americans want, more cheaply and often more efficiently. And the looming trade war could mean US exporters are hit with retaliatory tariffs, making it even harder to sell American goods abroad.

    The inflationary effect of tariffs – raising the price of imported goods – could reverse the recent successes of central banks in taming inflation. It could even force them to raise interest rates – something Trump is fiercely against.

    A more immediate effect of Trump’s erratic policy-making has been turmoil in financial markets. The US stock market has fallen sharply since Trump announced his tariff plan, currently down by nearly 15% (a loss of more than US$4 trillion (£2.99 trillion) for shareholders).

    This matters for the US economy, as most Americans depend on their stock market holdings to pay for their defined-contribution pensions. But even more worrying is the effect on the US Treasury bond market, which has been a safe haven in times of trouble. Foreign investors are now shunning US bonds, driving up interest rates for US government debt and unsettling financial institutions.

    Added to the problem is the sharp drop in the value of the US dollar. Trump says he wants a weaker dollar, presumably to make US exports cheaper. But it also raises the price of imported goods and could fuel inflation. Ultimately, it could threaten the role of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

    Potentially, big swings in normally steady financial markets can presage some of the same wobbles that led to the global financial crisis of 2008. That crisis threatened the solvency of the global financial system – although we have not reached that point yet.

    Winners and losers

    So what is the most likely outcome of the trade war, and the loss of a single hegemonic economic power? One example is what happened when Britain lost its dominant role in manufacturing and finance after the first world war.

    Attempts at rebuilding a global economic order failed, and other major countries (led by Germany and the US) reverted to autarky, stepping back from the international trading system and worsening the Depression of the 1930s.

    Just as Trump is trying to do, countries reverted to competitive devaluations. Each tried to make its exports cheaper than those of its rivals, ultimately to no avail. The world was divided into rival trading blocs, and it is conceivable that the US, the EU and China could form three such blocs in future.

    The last financial crisis, in 2008, was mitigated by prompt and cooperative action
    by central banks and governments. They injected trillions to stabilise the financial sector, but even now the damaging effects of this crisis on national growth rates is plain to see.

    The IMF has made it clear that it is not just the detail of the tariffs, but erratic US economic policy, that is the main culprit for the potential recession. The rising cost of servicing US debt as investors lose confidence is also raising the cost of the large public debts of other advanced economies, including the UK. This puts more pressure on public spending.

    Let’s hope that whatever the turmoil, we will not be repeating the mistakes of the past.

    Steve Schifferes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Could Trump be leading the world into recession? – https://theconversation.com/could-trump-be-leading-the-world-into-recession-255081

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Why Hollywood is finally taking horror films seriously

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Reece Goodall, Director of Student Experience and Progression for the Faculty of Arts, University of Warwick

    Horror films have always held an interesting place in cultural and cinematic circles. Despite proving consistently profitable and boasting a considerable fanbase, the genre has also been the target in several moments of cultural crisis. Think the video nasties of the 1970s and 80s, or the implied conservatism of the violence in torture porn films of the 2000s.

    Though the genre has been one of the industry’s most profitable genres since the 1930s, due to its perceived low status, horror has largely been unrecognised by award bodies, mainstream critics and the gatekeepers of more “legitimate” cinema. There’s an implied sense that the genre is somewhat different from respectable film-making – that it is low status, trashy and in some cases outright nasty.

    Only seven horror films have been nominated for best picture at the Oscars since the first ceremony in 1929. Two of those nominations were in the last decade, and there was widespread conversation about the bias against the genre after Toni Collette failed to receive an Oscar nomination for her performance in the 2018 film Hereditary.

    Even then, Collette’s excellent performance was in an auteur film released by indie studio A24. Far from the more conventional forms of horror that tend to be overlooked year on year by bodies recognising the year’s achievements in film-making. However, if we leap ahead to 2025 and look at the horror films that took the past year by storm – The Substance, Nosferatu, Terrifier 3 – all forms of the genre are represented.

    Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

    The Substance and Nosferatu could both be described as “elevated horror”, a sub-genre that focuses on negative moods rather than explicit gore (although both films certainly get bloody, especially in The Substance’s monstrous climax).

    On the other end of the scale, Terrifier 3 is particularly brutal, aligning itself more with grindhouse and slasher films and celebrating the practical effects that bring violence to the big screen. In another era, there is no doubt that Terrifier 3 would have been a target of censors and the cultural critics over its depictions of violence, with brutal deaths and the murder of several children. But in 2025, it is celebrated by genre fans and an object of serious academic interest.

    The films were all successes. Both The Substance and Nosferatu received multiple nominations at the 2025 Academy Awards. Along with Alien: Romulus, the horror genre picked up ten nominations, its best performance since 1974.

    Nosferatu was nominated for several Academy Awards.

    Elsewhere, Terrifier 3 broke records as the highest-grossing unrated film (a movie not given a rating by film censors, normally because of offensive content) of all time. Terrifier 3 never seemed likely to receive an Oscar nomination, even despite its success and a sustained and entertaining marketing campaign. Nonetheless, both fans and industry figures alike have suggested that its practical make-up effects warranted recognition.

    So why is horror becoming more widely appreciated in the 21st century? The “elevated horror” dimension is certainly one factor, presenting works that align more with the conventions of art cinema, which is essentially easier to sell as legitimate.

    Alongside this, we have the political dimension. Horror films have always been political, representing the fears and marginal identities of a particular country and time period. But in an era characterised by increased instability, pandemics, wars and all manner of social crises, the need for the genre might be more prevalent than ever.

    The terrifying trailer for Terrifier 3.

    In light of the industry’s continuing struggle with declining cinema attendance numbers, horror remains one of the rare genres that consistently draws audiences to theatr. Although films like Terrifier 3 might be looked down on by the cinema establishment, it was event cinema and widely discussed in a way that few films in the past five years have managed to be.

    Audiences have always loved horror, and in a tough period for the cinema industry, the genre continues to prove financially stable and appealing to film-goers. That the gatekeepers of the industry are tentatively starting to recognise the genre is a new development, and although it remains to be seen whether this recognition will be sustained in future years, we’re in a moment when horror of all varieties is being praised like never before.

    Reece Goodall does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Why Hollywood is finally taking horror films seriously – https://theconversation.com/why-hollywood-is-finally-taking-horror-films-seriously-253687

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Celebrity Traitors: my research shows voting behaviour could help identify faithfuls

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Robin Kramer, Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology, University of Lincoln

    With the lineup of the upcoming celebrity series of The Traitors recently leaked online, people are once again debating the best strategies that players might use to succeed. But a player’s voting history can also reveal the psychological dynamics at play, particularly alliances they may be subconsciously forming.

    For those who aren’t familiar, the premise of the show is that each player is given the role of either “faithful” or “traitor”. Only the traitors know everyone’s roles in the game. If the faithful players eliminate all of the traitors by the end of the game, they divide the prize money equally among themselves. However, if one or more traitors remain by the end, all of the money goes to them instead.

    There are two ways for someone to be eliminated from the game. First, all of the players vote on who to “banish” at the round table each day. Second, the traitors decide on one person to “murder” overnight, who is then removed from the game before breakfast the following morning. There are also occasional tweaks to this format depending on the stage of the game.

    Ideally, faithful players would spot the lies that traitors tell. However, research shows that people don’t fare much better than chance at doing this, although certain individuals (who are often found to be working in law enforcement) or specialised groups, such as members of the US Secret Service, may be.



    Read more:
    Why we’re so bad at spotting lies – most of us only perform slightly better than chance

    Instead, players may base their decisions on unreliable biases. In a game where there’s so little to go on, they risk being blinded by the trustworthiness of a (fake) Welsh accent, for example, or drawing suspicions for simply being too quiet or too noisy. After all, there is a lot of behaviour that people often incorrectly link with deception. For instance, westerners commonly associate someone averting their gaze with lying but researchers have shown that looking away isn’t linked to deception.

    Spotting traitors is no easy task if you’re a faithful.
    Andrii Yalanskyi/Shutterstock

    Using voting behaviour as evidence

    Information from interactions with other players can be unreliable, but players also get to see how others vote at the round table. And this is where real evidence can be found.

    The faithful players have little to go on, so they end up voting for anyone – faithful and traitors alike. In contrast, traitors can direct their votes only at the faithful. If we combine these ideas, we see that traitors are more likely to be voted for by faithful players, even if this is by accident.

    The traitors don’t tend to vote for each other because they naturally form an alliance, working together to shape the game. Their secret meetings in Traitors’ Tower, shared uniform (a cloak and hood), and power to murder the faithful, construct a sense of “us versus them”. In fact, very little is needed for people to start behaving this way. Known as the minimal group paradigm, research has shown that simply segregating people based on their preference for certain artists or their eye colour is enough to change the way they behave towards each other.

    They may be happy to deceive the faithful, but the traitors are generally willing to trust each other. This mirrors a 2018 study where “deviant” study participants (who cheated on a task) felt connected to their team and trusted its members when the team engaged in coordinated acts of deviance (helping each other to cheat). Although they knew logically that their team shouldn’t be trusted, their sense of connection led to a feeling of trust nonetheless.

    Do voting records actually reveal players’ roles?

    Conveniently, all of the voting records for the show have been collated online. Let’s first exclude voting rounds which restrict the traitors’ options. During a round table which results in a traitor’s banishment, most players have voted for that traitor. There is good reason for other traitors to jump on the bandwagon at that point, to blend in and appear more faithful. Similarly, voting is limited after a tie, where the remaining options may force particular decisions.

    After excluding these two types of voting context, I investigated the votes for players who were traitors at the time of voting (rather than switching to this role later on) for the three series of the UK show. I also considered other completed series of English-language versions of the show: the US, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

    Altogether, 95% of the 76 votes for traitors were cast by faithful players. Remember Jake from series three earlier this year? As a faithful player, he voted for Linda right at the beginning of the game. When Linda was later revealed as a traitor, Jake’s abilities were championed by the other players, earning him the nickname “traitor hunter” and convincing them that he was faithful.

    So whenever a traitor is banished, players should consider who voted for that traitor in previous round tables – as we’ve seen, those votes probably came from the faithful. However, as the game progresses, there’s always the possibility that a faithful player could later be “seduced” into becoming a traitor, so it’s important to keep this in mind too.

    Players may not be able to rely on spotting “tells” or other cues to deception in the game, but there are always patterns in the ways people behave. You just need to know where to look.

    Robin Kramer does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Celebrity Traitors: my research shows voting behaviour could help identify faithfuls – https://theconversation.com/celebrity-traitors-my-research-shows-voting-behaviour-could-help-identify-faithfuls-223229

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: What does the UK Supreme Court’s gender ruling mean for trans men?

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Daniel Alge, Senior Lecturer in Criminology & Criminal Justice, Brunel University of London

    Alex Segre/Shutterstock

    The UK Supreme Court ruling backing the “biological” definition of a woman has been hailed by many as providing clarity on the law. But far from the matter being settled, it has raised complex questions, particularly when we consider that half of all transgender people are trans men. It even raises the possibility of trans men being excluded from both men and women’s spaces.

    The court unanimously agreed that, regardless of any gender reassignment or possession of a gender recognition certificate (GRC) recognising them as female, transgender women should not be recognised as women for the purposes of the Equality Act 2010. This means that access to single-sex spaces should be determined by biological gender assigned at birth.

    Meanwhile, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has said it will “pursue” the NHS unless it changes its gender policies. The NHS policies currently state that transgender patients should be accommodated in accordance with their self-identified gender, based on appearance, name and pronouns.

    Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

    Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

    For many complex reasons, trans men generally feature far less in the public discourse around trans issues. Trans men are currently under-researched and rarely considered by the mainstream media or academic literature.

    The Supreme Court’s own summary of the case sets out the issue in terms of the definition of “woman”. But it is clear that the judgment applies equally to trans men as it finds that each of the terms “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act refer to biological sex. The court concludes that any other definition would be “incoherent and unworkable”.

    The Office for National Statistics estimates there are roughly equal numbers (48,000) of trans men and trans women in England and Wales. This is supported by data from the US, which also shows roughly equal populations of trans men and trans women.

    Issues for trans men

    Those who support a biological definition of sex have framed their position as one which protects women’s rights and keeps women’s spaces safe by excluding men. By legal definition, that now includes trans women. However, it does not include trans men, who would have been born biologically female.

    This judgment means that trans men can be excluded from men’s single-sex spaces. But there may also be cases where they are excluded from women’s spaces too, despite being considered women under the ruling.

    The court found that it might be proportionate to exclude a trans man from a women’s single-sex service such as counselling for survivors of sexual abuse where “reasonable objection is taken to their presence … because the gender reassignment process has given them a masculine appearance…”.

    This statement highlights the flawed legal reasoning around trans men. In most circumstances they are to be treated as women, even if that creates absurdities in practical implementation. And yet, they can also be excluded from some women’s spaces if they appear too masculine. It could be argued that it is this decision which is “incoherent and unworkable”.

    The ruling could create more confusion over who can access single-sex spaces.
    Iryna_Kolesova/Shutterstock

    The Supreme Court decision repeatedly makes the point that “neither possession of a GRC [gender recognition certificate] nor the protected characteristic of gender reassignment require any physiological change or even any change in outward appearance”.

    However, in practice a GRC can’t be issued without a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria. It is very difficult for an individual to meet the diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria without making changes to their appearance or pursuing medical transition.

    Testosterone treatment means that trans men may find it easier to “pass” (be perceived as the gender they identify with) than trans women. Testosterone generally causes facial hair to grow, and creates a more masculine physique and a deeper voice without the need for any additional procedures.

    There are no official statistics, but a 2022 report by the advocacy group TransActual found that around 90% of trans respondents have accessed hormone therapy or surgery, or hope to do so in the future.

    This likely means that a majority of the 48,000 estimated trans men in England and Wales are likely to present as masculine, and be perceived as cisgender men. This is where any implementation of the Supreme Court’s ruling becomes complicated.

    Single-sex spaces

    The decision, subject to any future clarification, means that trans men are not permitted to enter men’s single-sex spaces such as men’s toilets, gym changing rooms or hospital wards. Instead, they should use the women’s single-sex spaces including communal changing areas, in accordance with their biological sex.

    The justices briefly considered this issue when they gave the example of an employer requiring that a warden in a women’s or girls’ hostel be female. Before this ruling, such a role would be open to a trans woman with a GRC, but not to a trans man with a GRC.

    The court stated that “a biological definition of sex would correct this perceived anomaly”. However, this means that the warden in the girls’ hostel can now be a trans man, who could well be indistinguishable from a cis man to the residents of the hostel.

    There is also the concern that both trans men and trans women will expose themselves to a greater risk of harassment, which has already increased considerably, if they are forced to out themselves by using facilities which don’t align with the gender they present as.

    Daniel Alge does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. What does the UK Supreme Court’s gender ruling mean for trans men? – https://theconversation.com/what-does-the-uk-supreme-courts-gender-ruling-mean-for-trans-men-254868

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-Evening Report: Albanese government announces $1.2 billion in plan to purchase critical minerals

    Source: The Conversation (Au and NZ) – By Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

    A re-elected Albanese government will take the unprecedented step of buying or obtaining options over key critical minerals to protect Australia’s national interest and boost its economic resilience.

    The move follows US President Donald Trump’s ordering a review into American reliance on imported processed critical minerals and Australia’s discussions with the United States about a possible agreement on these minerals as part of negotiations to get a better deal on US tariffs.

    Australia has major deposits of critical minerals and rare earths. But almost all the processing of critical minerals is done by China, which uses this as leverage in disputes with other countries. As part of its tariff dispute with the US, China this month suspended exports of a wide range of critical minerals and magnets.

    Critical minerals are vital in the production of many items, including defence equipment, batteries, electronics, fibre optic cables, electric vehicles, magnets and wind turbines.

    Prime Minister Anthony Albanese flagged recently that Australia would establish a critical minerals reserve and the government has now released details of its plan.

    The government investment in critical minerals would come through two new mechanisms:

    • national offtake agreements

    • selective stockpiling

    The government would acquire, through voluntary contracts, agreed volumes of critical minerals from commercial projects, or establish an option to purchase them at a given price.

    It would also establish a government stockpile of key minerals produced under offtake agreements.

    “The primary consideration for entering into offtake agreements will be securing priority critical minerals for strategic reasons,” the government said in a statement.

    Minerals held by the reserve would be made available to domestic industry and key international partners.

    This would cover a deal with the US, if that can be reached.

    “The Reserve will be focused on a subset of critical minerals that are most important for Australia’s national security and the security of our key partners, including rare earths,” the statement said.

    As its holdings matured, the reserve would generate cash-flow from sales of offtake on global markets and to key partners, the statement said.

    “The Strategic Reserve will also accumulate stockpiles of priority minerals when warranted by market conditions and strategic considerations, but it is anticipated that these will be modest and time-limited in most cases.”

    The government would make an initial investment of $1.2 billion in the reserve, including through a $1 billion increase in the existing Critical Minerals Facility. This would take the government’s investment in the facility to $5 billion.

    The facility, established in 2021, provides financing to selected projects that are aligned with the government’s critical minerals strategy.

    The government plans to consult with states and companies on the scope and design on the Strategic Reserve, which it would aim to have operating in the second half of next year.

    ALbanese said: “In a time of global uncertainty, Australia will be stronger and safer by developing our critical national assets to create economic opportunity and resilience.

    “The Strategic Reserve will mean the government has the power to purchase, own and sell critical minerals found here in Australia.

    “It will mean we can deal with trade and market disruptions from a position of strength. Because Australia will be able to call on an internationally-significant quantity of resources in global demand.”

    Resources Minister Madeleine King said: “Critical minerals and rare earths and essential not only to reducing emissions but also for our security and the security of our key partners.

    “While we will continue to supply the world with critical minerals, it’s also important that Australia has access to the critical minerals and rare earths we need for a Future Made in Australia.”

    Michelle Grattan does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Albanese government announces $1.2 billion in plan to purchase critical minerals – https://theconversation.com/albanese-government-announces-1-2-billion-in-plan-to-purchase-critical-minerals-254994

    MIL OSI Analysis – EveningReport.nz –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Harvard is suing the White House: here’s what Trump hopes to achieve by targeting universities

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Thomas Gift, Associate Professor and Director of the Centre on US Politics, UCL

    A few days ago, in a move that attracted international attention, the White House threatened to strip Harvard University of US$2 billion (£1.5 billion) in federal funding, potentially revoke its tax-exempt status and even prevent it from enrolling international students if it didn’t capitulate to a new list of demands.

    The five-page ultimatum reads like a political ransom note. It calls on Harvard to make major “governance reform” including enforcing “viewpoint diversity” in admissions and hiring, squashing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and more screening of foreign student applicants for their beliefs and reporting those who commit “conduct violations” to authorities.

    Now, the White House says it was all a big misunderstanding – that the letter was “unauthorized” and that it was Harvard’s fault for not recognising the mistake. Instead of “pick[ing] up the phone … Harvard went on a victimhood campaign,” said a senior policy strategist for Trump in the New York Times. Never mind, as Harvard noted, that the letter was signed by three federal officials and printed on official letterhead.

    But the war between the White House and Harvard is far from over. Trump is likely to be in it for the long game and have many more plays to make.

    On Monday, Harvard announced it was suing the Trump administration for its prior threat to axe the school’s funding – a move Harvard said would have “severe and long-lasting” effects.

    Harvard’s huge US$50 billion endowment gives it the ability to absorb federal spending cuts in a way that even other wealthy US universities can’t. Yet the university’s leadership still says that it would need to make draconian slashes to its research and student programming if federal cuts happened.

    “We are going to choke off the money to schools that aid the Marxist assault on our American heritage and on Western civilization itself,” Trump has previously stated, hinting at his wider project to wield power over universities and significantly change the way they operate.

    Part of a bigger plan

    It’s not just Harvard that’s facing the heat — although as the nation’s most prestigious and high-profile university, its decisions will set the tone for the rest of the sector. More than 40 universities across the US are under investigation by the Trump administration, including for alleged illicit actions by DEI offices and charges of tolerating anti-semitism.

    Another Ivy League university, Columbia in New York, for example, has caved to Trump’s demands as a precondition for restoring US$400 million in federal grants, with one group alleging that the cuts constitute an existential “gun to the head”. Johns Hopkins University, in Maryland, has seen at least US$800 million in federal spending cut, forcing the school to slash more than 2,000 jobs.

    J.D. Vance outlines his views on US universities.

    It’s hard to overstate the backlash. Princeton president Christopher Eisgruber has called Trump’s latest moves “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s”. Political analyst Fareed Zakaria believes that the Trump White House is waging a version of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution, when the Chinese leader took control of China’s leading universities.

    “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” said Harvard president Alan Garber.

    Trump’s attacks on universities follow a blueprint: identify institutions seen as elite, liberal and out of touch, and undercut their legitimacy relentlessly.

    The current crackdown fits a broader pattern, which includes the dismantling of the US Agency for International Development, seen as a soft target when many Americans think the country spends too much on foreign aid, and swipes at some of the nation’s top law firms, cast by Trump as part of an out-of-control, “rigged” legal system.

    Perhaps the only question is why the Trump administration didn’t come after universities sooner. As CNN’s Stephen Collinson has noted: “Harvard University is such a perfect foil for Trumpism that it’s a wonder it avoided the MAGA maelstrom for so long.”

    Recent campus unrest and rising concerns over anti-semitism — spotlighted by a trio of controversial congressional testimonies by the presidents of Harvard, MIT, and the University of Pennsylvania in 2023 — have provided a convenient political opening for Maga crusaders. However, Trump’s latest tirade almost certainly has less to do with principle than political opportunity.

    Recent polling from Gallup shows that trust in higher education has plummeted since roughly the first time Trump ran for president. In 2015, 57% of Americans possessed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education. Today, that number is just 36%. For Republicans, those numbers have dropped even more sharply, from 56% to 20%.

    There’s plenty of speculation about what’s driving these figures, but most are inextricably linked to partisan politics. Harvard Law School’s Jack Goldsmith and Adrian Vermeuele say that elite colleges have made it easy for conservatives to dislike them, and should reflect on why.

    Critiques of academia include accusations that faculties and student bodies tilt far to the left. At Harvard, for example, just 3% of professors identify as conservative, and 13% of recent graduates.

    These charges coincide with allegations of illiberal student “mobs” who shout down and heckle speakers and refuse to allow dissenting opinions. According to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, for instance, Harvard is at the bottom of the table – scoring zero out of 100 – in its annual college free speech ranking.

    Adding to the controversy are claims that DEI offices have gone “too far” in inculcating a “oppressor-oppressed” mentality on campuses. The Trump administration views universities as ground-zero of the broader DEI trend that proliferated in the public and private sector during the Biden years.

    Declining trust in universities has doubtlessly been exacerbated by Maga rhetoric. Before being elected, Vice-President J.D. Vance announced that “the professors are the enemy”. Marc Lampkin, a longtime Republican strategist, said that “Republicans believe that … universities are the training ground for left, progressive camps”.

    That Harvard sits on a US$50 billion endowment, even as it takes advantage of tax benefits as a nonprofit, strikes many in the Trump camp as unfair.

    The clash between Harvard and the White House is laying the groundwork for a high-stakes showdown, pitting academia’s defenders against the Magaverse. Yet it’s possible to believe two things at once: that universities do suffer from some, even many, of the ailments that Trump has alleged; and that Trump’s onslaught against higher education is strategically misguided, politically motivated and aimed at putting universities under the president’s thumb.

    Thomas Gift teaches an annual course in the Harvard Summer School, and worked full-time at the Harvard Kennedy School in 2015-16.

    – ref. Harvard is suing the White House: here’s what Trump hopes to achieve by targeting universities – https://theconversation.com/harvard-is-suing-the-white-house-heres-what-trump-hopes-to-achieve-by-targeting-universities-254850

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: London marathon: why you need a plan to prevent the post-race blues

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Helen Owton, Lecturer in Sport and Fitness, The Open University

    IR Stone/Shutterstock

    As the sun rises over the river Thames on marathon day this year, tens of thousands of cheering spectators will fill the streets and a record-breaking 56,000 adrenaline-fuelled runners will gather at the starting line of the TCS London marathon.

    At the start of the gun, the stampede of runners will surge forward bringing the streets of London alive with the rhythmic thud of trainers, the sweat of determination, and the roaring of the crowd shouting: “Come on, you can do it!”

    The race isn’t just about competition; it’s a celebration of perseverance, passion and overcoming adversity. “Every marathon is up and down, very emotional” says “Britain’s bladerunner” double Paralympic gold medallist Richard Whitehead, who holds the Guinness World Record for fastest double amputee marathon in 2024.

    At the finish line, exhaustion is mixed with triumph and runners share in a sense of collective achievement. But, once the race is over, it’s back home to daily tasks; the gruelling demands of the training schedule vanish, and the highs of the marathon can fade quickly.

    The low after the high

    While marathon runners usually experience a great sense of accomplishment and euphoria after completing a race, it can often be followed by a lingering sense of emptiness.

    A 2024 study found that endurance athletes often face a mixture of emotions after a race, both physically and mentally. Their feelings seem to depend on factors like how much time they spent training and their ability to set new goals for the next phase of training.

    A comedown after a major event is a common experience for many athletes. After the months of intense training, physical exertion and the emotional high of participating in such a momentous event, the mind and body can experience a crash and “post-marathon blues” can set in as the excitement, adrenaline and sense of purpose and meaning fades.



    Read more:
    ‘Olympic comedown’ is a common ailment after the games – here’s what it is and how athletes cope

    The post-marathon blues describes mild depression and feelings of emptiness. It’s characterised by increased anxiety levels, depression, burnout and challenges in adjusting back to everyday life.

    Set goals, rest and recover

    Marathon runners report that it can take between one to eight weeks before they feel their wellbeing return to pre-race levels. While setting goals ahead of time could help alleviate negative emotions after the marathon, attempting to achieve another goal too soon also has its risks, including injury and training plateau.

    Eddie Izzard, who ran 43 marathons in 51 days in 2009 and 31 in 31 days in 2020 has been open about the physical toll of running multiple marathons. For some, though, marathon running is a way of life, as “ ultramarathon man” Dean Karnazes explains:

    I run because if I didn’t, I’d be sluggish and glum and spend too much time on the couch. I run to breathe in fresh air. I run to explore. I run to escape the ordinary. I run … to savour the trip along the way. Life becomes a little more vibrant, a little more intense. I like that.

    Setting a new goal, however, doesn’t have to be another marathon or even another sports-related goal. Reflect on and enjoy the sense of achievement from running a marathon and channel this into other aspects of your life and explore other interests like a DIY project or a hobby.

    A post-marathon plan is just as crucial as the pre-marathon training schedule. Proper recovery and continued maintenance of your physical and mental wellbeing are essential for long-term performance, injury prevention and overall health. While there is no one-size-fits-all recovery plan, some suggest a phased recovery, building up to a return to training after adequate recovery time.

    In the end, post-marathon blues is a real challenge. Despite the euphoria of such an incredible achievement, experiencing negative emotions is inevitable and something you might not be able to avoid. But post-marathon blues doesn’t have to define the journey. It’s all part of the process. And athletes, if physically and psychologically prepared, can turn the finishing line into a new starting point.

    Helen Owton does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. London marathon: why you need a plan to prevent the post-race blues – https://theconversation.com/london-marathon-why-you-need-a-plan-to-prevent-the-post-race-blues-253978

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Young UK journalists learn towards activist roles, away from objectivity – new survey

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Imke Henkel, Lecturer in Journalism and Media, University of Leeds

    fizkes/Shutterstock

    The role of journalists has been changing for some time now. Due to the rise of social media, journalists no longer hold the monopoly on informing the public and holding the powerful to account. Nor do they keep their role as exclusive gatekeepers for news. And many readers find that algorithms do a better job of selecting news than human editors.

    For a new report on the state of the journalism profession in the UK in the 2020s, my colleagues and I asked journalists what they think their role in society should be today. Facing a world of rising authoritarianism, war in Europe and catastrophic climate change, a younger generation of UK journalists increasingly believe they should occupy a more activist role in society.

    We asked a representative sample of 1,130 UK journalists how important a selection of 24 roles were to them. These included informer roles such as “being a detached observer”, to advocating roles such as “promote peace and tolerance” and audience-oriented roles such as “provide entertainment and relaxation”. We measured their answers on a scale from “not at all important” to “extremely important”.

    These questions were part of a wider survey my colleagues Neil Thurman, Sina Thäsler-Kordonouri and I conducted at the end of 2023. Our survey is the UK leg of the third wave of the Worlds of Journalism Study, a global project researching the state of journalism across 75 countries.

    The survey follows a similar one conducted eight years earlier. Comparing journalists’ answers to both allows us to understand how their professional attitudes have changed.

    Then and now, the roles journalists hold to be most important are those considered to be the traditional purpose of journalism: being a detached observer (linked to objectivity), providing analysis of current affairs, and – the classic watchdog role – monitoring and scrutinising those in power. More than half of our respondents thought that these roles were “extremely” or “very important”.

    However, we found a notable shift in which roles journalists emphasise over others. While they still consider their traditional roles to be essential, many appear to be leaning more towards activist roles, and away from roles linked to objectivity.

    In 2015, 77% of respondents thought that “being a detached observer” was “extremely” or “very important”. In 2023, it was 69%. Tellingly, there is also a generational shift. While 74% of respondents over 40 rate their role as detached observers as very or extremely important, just 60% of those under 40 do.

    The activist role

    UK journalists’ interest in the more activist watchdog role has risen between 2015 and 2023. It should be noted that the question was asked slightly differently in 2015. Then, 48% found it very or extremely important to monitor and scrutinise political leaders, and 59% thought the same about business. In 2023, 65% considered monitoring and scrutinising those in power very or extremely important.

    In general, we found that as younger journalists are turning away from roles that can be considered more neutral, such as “providing analysis of current affairs”, they are becoming more interested in more activist roles.

    Roles such as “speaking on behalf of the marginalised” and “shining a light on society’s problems” are both more important for journalists under 40 than for older journalists.

    We also found that the role of “educating the audience” was significant – 88% of respondents said it was important. This role can sometimes be considered more activist, as it may involve conveying cultural or moral values in addition to information. Along with younger journalists, we found those who produce for podcasts and for radio are significantly more interested in this role than other journalists.

    Young journalists were more likely to embrace activist roles.
    Silatip/Shutterstock

    We also observed that roles which support active participation in democracy, such as “provide information people need to form political opinions”, are more favoured by journalists working for local and regional media than by their colleagues at national outlets.

    Those working for internet native media reported being less interested in these roles than those in legacy media (newspaper, TV or radio). Additionally, journalists’ interest in commercially driven roles like “providing the kind of news that attracts the largest audience”, has decreased.

    Responding to pressure

    Recent political and social upheavals have raised confronting questions about journalists’ role in society.

    In the aftermath of Brexit, journalists were accused of failing their democratic role. So-called mainstream media have been criticised by alternative media for supposedly reinforcing the establishment’s agenda. And journalists’ traditionally most treasured value – objectivity – has been questioned in the face of the war in Ukraine, social movements such as Black Lives Matter and existential threats like climate change. It’s no wonder that many journalists themselves are perturbed by what is happening to their profession.

    Our survey points to a notable shift in journalists’ professional attitudes. UK journalists, especially the younger generation, seem to respond more to the pressures that challenge their traditional roles. Meanwhile, local news outlets and legacy media emerge as the most determined advocates for journalism’s democratic role.

    The dispute about the contested value of journalistic objectivity has become a bellwether for journalists’ changing professional culture. Our survey shows that, while still important for UK journalists, it is indeed eroding.

    Imke Henkel does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. Young UK journalists learn towards activist roles, away from objectivity – new survey – https://theconversation.com/young-uk-journalists-learn-towards-activist-roles-away-from-objectivity-new-survey-254839

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Brown rice contains more arsenic than white rice – but here’s why you shouldn’t worry

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Iain Brownlee, Associate Professor, Nutrition, Northumbria University, Newcastle

    nesavinov/Shutterstock

    Brown rice contains more arsenic than white rice, according to a recent study from the US. Understandably, that might sound alarming. After all, arsenic is a well-known toxin. But the levels found in brown rice are not a health risk. And brown rice, like other whole grains, is still an important part of a healthy diet.

    To understand the issue, it helps to remember an old principle from toxicology: the dose makes the poison. In other words, harmful substances can be harmless – or even beneficial – at low enough doses.

    Arsenic, while dangerous in high amounts, is naturally found in soil and water and can show up in many foods, including rice.

    The new study makes this very clear: the amount of arsenic in brown rice is far below any level considered risky for human health. What matters is both how much is present and how often it is consumed.

    For most people, the exposure from eating brown rice is minimal and not something to worry about.

    Despite the study’s reassuring conclusion, some news outlets ran with scary headlines. Such as: Toxic metal linked to cancer, autism found in brown rice as scientists say it’s time to rethink healthy option. And: Think brown rice is healthier than white rice? Study finds high level of carcinogen in brown rice in the US.

    Pesticides, preservatives, trace metals – all can sound scary out of context. But for most people, the health risks don’t come from what’s in our food in tiny amounts – they come from our everyday choices.

    What we should be worried about

    In countries like the UK, less than one in 1,000 people follow all aspects of national dietary guidelines. That means most people aren’t eating enough fruit, vegetables and whole grains – and that’s a much bigger problem.

    In fact, poor diet is a bigger cause of illness and early death worldwide than smoking or alcohol. Two of the top dietary risk factors? Eating too much salt and not enough whole grains.

    Cardiovascular disease, the world’s leading cause of death for decades, kills around 20 million people each year. During the COVID pandemic, it remained deadlier than the virus itself. One of the simplest ways to reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease is to eat more whole grains.

    A poor diet kills more people than smoking or alcohol.
    Rimma Bondarenko/Shutterstock

    So while it’s true that brown rice has more arsenic than white rice, not eating brown rice (or other whole grains) may pose a greater health risk. (Other whole grains options to choose from include: oats, quinoa, barley and whole wheat pasta and bread.)

    If you’re fortunate enough to have choices about what to eat, take a moment to reflect on how your habits align with national dietary guidelines. If you’re already eating well, great – keep it up. If not, start small: swap in a few whole grains and reduce your salt intake.

    And if you’re still not convinced about brown rice, that’s OK. Choose another whole grain that works for you. Just don’t let a misunderstood detail about arsenic scare you away from one of the most positive foods choices you can make.

    Iain Brownlee currently receives funding from the European Research Agency/Medical Research Council and the National Institute of National Institute of Health and Care Research. He has previously received funding from multiple government organisations in the UK, Singapore and Australia, as well as multiple industry funders including Nestlé/Cereal Partners Worldwide.

    – ref. Brown rice contains more arsenic than white rice – but here’s why you shouldn’t worry – https://theconversation.com/brown-rice-contains-more-arsenic-than-white-rice-but-heres-why-you-shouldnt-worry-254668

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: Severance: what the hit show can teach us about cybersecurity and human risk

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Oli Buckley, Professor in Cyber Security, Loughborough University

    What if your work self didn’t know about your personal life, and your home self had no idea what you did for a living? In Apple TV’s Severance, that’s exactly the deal: a surgical procedure splits the memories of employees into “innies” (who only exist at work) and “outies” (who never recall what they do from nine to five).

    On the surface, it sounds like an ideal solution to a growing cybersecurity problem of insider threats, such as leaks or sabotage by employees. After all, if an employee can’t remember what they accessed at work, how can they leak it, sabotage it, or sell it?

    As someone who has researched insider threats for the last decade I can’t help but see Severance as a cautionary tale of what happens when we try to eliminate threats without understanding people.

    The threat from within

    Insider threats really hit prominence in the wake of high-profile incidents like Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden, who both leaked top secret government information. These threats are one of the most persistent challenges in security because unlike “traditional” hackers, insiders already have access to sensitive systems and information.

    They might act maliciously, stealing trade secrets or exposing data, or accidentally, through phishing links or lost devices. Either way, the consequences can be more serious because of the unprecedented levels of access someone has while working within an organisation.

    While we often think of the high-profile cases in the first instance, the reality of most insider incidents is far less dramatic. Think of the disgruntled employee who downloads a client database before leaving, or the well-meaning staff member who shares a sensitive file via the wrong link.

    In fact, one of the most iconic examples of an insider threat in fiction is Jurassic Park. The entire catastrophe begins, not with a dinosaur, but with a software engineer, Dennis Nedry, who disables the park’s security in an attempt to steal trade secrets. It’s a reminder that even the most sophisticated systems can be undone by a single rogue employee.

    Organisations try to manage this through access controls, behaviour monitoring and training. But people are unpredictable. Insider threats sit at the messy intersection of human behaviour, organisational culture and digital systems.

    This is where Severance strikes a chord. What if you could eliminate the human risk altogether, by turning employees into separate, tightly compartmentalised selves? In the show, workers at the shadowy Lumon Corporation have no memory of their job outside the office and vice versa.

    In a sense, it’s the ultimate form of “need to know.” An “innie” can’t tell anyone what they do because they don’t know anything beyond their desk. It’s a very elegant, although ethically problematic, solution for someone working in security. However, as the series unfolds, it becomes clear that the levels of control on offer through the process of severance come with a terrible cost.

    The problem with control

    The innies in Severance are trapped in an endless workday, unable to understand the meaning or value of their tasks. They form bonds, question authority and ultimately rebel. Ironically, it is the severed employees, the ones who are most closely controlled in the company, who become the greatest insider threat to Lumon.

    This mirrors something we know from real organisations: excessive surveillance, control and secrecy often backfires. For instance, Amazon has faced repeated criticism over its use of tracking technologies to monitor warehouse workers’ movements and productivity, with reports suggesting this has contributed to high stress, burnout and even rule-breaking as workers try to “game” the system.

    A 2022 study published in Harvard Business Review found that employees who feel overly monitored are significantly more likely to break rules or engage in counterproductive behaviour – undermining the very goals of workplace surveillance. If people feel undervalued or mistreated, they’re more likely to become disengaged or actively hostile. Security systems that ignore culture and trust are therefore often brittle.

    What Severance gets right is that insider threats are emotional and ethical problems as much as technical ones. They stem from how people feel about their role, their autonomy and their identity within a system. This is something that we can’t simply patch within a piece of software.

    Lessons from fiction

    Thankfully, no company in the real world is proposing surgical memory separation, at least not yet. But in an age of algorithmic management, increasing surveillance, and growing concerns about privacy, Severance resonates. It forces us to ask just how far should we go in the name of security?

    The answer isn’t to separate people from their work, but to build systems that are secure and respectful of the people within them; something increasingly backed by research.

    That means better design, clearer boundaries and a workplace culture that values openness, not just compliance. For example, implementing clear expectations around work hours and communication norms can help prevent burnout and promote wellbeing.

    Encouraging open communication channels, such as anonymous feedback systems, empowers employees to voice concerns without fear, fostering a culture of trust. Additionally, designing physical workspaces that promote collaboration, like open-plan areas and communal lounges, can enhance team cohesion and reflect organisational values.

    If we follow the example set by Lumon and try to remove all risk then we lose something far more essential – the humanity at the centre of our systems and organisations. Ultimately, removing that human focus could be the most significant vulnerability of all.

    Oli Buckley receives funding from Jason R.C. Nurse receives funding from The Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) and Responsible AI UK.

    – ref. Severance: what the hit show can teach us about cybersecurity and human risk – https://theconversation.com/severance-what-the-hit-show-can-teach-us-about-cybersecurity-and-human-risk-255024

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –

  • MIL-OSI Global: ‘Energy security’ is being used to justify more fossil fuels – but this will only make us less secure

    Source: The Conversation – UK – By Freddie Daley, Research Associate, Centre for Global Political Economy, University of Sussex

    corlaffra / shutterstock

    The UK government is about to host a summit with the International Energy Agency (IEA) on the future of energy security. It does so as the world grapples with war, geopolitical realignments and trade barriers, against a backdrop of accelerating climate upheavals. One of the expected outcomes of this summit is a new, agreed definition of what constitutes energy security in the 21st century.

    Common understandings of energy security have focused on making supplies reliable and affordable, with less attention paid to ensuring sources of energy are sustainable and less volatile over the medium- and long-term. This neglect compromises our collective security.

    The IEA’s 31 member countries and 13 associates include most of the world’s most powerful states. Its influence means that this new definition of energy security will be used to inform government policies and investment decisions around the world. Given the cost of energy infrastructure, and the lengthy time it takes to build these projects, this definition is set to shape our future, economically and climatically.

    But there is a very real risk that this definition will open the door to further investments into fossil fuel production under the guise of energy security.

    International Energy Agency (IEA) member and ‘association member’ countries.
    IEA, CC BY-SA

    After Russia invaded Ukraine, governments rushed to cut their reliance on Russian fossil fuels. This caused major disruptions as prices spiked and millions were pushed into energy poverty.

    Europe alone spent an extra €517–€831 billion (£444–£713 billion) on energy in 2021 and 2022, even though some imports from Russia continued through so-called “shadow fleets”. Some argued that high fossil fuel prices only embolden leaders like Putin and help fund their conflicts.

    Governments responded with “energy nativism”, as they sought to secure as much energy as possible for their citizens at whatever cost. This typically meant boosting renewables and bulk buying oil and gas. In the UK’s case, it also meant the previous government issuing hundreds of new licenses to drill for oil and gas to “increase energy security” – licenses the current government says it will honour).

    Shipments of liquified natural gas (LNG) were also redirected from poorer countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh towards the highest bidders in Europe and Asia. This raises the question of who exactly is becoming more energy secure and at what cost.

    Meanwhile, large fossil fuel exporters like Qatar, the US and Australia ramped up production. A US official even referred to its gas exports as “molecules of freedom”. Australia has exported so much natural gas it may have to buy its own gas back from Japan at market price.

    The sheer volume of investment in new oil and gas infrastructure like offshore rigs or LNG terminals, combined with long build times, has locked in higher fossil fuel production and pushed emissions to record levels. This poses significant risks for both exporters and importers, especially as future demand is uncertain and energy markets remain volatile.

    Fossil fuels remain dominant

    More fundamentally, continued reliance on fossil fuels is making humanity less secure. The vast majority of emissions still come from burning coal, oil or gas. Preventing climate catastrophe therefore requires us to phase out fossil fuels as fast as possible – with wealthy nations leading the charge. In their place, we’ll have to generate energy from renewable sources that do not replicate the volatility of globally traded fossil fuels.

    Yet despite some progressive policies, fossil fuels remain dominant across the global economy. Investment in oil and gas today is almost double the level it must fall below if the world is to reach net zero by 2050, according to the IEA’s own modelling.

    The pursuit of energy security has boosted renewables, but adding additional clean energy isn’t enough – it must ultimately displace fossil fuels entirely. This will require a whole-economy shift. That means cutting production of fossil fuels while also reducing demand, stabilising prices and building out clean energy fast enough to support the electrification of transport, industry and heating.

    But supply chains for batteries, solar panels and other key technologies are vulnerable. Delays and shortages could mean electricity prices spike, sparking social unrest. This is yet another risk of getting energy security wrong: if inflationary pressures drive the immiseration of the general public, governments and their energy plans will be short lived.

    The definition of energy security that comes out of the IEA summit should reflect the fact we’re now in a world of constant crises. True energy security means charting a path towards a world that is more socially, economically and environmentally secure. This means developing a well-managed global plan to phase out fossil fuels.

    Peter Newell receives research funding from UKRI for work on energy transitions.

    Freddie Daley does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

    – ref. ‘Energy security’ is being used to justify more fossil fuels – but this will only make us less secure – https://theconversation.com/energy-security-is-being-used-to-justify-more-fossil-fuels-but-this-will-only-make-us-less-secure-254094

    MIL OSI – Global Reports –