LEICESTER’S Golden Mile will continue to be the focus for Diwali Day celebrations, but with major changes to the annual event due to crowd safety fears.
Serious concerns about public safety at the popular event have been raised by the Diwali safety advisory group due to the massive crowd numbers the event has attracted in recent years.
The group – which includes event and safety experts from the city council, representatives from Leicestershire Police, NHS Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland ICB, East Midlands Ambulance Service, Leicestershire Fire and Rescue and crowd security providers – has warned that the current location is no longer fit for purpose, and urgent action needs to be taken.
Several meetings have since been held by the safety advisory group to consider a range of options, including relocating the popular event to Abbey Park or the city centre, extending it onto Belgrave Circle or moving it onto Melton Road.
Following council engagement with Belgrave businesses and local community representatives, the decision has now been taken to enable Diwali Day celebrations on Belgrave Road, where it has been held for more than 40 years.
However, major changes to the popular event will be required to ensure it can be held safely.
Belgrave Road will be closed to all traffic for the evening of Diwali Day to allow families and friends to celebrate safely together and enjoy the atmosphere, shops and restaurants of the Golden Mile.
Festive illuminations featuring more than 6,000 lights will continue to be installed along Belgrave Road during Diwali. The popular Wheel of Light will also return.
There will be no stage entertainment or firework display at this year’s event. And Cossington Street Recreation Ground will no longer feature as part of the festivities.
These measures need to be taken to avoid potentially dangerous crowd massing that has been observed at the event in the last two years.
The city council has committed to continue to work with the safety advisory group and local community representatives to see whether any further enhancements can be made that will not compromise public safety.
The new approach was agreed at a meeting last night between the City Mayor Peter Soulsby, Cllr Vi Dempster, asst city mayor for culture, representatives from the Leicester Hindu Festival Council and Belgrave Business Association, and members of the local Jain and Sikh communities. Local ward councillors, council officers and safety advisory group members also attended.
Graham Callister, the city council’s head of festivals, events and cultural policy said: “Diwali has been a real highlight of the city’s festival calendar and attracts thousands of people who come from far and wide to join in the celebrations on the Golden Mile.
“However, we are now being advised by our emergency service partners and event security providers that we have reached the point where the growing crowds and sheer volume of people attending is causing significant concern about public safety.
“Scaling back on event infrastructure and activity means there will be the additional space needed – and more importantly less congestion – to safely welcome the crowds that want to celebrate on Belgrave Road.”
Cllr Vi Dempster said: “Unfortunately, Leicester’s annual Diwali festival has become a victim of its own success. We’re being strongly advised by our emergency service partners and crowd control experts that it cannot continue safely in its current format due to the unrestricted and growing crowd numbers that it attracts, and that’s a warning we must take extremely seriously.
“We are absolutely determined that Diwali continues to be part of the city’s festive calendar. We also understand the depth of feeling to see it continue on the Golden Mile where it began over 40 years ago. To do that, we must ensure that it can take place safely. That must be paramount.”
Over the last two years, record crowds have turned out for the city’s Diwali celebrations on Belgrave Road and Cossington Street recreation ground. Last year’s event saw estimated crowds of up to 50,000 people attending.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Speech
Local Government Association Conference 2025
A speech from the Deputy Prime Minister at the Local Government Conference.
Can I just start by saying how proud I am to be back here in Liverpool.
And I’m sure you’ve all heard the devasting news this morning about the tragic loss of legend Diogo Jota.
I know everyone here, his fans and the city of Liverpool will be heartbroken by this news.
My thoughts are with his family at this saddened time.
It’s a pleasure to look out at a room full of people dedicated to serving the communities that you represent.
From Barnsley to Barrow – Cornwall to Cheshire…
Councillors and mayors are delivering day-in, day-out for local people right across our country.
I know how hard you work
I know the difference you make
I’m for local government because I’m from local government.
And yes, I wasn’t a councillor. But as a home help and a carer I was on the front line delivering local services.
And as a union rep, I worked with the leadership of a council to transform the service I worked in, for the good of the people that we served.
And as a young mum, facing low pay and insecure hours without much of a safety net, it was the Sure Start centre and the council home that helped me turn my life around.
The services that you deliver every single day changes lives
And I say that not just as the Deputy Prime Minister, but as someone whose own life was changed by local government
It’s why, in me, you will always have a Secretary of State that sees you as a partner, and not a punchbag.
And Conference, it may not surprise you to know – but I’m not a patient person.
I’ve been restless for 14 years.
I’m restless to give local people a stronger voice.
I’m restless to put decision-making in the hands of the people who know best.
I’m restless to restore local government and provide the change that we were elected to deliver.
Because I know how hard it has been
How it feels at the sharp-end at local government level
That’s why every single day in Westminster I’m fighting to turn that around
To put power back in your hands, and deliver for communities the length and breadth of Britain.
So – almost 12 months ago from the General Election, what have we delivered?
Just last month, in the Spending Review we announced five billion pounds of new funding for local services.
New funding means an 8% increase in Government funded spending power in the next four years compared to a reduction of 24% in the first four years of the last government.
We’ve delivered a £4 billion uplift to adult social care
alongside a targeted recovery grant of £600m for the areas most in need
we doubled the direct investment in preventative children’s social care services.
and provided a record £1.6bn for local road maintenance, enough to fill an extra 7 million potholes over the next year. I knew that would wet your whistle.
And an uplift for every single local highway authority.
We have refused to repeat the mistakes of the past which took the axe to your budgets, and left our communities to pay the price
You made the case for local government, and we listened.
That’s why we’re rolling back the era of micromanagement too, with simpler funding, and a rapid consolidation of your Finance Settlement.
We are handing you the freedom and flex to meet local needs without needing to get sign off from central government for the most minor change.
And right now, the paperwork you’re asked to fill out for micro-managed funds every year would stretch from here to the West side of Wirral!
There’s no justification for that – so we’re cutting it down
Meaning that you can focus on your priorities, not filling out forms.
And with more flexible funding, we’re giving you the opportunity to work more collaboratively including through new pilots so councils and mayors can pool budgets and do joined-up services, learning the lessons of projects like Total Place – the last Labour government’s pioneering reform programme.
Because we know every ambition of this government requires an active, empowered and strong local government.
And we were elected to bring change, and that change can only be achieved in partnership with you.
Nowhere is that more obvious than housing.
None of our ambitions are possible without the support and the expertise of people here today.
And the extraordinary examples of so many leaders in this room have inspired us to go further and faster.
Right here in Liverpool, under the leadership of Council leader Liam Robinson and the Mayor Steve Rotheram, this great city is going from strength to strength.
You only have to look at the incredible regeneration of the Liverpool Waters district – not too far from here, with new funding unlocking around 2,350 new homes.
Now Liam said the Central Docks could act as a “beacon for what housing developments in the 21st century can and should be”.
It’s hard to argue with that.
But you know – and I know – you need a government that matches your ambition.
And that’s why I am so proud to say that just last month we announced the biggest increase in the social and affordable homes budget for a generation!
Our historic £39 billion of new Social and Affordable Homes Programme aims to deliver around 300,000 new homes with at least 60% for social rent.
This is a personal priority not just for me, but for the whole of this Government.
And I say that, in the context of 160,000 children that are growing up in temporary accommodation
When a million are living their lives on social housing waiting lists, no government should sit back whilst people live their lives in limbo.
So through investment and reform, this government is backing councils and the whole social housing sector to deliver council housing.
That means a brighter future where families aren’t trapped in temporary accommodation and young people are no longer locked out of a secure home.
And we’re giving the sector certainty in other areas too.
A ten-year rent settlement, consulting on how to implement rent convergence,
Giving social landlords equal access to the building safety funds – for the first time ever
And in the Autumn, we’ll confirm our approach to help councils to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board.
And on top of this, we’re also committed to reforming the support given for skills capacity with a new Council Housebuilding Skills & Capacity Programme
And that will be a partnership between the LGA and Homes England – backed by £12 million in funding – and it will also help you get the skilled staff you need to build.
And the scale of this challenge means we all need to play our part.
Local authorities, housing associations, investors, developers, housebuilders, and regulators are all vital to help us reset social housing – so that it’s treated, once again, as the national asset that it is.
Now, taken together with our bold planning reforms, the new National Housing Bank and the billions we’re putting into transport and infrastructure
there’s a real opportunity here for councils.
Opportunity not just to build the decent, and secure homes that working people so desperately need, but to build stronger communities at scale and at pace.
Our goal of delivering 1.5 million homes will only be met by building affordable homes, with councils in the driving seat.
We want our new Programme to be a game-changer.
We’re setting a target which is six times more than were built in the last decade.
The truth is for too long, the potential of what local government can achieve has been underestimated by Whitehall.
Our government was elected to deliver change, and I know how fundamental you all are to delivering that.
But you’re all having to work within a broken system.
You’ve been left unequipped to deliver what is being expected of you.
And despite the huge sums that you’re spending on public services
On adult Social Care
Children’s Social Care
SEND
and temporary accommodation
I’m hearing loud and clear from you all, that these services are still not working for the people who need them.
And the truth is that Westminster just hasn’t kept its side of the bargain.
Public services need reform, and the onus is on us to work with you to deliver it.
And that is why I am here today to fire the starting gun on a new way of working with you to deliver the reforms we know are needed.
First, we are today announcing a fundamental shift, to radically simplify the funding and reporting regime that underpins your work.
Through a new Local Government Outcomes Framework, we will move together to a completely new way of measuring performance.
And this will be focused on delivering what we know matters most.
Outcomes like kids learning to read and write
people living healthier lives for longer
and communities feeling safe.
It brings everything in line with the government’s broader Missions and the Plan for Change
And means prioritising the long term, instead of getting caught up in the nuts and bolts.
The aim is that it frees you up to deliver meaningful outcomes
And facilitates a shift towards prevention.
But I know that we don’t have all the answers
So my promise to you, is that if you come with a new way of delivering a service and it shows results, we will work with you to pursue it.
The micromanagement of previous governments failed
It wasted taxpayers’ money, and got us into the mess we’re in now.
We can all recognise there are times when governments have to step in
And make no mistake, that I’m still prepared to intervene where there is failure to deliver
But it has to be by the book – and we can’t have a ‘Westminster knows best’ attitude.
That is why we’re putting together a clear menu of actions of how government will respond where services are failing.
I want everyone to know where they stand so concerns and weaknesses can be picked up before they become a crisis.
And I’m committed to writing this with the sector, to get this right the first time.
There’s real urgency to this – so to the Chief Executives and the Council Leaders here today
Keep an eye on your inbox, because straight after this speech today, you’ll be receiving details of how to get involved.
Now everyone in the room knows that ending Whitehall micro-management also means sorting out the spaghetti soup of obligations facing local government.
That’s why, alongside our new Outcomes Framework, we’ll be launching a comprehensive review to ensure unnecessary regulations and needless asks from government aren’t getting in the way of you serving your communities.
We will harness the Government’s AI team to unlock efficiencies.
And work lock step with the LGA so we get it right.
So, that’s two fundamental shifts in the way this government is doing business with local leaders.
And we won’t stop there.
Money is understandably at the forefront of everyone’s minds in this room.
You watched as your communities were unfairly short-changed for too long.
So that’s why – my third pledge – is to make good on a promise I made countless times in Opposition.
A promise to fund councils on the basis of need.
The last government promised a Fair Funding Review back in 2016, they recognised how outdated and unfair the funding process was back then.
[Political content removed]
But not under my watch.
Anyone who knows me, knows I don’t make promises that I can’t keep!
I listened to the people in this room calling for government funding to recognise the unique challenges of their place
whether that be rising temporary accommodation or even the pressure caused by huge footfall in coastal communities on the weekends.
Many of you – including our colleague, the Minister for Local Government – campaigned for this change for decades.
And this government will waste no time in delivering it.
We will implement a Fair Funding Review.
And yes, that’s the full-fat version!
Jim and I will make no apology for this.
Government grant will be allocated based on the drivers of need in your area in a fair and transparent way.
We will replace the decade old data, and for the first time, properly take into account factors such as deprivation and poverty
the cost of remoteness faced by rural communities – meaning bus drivers and refuse collectors have to travel miles to serve their communities.
We will take into account the varying ability to raise tax locally with lower house prices impacting on councils budgets
temporary accommodation and the impact of daytime visitors on major cities and coastal towns alike.
Taken together, this new approach supports every part of the country to manage their unique pressures.
And I’m impatient – as I know you are – for this change.
So alongside Minister McMahon, we will waste no time in putting things right to support places that lost out to rebuild those valued services and match money to need.
And true reform of local government means taking a long and serious look at the plumbing.
We won’t shy away from that.
That’s why my fourth on my list of Local Government is Local Government Reorganisation.
Now I can feel the anxiety levels in the room increasing at that phrase!!
But I think everyone in this room can agree that governments cannot keep passing the buck on this one.
If we are serious about shifting local government into a stronger footing…
And fit for the future
Delivering good services for residents
Then we must cut out this needless duplication.
We must take the brilliant leadership shown by district and county councillors, and move it to a simpler structure
with more resources for the frontline, and a clearer accountability for residents.
So many of you in this room have entered this process with an open mind and I want to thank you for your continued support as we navigate towards the end of a two-tier system in England.
You have my word, that Jim and I will work in partnership with you every step of the way.
Reforming local government also means learning from our mistakes as well as our successes.
And my fifth focus is on trusting local government to deliver services in-house.
Local government has long been the champion of insourcing – and I know too well about your efforts to innovate, and bring services in-house to lower costs and improve outcomes.
We hear you and are on your side.
That’s why we’re also delivering new procurement flexibilities for councils so you can confidently support your local businesses, and ensure that the investment and jobs stay local too.
We are working to undo the ideological presumption of outsourcing by default, as part of our plan to Make Work Pay.
The truth is that we’ve become hooked on short-term solutions – creating a costly dependence on external providers which can fail to deliver particularly for vulnerable people, young and old.
You’ve been telling us about your efforts to innovate, and bring services in-house to lower costs and improve outcomes.
With colleagues across government, we’ll introduce a quick and proportionate public interest test, to decide whether work could be done more effectively in house.
The consultation on insourcing launched last week and I have no doubt we will get a lot of responses from people here today!
I know what’s possible when local leaders have the powers to really deliver.
With local people seeing that change in their high streets, in the opportunities available to young people, and in their hopes for the future.
That’s why we’re shifting power out of Whitehall to our regions, and making devolution the default setting through our landmark English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill.
It’s part of building a modern state, built on the foundations of a strong local government.
So, that all levels and in everything we’re doing – whether through devolution, fairer funding, trusting local government in-house, or giving authorities the certainty and freedom to deliver on what really matter.
We’re handing power back to where it belongs – to people with skin in the game.
Resetting, rebuilding, and renewing local government, through ambitious investment and reform, and, with it, our country, after the hardest of years, so that it, once again, works for working people.
That’s the difference a government makes.
That’s the difference you make in your Local communities every single day.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Press release
£150m Capital Grants offer returns to help farmers boost profits
The government is making a substantial investment in the future of farming, supporting cleaner rivers, healthier soils, and more resilient landscapes.
Thousands of farmers will benefit from £150 million in new funding as the government opens a new round of its flagship Capital Grants offer, supporting sustainable food production and environmental improvement.
The offer funds a wide range of on-farm projects – from tree planting and flood prevention to improved slurry storage and water filtration – helping farmers boost profitability while protecting the environment.
Last year alone, Capital Grants helped plant over 4,000 miles of hedgerows and upgrade slurry systems to keep our rivers clean – real, tangible improvements for farming and the environment.
Environment Secretary Steve Reed said:
British farmers work tirelessly to feed the nation and look after our countryside. This major investment will give them the tools to cut pollution, restore nature, and grow their businesses.
It forms part of the record £11.8 billion we’ve committed to sustainable farming during this Parliament – boosting food security, supporting rural growth, and protecting the environment.
The announcement is the latest in a series of steps taken by the government to support the farming industry. These include slashing costs for food producers by cutting red tape on exports to the EU, appointing former NFU president Baroness Minette Batters to recommend reforms to boost farmers’ profits, and ensuring farmers get a bigger share of food contracts across our schools, hospitals, and prisons.
Farmers and land managers are now able to apply for a total of 78 items, ranging from supporting natural flood management projects to improving water quality on farms under this new round of the Capital Grants offer. Four new items have been added including assessing woodland condition, creating wildfire management plans, repairing drystone walls and hosting educational visits.
Changes are also being introduced to ensure that more farm businesses can access these grants – making it fairer for farmers by setting funding limits that maximise the number of farms benefiting, while enabling Defra to manage budgets more effectively. This includes funding limits to four of the six groups of capital items in this Capital Grants offer. An application can include items from each of the six groups. The funding limit for four of the groups is:
£25,000 maximum for each of the following three groups: water quality, air quality, and natural flood management
£35,000 maximum for the group covering boundaries, trees, and orchards
Defra will also listen to feedback from farmers and use it to improve the offer ahead of the next round, which we plan to open in 2026.
This comes as the Environment Secretary and Farming Minister head to the Groundswell Show to discuss the new Capital Grants launch. More details about the reformed SFI scheme will be published this Summer.
This is part of the government’s wider Plan for Change to grow the rural economy, support our farmers and boost Britain’s food security.
Source: Moscow Government – Government of Moscow –
The investor restored a cultural heritage site from the early 20th century on Skatertny Lane. After that, it was transferred to a preferential rental rate under the program “1 ruble per square meter per year.” This was reported by the Deputy Mayor of Moscow for Urban Development Policy and Construction Vladimir Efimov.
“The program “1 ruble per square meter per year” has been operating in the capital since 2012 and allows attracting an increasing number of investors to restore significant architectural monuments. Another object that was put in order thanks to the efforts of entrepreneurs was the stables with a carriage house of the Tarasov family city estate ensemble. The lease agreement for the object was concluded in June 2022. The investor fulfilled all the conditions of the program and was transferred to a preferential rental rate of one ruble per square meter per year,” said Vladimir Efimov.
The historic building with an area of over 250 square meters is located at the address: Skatertny Lane, Building 4/2, Building 2. The building is a two-story structure, where the firewall with an arched opening on the first floor has been preserved. All the rooms inside are covered with Monier vaults.
“In accordance with the agreement concluded with the city, the tenant carried out a complete restoration of the facades and painted the stables in gray with white details according to the model of the main house, and repaired the roof. The decorative elements of the building’s exterior were also restored. The structures were strengthened inside and the utility networks were replaced. Thanks to the transition to a preferential rental rate, the entrepreneur will be able to save more than 4.5 million rubles annually,” she noted.
Ekaterina Solovieva, Minister of the Moscow Government, Head of the Department of City Property.
To take advantage of the program, entrepreneurs take part in specialized auctions. Based on their results, they conclude real estate lease agreements with investors for 49 years. To transfer to a preferential rate, it is necessary to carry out restoration and recovery work under the supervision of Department of Cultural Heritage.
As the head of the Moscow City Department for Competition Policy noted Kirill Purtov, the opportunity to rent historical buildings under a preferential program is in demand among Moscow entrepreneurs. Since 2022, six such objects have been sold at auctions – on average, three participants bid for one lot.
Please note: This information is raw content directly from the source of the information. It is exactly what the source states and does not reflect the position of MIL-OSI or its clients.
Please Note; This Information is Raw Content Directly from the Information Source. It is access to What the Source Is Stating and Does Not Reflect
Source: People’s Republic of China in Russian – People’s Republic of China in Russian –
Source: People’s Republic of China – State Council News
BEIJING, July 3 (Xinhua) — Amid a new round of heavy rains, China’s Ministry of Water Resources on Thursday activated a Level 4 emergency response for flooding in northwest China’s Qinghai Province.
Heavy rainfall is forecast for eastern and southern Qinghai Province from Thursday to Saturday, with the storm expected to cause significant water levels in the upper reaches and tributaries of the Yellow River in the province, and flood levels in some small and medium-sized rivers in severely affected areas may exceed danger levels.
Local authorities are urged to strengthen flood monitoring and early warning, ensure effective flood control on rivers, and ensure the safety of people’s lives and property.
Based on the 24-hour rainfall forecast, the ministry issued warnings for 10 other provincial-level regions, including Hebei, Liaoning and Hainan provinces, urging them to take precautions and prepare for heavy rain.
Currently, three provincial-level regions of the country, namely Chongqing Municipality, Sichuan Province and Gansu Province, are under Level 4 flood emergency response.
Let us recall that China has adopted a four-tier emergency response system for flood-related emergencies, with level 1 being the highest. -0-
Source: Northern Territory Police and Fire Services
Bronx is serving up a variety of delicious thin crust pizzas that fold into your mouth perfectly – just like they do it in the USA.
This pizza spot is serving up Neapolitan-style woodfired slices.
All pizzas are homemade on a sourdough crust. There’s a menu change quarterly, dependent on seasonal produce.
On the current menu, you’ll find salami, mushroom and olive, potato and prosciutto, and more.
Located on the foreshore, this pizzeria has an extensive menu with all the classics and more.
They currently have a list of limited-edition pizzas which includes barbecue chicken and prosciutto, peri peri chicken and garlic prawn and chorizo.
This restaurant offers traditional and modern Italian dishes, updated each season.
Pizzas currently on the menu include prosciutto, calabrese and vegetarian options such as funghi and eggplant.
Pizza with lake views – does it get better?
This Italian restaurant offers an extensive list of pizzas to choose from.
Choose from a variety of meat and vegetarian options in a medium or large size.
Located at Deakin shops, this pizzeria is very popular among locals.
Choose from a variety of flavours with a Pizza Bianca or Pizza Rosso base – one made with tomato sauce base and one without.
Find this pizzeria next door to Edgar’s Inn at the Ainslie shops.
Mama Dough is serving up freshly made wood-fired pizzas including delicious flavours like sausage and potato, caramelised onion, mushroom, ham and pineapple and more.
Make sure to check out some of the great meal deals available.
This southside pizzeria offers Neapolitan-style pizzas.
On their website, they say the pizzas ‘rise slowly over 30 hours producing a naturally low gluten base, that is hand shaped and fired at 360 degrees’.
The menu includes tropical, supreme, barbecue chicken, Mexican and more. They also offer calzones (a folded pizza).
This pizzeria was founded by Chef Hemm, who is ranked in the top 100 pizza chefs worldwide.
Enjoy authentic, artisanal pizzas inspired by Tuscany. Pizzas on the menu include margherita, capricciosa and prosciutto and crudo.
You can also buy Chef Hemm’s pizzas at The Jetty from Hem & Co’s pizza van.
These woodfired pizzas came highly recommended by locals.
Their signature ‘Gusto’ is a must-try, featuring bocconcini cheese, shaved prosciutto, rocket and a drizzle of olive oil.
Pizza Gusto only does takeaway or outdoor seating and doesn’t take bookings.
Pop to Fraser for authentic, homemade woodfired pizzas.
Their ‘traditional’ range includes prosciutto and vegetarian pizzas. The ‘Aussie way’ range features a chicken and bacon pizza, and the ‘signature’ range includes a hot and sweet pizza with salami, olives and pineapple.
This spot is perfect for your next catch up with mates or birthday party.
Located at The Lawns of the National Triangle, this garden bar does takeaway or outdoor deck seating.
Pizza toppings include sausage, prawn, olive, pepperoni, margherita, and more.
If you’re feeling adventurous, you can also order a ‘Panuozzo’ – a combo of a pizza and a sandwich.
Find this pizza and pasta restaurant on London Circuit in the city.
Enjoy a variety of delicious woodfired pizzas including prawn and chorizo, funghi, meat lovers, pork belly and apple, and more.
You can also customise a pizza by choosing your own base, sauces and toppings.
Hot tip: takeaway orders receive 10% off.
Stuffed is located at Casey Marketplace and offers burgers, pizzas and more.
All pizzas are homemade on a crispy thin 13-inch base. Flavours include barbecue pesto chicken, prawn pizza, pulled pork and veggie.
This pub at Cook shops serves up big, bar-style pizzas.
On the menu find classic meat, veggie and vegan pizzas. You can pick a base of garlic, tomato or barbecue.
We recommend going for a slice on ‘Cheap Tuesday’ where most pizzas are over 35% off, with some close to 50%.
This modern pub’s pizza menu is a blend of classic Italian recipes and innovative flavours.
They have all the pizza classics like margherita and capricciosa, plus other exciting flavours such as garlic, zucchini and eggplant, potato and rosemary and an elevated ham and pineapple – made with smoked ham.
Dine in on Tuesdays and get two pizzas for $40.
Local takeaways
Canberrans told us that some of the best pizzas are found at these local takeaway joints:
Political and news cycles often work in a certain and predictable way. Issues flare like bushfires, then rage for weeks or even months, until they are finally extinguished by action or fade by being overtaken by the next big thing.
On two very different fronts this week, we’re reminded how these cycles work.
During the last term, the opposition constantly hammered the government over its handling of the former immigration detainees released after the High Court found they couldn’t be held indefinitely. These included people who had committed murder, child sex offences and violent assaults.
On Sunday, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke admitted in a television interview that the legislation the government passed to re-detain some of these people was, in effect, impossible to use. Burke’s comments attracted only limited attention.
The other reminder of an old story came when the Federal Court ordered a militant Muslim preacher to remove inflammatory lectures from the internet. He had lost a case brought by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry under Section 18C for the Racial Discrimination Act. More than a decade ago, political passions ran high in conservative circles about the alleged evils of 18C.
First to the Burke admission. Burke told Sky he had “a lot of resources” dedicated to trying to get applications to court for preventative detention orders. But “no one has come close to reaching the threshold that is in that legislation”. Burke insisted he was “not giving up”, but there is little reason to believe things will change. The opposition has suggested amending the preventative detention legislation, but Burke says that would hit a constitutional obstacle.
For a long time, the government had kept saying it was working up cases to put to the court (and given the impression action was close). But, realising the difficulty, it also passed legislation facilitating the deportation of these people to third countries. There are now three former detainees due to be deported to Nauru, following a financial agreement with that country. But there’s a hitch: their deportations are tied up in court appeals. (They are, however, able to be held in detention while the cases proceed.)
The challenge still presented by the former detainees in the community is no small matter, despite the political storm having calmed and the media interest dissipating.
In evidence in Senate estimates in March, the Department of Home Affairs said 300 people had been released from immigration detention as at the end of February. Of these, 104 had offended since release, and 30 were incarcerated (including on remand). Some 83 had only a state or territory criminal charge; seven only a Migration Act charge; 14 people had both a Migration Act charge and a state or territory charge. In recent weeks, one former detainee is alleged to have murdered a photographer in Melbourne.
The political context can be very relevant to whether the embers of an old issue re-spark into something major.
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s decision last year to put Burke into home affairs was something of a political masterstroke. If Clare O’Neil and Andrew Giles had still been in their former respective portfolios of home affairs and immigration, the present failure to deal more successfully with the former detainees would have been a much bigger issue. Burke is skilled at throwing a blanket over contentious areas.
On the other side of politics, James Paterson was moved out of home affairs to become shadow finance minister in Sussan Ley’s reshuffle. Paterson pursued the former immigration detainees relentlessly. The new spokesmen, Andrew Hastie (home affairs) and Paul Scarr (immigration) haven’t hit their strides yet, and what they have said on the issue hasn’t grabbed much attention.
The government would have been under more pressure on the issue if parliament were sitting. But the new parliament doesn’t meet until July 22.
When it does, one of the new arrivals will be a former face, Liberal MP Tim Wilson. Way back when, Wilson was a player in the story of 18C. For him, the way 18C resurfaced this week contains more than a little irony.
In February 2014, Wilson took up his post of Human Rights Commissioner, appointed by the Abbott government with the special brief of promoting freedom of speech. (He was even dubbed the “freedom commissioner”.)
The Abbott government was strongly opposed to section 18C of the Racial Discrimination Act, which made it unlawful to “offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate” a person or group because of their race or ethnicity.
The assault on 18C ran into vigorous opposition from ethnic and other groups, including the Executive Council of Australian Jewry. In the end, then prime minister Tony Abbott retreated. Wilson was disappointed, tweeting: “Disturbed to hear the government has backed down on 18c and will keep offensive speech illegal. Very disturbed.”
In his 2025 bid for election, Wilson – who had been member for Goldstein from 2016-2022 – was helped by the Jewish vote, after the rise of antisemitism.
The debate about free speech has moved on a great deal since the days of the Abbott government, when conservatives were particularly agitated about 18C following a court judgement against journalist Andrew Bolt relating what he has written about some fair-skinned Indigenous people.
Today’s debate is in the context of “hate speech” associated with the Middle East conflict. Hate-crime laws have provoked another fierce round of controversy about the appropriate limits to put on “free speech”.
The Executive Council of Australian Jewry brought its case under the 18C civil law against preacher William Haddad, from Western Sydney, after no action was taken by the authorities under the criminal law.
Haddad described Jews as “a treacherous people, a vile people”, among other offensive remarks, that included saying: “The majority of banks are owned by the Jews, who are happy to give people loans, knowing that it’s almost impossible to pay it back”. Haddad argued in his defence his lectures drew on religious writings, relating them to contemporary events, and were delivered for educational purposes.
Finding against Haddad, Judge Angus Stewart said the lectures conveyed “disparaging imputations about Jewish people and that in all the circumstances were reasonably likely to offend, insult, humiliate and intimidate Jews in Australia”.
Reflecting on this week’s decision, George Brandis – who was attorney-general during the 18C furore – says, “My view hasn’t changed. It should not in a free country be either criminally or civilly actionable to say something that merely offends. However, in this case the conduct went far beyond mere offence, to intimidation. It did not require 18C to get the redress that was sought in the case.”
Wilson does not wish to re-enter the debate. The new opposition industrial relations spokesman says his focus is “my portfolio responsibilities”.
It’s likely many of those who fought 18C years ago hold to their original view, while having to applaud the judgement made under it this week. That’s another irony.
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.
New research led by Viktoria Cologna at ETH Zurich in Switzerland may help to explain what’s going on. Using data from around the world, the study suggests simple exposure to extreme weather events does not affect people’s view of climate action – but linking those events to climate change can make a big difference.
Global opinion, global weather
The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, looked at the question of extreme weather and climate opinion using two global datasets.
The first is the Trust in Science and Science-related Populism (TISP) survey, which includes responses from more than 70,000 people in 68 countries. It measures public support for climate policies and the extent that people think climate change is behind increases in extreme weather.
The second dataset estimates how much of each country’s population has been affected each year by events such as droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms. These estimates are based on detailed models and historical climate records.
Public support for climate policies
The survey measured public support for climate policy by asking people how much they supported five specific actions to cut carbon emissions. These included raising carbon taxes, improving public transport, using more renewable energy, protecting forests and land, and taxing carbon-heavy foods.
Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much). On average, support was fairly strong, with an average rating of 2.37 across the five policies. Support was especially high in parts of South Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania, but lower in countries such as Russia, Czechia and Ethiopia.
Exposure to extreme weather events
The study found most people around the world have experienced heatwaves and heavy rainfall in recent decades. Wildfires affected fewer people in many European and North American countries, but were more common in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Cyclones mostly impacted North America and Asia, while droughts affected large populations in Asia, Latin America and Africa. River flooding was widespread across most regions, except Oceania.
Do people in countries with higher exposure to extreme weather events show greater support for climate policies? This study found they don’t.
In most cases, living in a country where more people are exposed to disasters was not reflected in stronger support for climate action.
Wildfires were the only exception. Countries with more wildfire exposure showed slightly higher support, but this link disappeared once factors such as land size and overall climate belief were considered.
In short, just experiencing more disasters does not seem to translate into increased support for mitigation efforts.
Seeing the link between weather and climate change
In the global survey, people were asked how much they think climate change has increased the impact of extreme weather over recent decades. On average, responses were moderately high (3.8 out of 5) suggesting that many people do link recent weather events to climate change.
Such an attribution was especially strong in Latin America, but lower in parts of Africa (such as Congo and Ethiopia) and Northern Europe (such as Finland and Norway).
Crucially, people who more strongly believed climate change had worsened these events were also more likely to support climate policies. In fact, this belief mattered more for policy support than whether they had actually experienced the events firsthand.
Prior research shows less dramatic and chronic events like rainfall or temperature anomalies have less influence on public views than more acute hazards like floods or bushfires. Even then, the influence on beliefs and behaviour tends to be slow and limited.
This study shows climate impacts alone may not change minds. However, it also highlights what may affect public thinking: helping people recognise the link between climate change and extreme weather events.
In countries such as Australia, climate change makes up only about 1% of media coverage. What’s more, most of the coverage focuses on social or political aspects rather than scientific, ecological, or economic impacts.
Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science. He was a member of the TISP consortium and a co-author of the dataset used in this study.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Roger Fagge, Associate Professor in the Department of History, University of Warwick
When Carlos Alcaraz beat Jannik Sinner at the Roland Garros men’s final on June 8 2025, in what is already seen as a classic match, there was some comment on the sartorial choices of the two players.
They both wore Nike tops. Alcaraz’s was collarless, with horizontal blue bordered green and black stripes, and black shorts. Meanwhile Sinner wore a green polo-style shirt with collar, blue shorts and a blue Nike cap. Sinner’s shirt bore more than a passing resemblance to an Irish rugby union top, and was seen by some as somewhat incongruous on a tennis court.
In the women’s final on June 7, meanwhile, Coco Gauff brilliantly defeated Aryna Sabalenka, the number one seed. Gauff wore a custom New Balance kit with a dark blue marbled effect, finished off with a stylish grey leather jacket worn to and from the court. Sabalenka wore a colourful Nike tennis dress.
Technology, design and fashion all play a role in a player’s choice of tennis kit, as does their commercial potential – Sabalenka’s exact dress can be bought from the Nike website. But things are different at the Wimbledon championships, where “almost entirely white” kit is still a requirement.
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.
Founded in 1877, making it the oldest and most prestigious tennis tournament in the world, at Wimbledon, any colour must be limited to a 10mm strip.
White clothing was enforced at Wimbledon from the 19th century, in part because it covered up unwelcome signs of sweat. White clothing was also seen as cooler in the summer heat. But as time went on it became tied in with a sense of history and tradition, and the uniqueness of the Wimbledon tournament. Though there have been some occasional notable revisions.
Many women in the tennis community, including Billie Jean King, Judy Murray and Heather Watson, have argued that women players find white undershorts problematic when they are menstruating. As a result, the All England Club revised the rules in 2023 to allow dark undershorts, “provided they are no longer than their shorts or skirt”.
There had been earlier controversies over clothing at Wimbledon, sometimes over propriety, as in 1949, when Gertrude Moran challenged dress codes with “visible undergarments”. More recently in 2017 Venus Williams was asked to change during a rain break in a match because of visible fuchsia bras straps. The following year, Roger Federer, chasing his eighth Wimbledon title, was asked to change his orange-soled Nike shoes. They all acquiesced.
This history of all-white kits
All-white clothing is also linked to cricket, which shares elements of class and tradition with tennis. Playing in the summer sun meant cricket “whites” were a sensible option. However coloured caps of a player’s county or nation, were allowed by the cricket authorities, and cricket jumpers for the not so sunny days typically had the colours of the team on the v neck.
White clothing is also associated with cricket. Shutterstock
By 2020 the international Cricket Council (ICC) allowed larger sponsorship on shirts. The move to limited overs games played under floodlights saw the introduction of coloured kit, sometimes displaying a garishness that surpassed football shirts. However Test matches and longer-form cricket like the four-day county championship matches are still played in cricket whites.
And white shirts and kit have played a role in other sports, including football. If white shirts suggest respectability and style, somewhat ironically, the powerful white-clad Leeds side of the mid 1960s-70s, managed by Don Revie, earned the sobriquet “dirty Leeds” for their feisty approach to the dark arts of football. History and tradition matter as much in football as any sport, and fans of a certain age at other clubs, still refer to the Yorkshire club by this moniker.
But that’s enough football, as we’re firmly in Wimbledon season. So break out the Pimm’s, scones and jam, and let’s enjoy the tennis. Thankfully for the traditionalists among us there will be no marbled, green or blue kit on the centre court.
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Roger Fagge 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.
A new flood barrier is being built to prevent climate-induced Flooding in Chittagong in Bangladesh. amdadphoto/Shutterstock.com
At a coastal port in Chittagong, Bangladesh, something remarkable is underway. With support from a US$850 million (£620 million) investment from the World Bank, engineers are building flood-resistant infrastructure that can survive rising seas and stronger storms. A new 3.7-mile-long barrier will protect people, homes, and trade in one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable regions.
Projects like this do more than save lives. They show why investing in climate
adaptation is one of the smartest financial opportunities of our time. There are plenty of global conferences where leaders discuss climate change and make big
promises. Yet, less than 5.5% ofglobal climate finance actually reaches the countries most at risk. That is not just a failure of fairness. It is a missed chance for real impact.
As the world gathers in Seville, Spain for the fourth international meeting on development financing, the focus must go beyond pledges and shift toward practical, on-the-ground investment in resilience.
At the previous UN climate finance meeting, also held in Seville, leaders focused
on fixing how public money flows through global institutions. But just as important is the need to invest in climate adaptation. This means helping people live with the changes already happening, including more floods, longer droughts, rising seas and intense heat.
While mitigation is about stopping climate change getting worse (by switching to clean energy or protecting forests that absorb carbon, for example), adaptation is about coping with the effects we can no longer avoid. It includes building stronger homes, growing more resilient crops, and improving hospitals and schools so they can keep working during extreme weather. Both approaches are necessary, but adaptation often gets less attention. And less money.
Private investors have already committed large sums to clean energy projects. But they have done much less to support communities on the frontlines of climate change. Many of these countries struggle with limited budgets, complex rules for accessing finance, and a lack of support to develop viable projects. So promising ideas often go unfunded.
That is beginning to change. New tools are helping investors take on less risk and back more projects. These include low-interest loans, partnerships between public and private institutions, and guarantees that reduce the risk of failure.
The Green Climate Fund is the largest source of dedicated climate finance for developing countries. By the end of 2023, it had approved US$13.5 billion in funding, rising to US$51.9 billion when co-financing is included. This money helps unlock adaptation efforts that were previously out of reach.
We can already see progress. In Kenya and Ethiopia, farmers are using drought-resistant seeds to grow more food in changing conditions. In the Caribbean, solar energy is powering schools and clinics in remote communities. And in Bangladesh, the new port infrastructure in Chittagong is protecting a vital economic hub while boosting local businesses.
Working with nature
In coastal areas, restoring mangrove forests can reduce the force of incoming storms, protect biodiversity and support fisheries. The Pollination Group, a climate investment firm, is helping turn “nature-based solutions” like these into projects that attract private finance.
In his previous role as the Prince of Wales, King Charles III launched the Natural Capital Investment Alliance, an initiative that aims to mobilise US$10 billion for projects that restore and protect nature while offering solid financial returns. The alliance also helps investors better understand these kinds of opportunities by creating clearer guidance and standards. This supports the Terra Carta, a charter created by King Charles III that offers a roadmap for businesses to align with the needs of both people and the planet by 2030.
Investors who step into these emerging spaces gain more than financial returns. They build long-term relationships with governments and local communities. They help shape future policy. And they create lasting foundations for growth in places that are ready to lead if given the chance.
Adaptation projects also bring real benefits to people. They improve access to clean water, protect food supplies, create jobs, strengthen education and support healthcare systems. For families already facing climate disruption, these changes are not just improvements. They are lifelines.
By creating stable and welcoming environments for responsible investment, governments can accelerate this shift. By simplifying how money is accessed, international institutions can make it easier for good ideas to become funded projects. Philanthropic groups and development agencies can help build local skills and prepare projects for funding. Private investors can bring capital, innovation and experience.
Investing in climate adaptation is no longer just a moral issue. It is a smart, scalable and necessary response to a changing world.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Ali Serim 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.
Israel’s attack on Iran last month and the US bombing of the country’s nuclear facilities, the first-ever direct US attacks on Iranian soil, were meant to cripple Tehran’s strategic capabilities and reset the regional balance.
The strikes came after 18 months during which Israel had effectively dismantled Hamas in Gaza, dealt a devastating blow to Hezbollah in Lebanon, weakened the Houthis in Yemen, and seen the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria – a longstanding and key Iranian ally.
From a military standpoint, these were remarkable achievements. But they failed to deliver the strategic outcome Israeli and US leaders had long hoped for: the collapse of Iran’s influence and the weakening of its regime.
Instead, the confrontation exposed a deeper miscalculation. Iran’s power isn’t built on impulse or vulnerable proxies alone. It is decentralised, ideologically entrenched and designed to endure. While battered, the Islamic Republic did not fall. And now, it may be more determined – and more dangerous – than before.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Israel’s attack – dubbed “operation rising lion” – began with attacks on Iranian radar systems, followed by precision airstrikes on Iranian enrichment facilities and senior military officers and scientists. Israel spent roughly US$1.45 (£1.06 billion) billion in the first two days and in the first week of strikes on Iran, costs hit US$5 billion, with daily spending at US$725 million: US$593 million on offensive operations and US$132 million on defence and mobilization.
The day after the US strikes, the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, spoke with Donald Trump about a ceasefire. He and his generals were reportedly keen to bring the conflict to a speedy end. Reports suggest that Netanyahu wanted to avoid a lengthy war of attrition that Israel could not sustain, and was already looking for an exit strategy.
Crucially, the Iranian regime remained intact. Rather than inciting revolt, the war rallied nationalist sentiment. Opposition movements remain fractured and lack a common platform or domestic legitimacy. Hopes of a popular uprising that might topple the regime expressed by both Trump and Netanyahu were misplaced.
In the aftermath, Iranian authorities launched a sweeping crackdown on suspected dissenters and what it referred to as “spies”. Former activists, reformists and loosely affiliated protest organisers were arrested or interrogated. What was meant to fracture the regime instead reinforced its grip on power.
Most notably, Iran’s parliament voted to suspend cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), ending inspections and giving Tehran the freedom to expand its nuclear programme – both civilian and potentially military – without oversight.
Perhaps the clearest misreading came from Israel and the US treating Syria as a template. The 2024 fall of Bashar al-Assad was hailed as a turning point. His successor, Ahmed al-Sharaa – a little-known opposition figure, former al-Qaeda insurgent and IS affiliate – was rebranded as a pragmatic reformer, who Trump praised as “attractive” and “tough”.
For western and Israeli strategists, Syria offered both a way to weaken Iran and a blueprint of how eventual regime change could play out: collapse the regime, install cooperative leadership in a swift reordering process. But this analogy was dangerously flawed. Iran’s stronger institutions, military depth, resistance-driven identity and existence made it a fundamentally different and more resilient state.
Both Israel and Iran, however, came away with new intelligence. Israel learned that its missile defences and economic resilience were not built for prolonged, multi-front warfare. Iran, meanwhile, gained valuable insight into how far its arsenal – drones, missiles and regional proxies – could reach, and where its limits lie.
Most of Iran’s drones and missiles were intercepted — up to 99% in the cases of drones — exposing critical weaknesses in accuracy, penetration, and survivability against modern air defenses. Yet the few that did break through caused significant damage in Tel Aviv, striking residential areas and critical infrastructure.
This war was not only a clash of weapons but a real-time stress test of each side’s strategic depth. Iran may now adjust its doctrine accordingly – prioritising survivability, mobility and precision in anticipation of future conflicts.
Israel’s vulnerabilities
Internally, Israel entered the war politically fractured and socially strained. Netanyahu’s far-right coalition was already under fire for attempting to weaken judicial independence. The war has temporarily united the country, but the economic and human toll have reignited deeper concerns.
Israel’s geographic and demographic constraints have become clear. Its high-tech economy, tightly integrated with global markets, could not weather prolonged instability. And critically, the damage inflicted by the US bombing was more limited than hoped for. While Washington joined in the initial strikes, it resisted deeper involvement, partly to avoid broader regional escalation and largely because of the lack of domestic appetite for war and high potential for energy inflation, if Iran was to close the Strait of Hormuz.
What happens now?
The war of 2025 did not produce peace. It produced recalibration. Israel emerges militarily capable but politically shaken and economically strained. Iran, though damaged, stands more unified, with fewer international constraints on its nuclear ambitions. Its crackdown on dissent, withdrawal from IAEA oversight, and deepening ties to rival powers suggest a regime preparing not for collapse, but for survival, perhaps even confrontation.
The broader lesson is sobering. Regime change cannot be engineered through precision strikes. Tactical brilliance does not guarantee strategic victory. And the assumption that Iran could unravel like Syria was not strategy, it was hubris.
Both sides now better understand each other’s strengths and limits, a clarity that could deter future war – or make the next one more dangerous. In a region shaped by trauma and shifting power, mistaking resistance for weakness or pause for peace remains the gravest miscalculation.
Bamo Nouri 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.
The UK is now more than halfway (50.4%) to achieving a net zero carbon economy, which means it has reduced its national emissions significantly compared to 1990.
We should even celebrate that 0.4%. Why? Because every tonne of carbon saved from the atmosphere and every fraction of a degree celsius of warming avoided saves lives and leaves more life-sustaining ecosystems intact for our children and grandchildren.
It also reduces the risk of triggering irreversible, devastating tipping points in the Earth system. We absolutely do not want to go there. Though, it may already be too late to save 90% of warm-water coral reefs, on which hundreds of millions of people depend for food and protection from storms.
Luckily, tipping points can also work in our favour. Researchers like us call them positive tipping points, which kickstart irreversible, self-propelling change towards a more sustainable future.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
Solar energy has already crossed a tipping point, having become the cheapest source of power in most of the world. Because it is quick to deploy widely and in a variety of formats and settings, solar is expanding exponentially, including to the roughly 700 million people who don’t have electricity.
Electric vehicle sales have also crossed tipping points in China and several European markets, as evidenced by the abrupt acceleration of their shares in national vehicle fleets. The more people buy them, the cheaper and better they get, which makes even more people buy them – a self-propelling change towards a low-carbon road transport system.
Recent findings from the Climate Change Committee, independent advisers to the UK government on climate policy, show that the UK too may be on the cusp of a positive tipping point for electric vehicles (EVs), but that further work is needed to reach a tipping point for heat pumps.
EV sales are racing ahead
According to the CCC, more than half of the UK’s success in decarbonising its economy since 2008 can be attributed to the energy sector. Here, the transition from electricity generated by coal to gas and, increasingly, renewable sources like solar and wind, has occurred “behind the scenes”, without much disruption to daily life.
However, over 80% of the greenhouse gas emission cuts needed between now and 2030 (the UK aims to reduce emissions by 68% by 2030) need to come from other sectors that require the involvement and support of the public and businesses.
The adoption of low-carbon technologies by households, including the buying of EVs and installing of heat pumps, is a critical next step to determining the success or failure of the UK’s ability to achieve net zero. Cars account for about 15% of the UK’s emissions and home heating a further 18%.
Encouragingly, and despite concerted misinformation campaigns to discredit EVs, sales in the UK accounted for 19.6% of all new cars in 2024, which puts this sector close to the critical 20-25% range for triggering the phase of self-propelling adoption, according to positive tipping points theory.
This rise in EV sales is happening for two main reasons. First, the UK has a rule that bans the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2035, which gives carmakers and buyers a clear deadline to switch.
Second, they are becoming a better choice all round. They’re getting cheaper (some are expected to cost the same as petrol cars between 2026 and 2028), more appealing (with longer ranges and faster charging), and easier to use (thanks to more charging points and better infrastructure).
If this positive trend continues, emissions saved by EV adoption will be sufficient to achieve the UK road transport sector’s 2030 emissions target.
Where is the heat pump tipping point?
Heat pumps have been slower on the uptake in the UK, leading the CCC to identify their deployment as one of the biggest risks to achieving the 2030 emissions target.
The UK government has set a target of installing 600,000 heat pumps a year by 2028. But despite 90% of British homes being suitable for a heat pump, only 1% have one.
There are signs that installations are picking up pace, however. In 2024, 98,000 heat pumps were installed – an increase of 56% from 2023. Deployment will need to be increased more than six times its current rate over the next three years to reach the installation target. In other words, we urgently need to trigger a positive tipping point in this sector.
The triggering of self-propelling change depends on the relative strength of feedbacks that either resist change (damping or negative feedback) or drive it forward (positive feedback).
One important negative feedback highlighted by the CCC is the UK’s high electricity-to-gas price ratio, which increases the running costs of a heat pump on top of the high upfront cost of buying and installing one. Addressing this issue has been at the top of the CCC’s policy recommendations for the last two years.
One positive feedback that needs to be strengthened is the perception among installers of household demand for heat pumps. When installers perceive demand, they are more likely to invest in the training and certifications needed to meet it.
Two ways the CCC suggests the government could encourage installer confidence are to extend the boiler upgrade scheme (which provides grants to households to install heat pumps) and clean heat mechanism (which obliges manufacturers and installers to prioritise heat pumps) and to reinstate the 2035 phase-out rule for new fossil fuel boilers.
An understanding of positive tipping points helps us identify key leverage points where intervention can be most effective in tackling the remaining half of the UK’s emissions. When implemented as part of a coherent national strategy, positive change can be accomplished at the pace and scale required. There is no time to lose.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Kai Greenlees receives funding from the Economic Social Research Council, through the South West Doctoral Training Partnership.
Steven R. Smith 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Dafydd Townley, Teaching Fellow in US politics and international security, University of Portsmouth
Donald Trump is continuing his run of political wins after his keynote legislation, nicknamed the ‘big beautiful bill’, squeaked through the Senate.
While the bill, which includes major cuts in tax and government spending, must now go back to the House of Representatives for another vote, passing the upper house is highly significant. Trump lost the support of just three Republican senators, and with the help of a tie-breaking vote from Vice-President J.D. Vance managed to push the bill forward.
Democrats, the minority in both the House and Senate, have been unable to do anything but sit by and watch as Trump claims victory after victory. These include progress in his attempt to end birthright citizenship, the claimed destruction of significant Iranian nuclear sites (yet to be independently verified) and the convincing of Nato member states to increase defence spending to 5% of their GDP. Trump may even be getting closer to a peace deal between Israel and Hamas.
And now the Democrats have failed in their desperate attempts to stop this bill. In the Senate, it was felt that there could be enough Republican senators concerned about cuts to Medicaid (the US system that provides essential healthcare to those on low incomes), the closure or reduction of services at rural hospitals, and the increase in national debt to potentially hinder the bill’s progress. However, Democrats were unable to do anything apart from delaying the voting process, and the bill is progressing with some changes but not enough to be severely weakened.
It had seemed likely that the Democrats could work with the Maga-focused Freedom Caucus group of representatives, whose members include Marjorie Taylor Greene, in the early stages in the House to stop its initial passage. But Speaker Mike Johnson managed to calm most of their fears about the rise in the deficit to get the bill through the House.
The lack of effective opposition from the Democrats reflects their congressional standing. The Republicans control the Senate 53-47, and they also have a majority of 220-212 in the House, with three vacancies.
While Democrat numbers in Congress is the primary issue in opposing this bill, their future congressional power will rely on strong leadership within the party and, more importantly, a clear set of policies with appeal that can attract more support at the ballot boxes. Failure to address this will probably allow Republicans to dominate Congress and shape American domestic and foreign policy any way they wish for longer.
Trump’s agenda has now passed the Senate.
What could Democrats do differently?
While Democrat Hakeem Jeffries has been a diligent minority leader in the House, he has attempted to operate as an obstacle to Republican policies with little success, rather than reaching across the political divide to create a consensus with dissenting Republicans.
Outside of Congress, California governor Gavin Newsom, widely touted as a potential candidate for the next presidential election, has offered some resistance to the Trump administration, particularly over Trump’s assumption of national command over the state-controlled National Guard to deal with protests in California against the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. However, Newsom’s reputation is still relatively regional, although it is on the rise.
Zohran Mamdani has won the Democratic nomination for New York mayor.
There will be jostling over the next couple of years for the Democratic presidential nomination, and this will have an impact on the platform that the party runs on. Party members and those voting for the next presidential nominee will need to decide whether to continue with the mainly centrist position that the party has adopted since the 1990s or adopt something more left-wing.
A more radical candidate, such as New York representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, might offer a substantially different proposal that could seem attractive to Democratic voters and those Trump supporters who may feel dissatisfied with the current Republican administration.
However, democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, recently selected as the Democratic nominee for the New York mayoral election, has already been vilified by some in the Republican party.
Concerns about such a supposedly “radical” candidate may concern many voters in red states in middle America. However, getting elected is one thing but implementing progressive, left-leaning policies is another thing entirely. They also need to deliver solutions to major issues, such as crime, at all levels, to show their abilities to solve problems.
It is not just the policies that matter for the Democrats, but who they want to represent. Last year’s election suggested that the Democrats had been ousted as the representatives of the working class. Some significant labour unions, a foundation of Democratic support for the majority of the 20th century, failed to endorse Kamala Harris.
Mamdani’s success in New York stemmed from the mobilisation of a grassroots campaign that used social media effectively. It targeted young working-class voters disenchanted with the Democratic party. He also resonated with voters in areas that had seen an increase in Republican voters in the 2024 election.
All this may offer some lessons to the Democrats. They need to reassess their policies, their image and their tactics, and show Americans that they can solve the problems that the public sees as most important, including the high cost of living. While they can expect to gain seats in the House in next year’s midterms, they need to look for a leader and policies that will capture the public’s hearts.
Dafydd Townley 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.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lillian Hingley, Postdoctoral Researcher in English Literature, University of Oxford
With her latest album, Virgin, Lorde is stretching the concept of the virgin beyond the common definition. Some may consider the album’s title and its cover art – an X-ray of Lorde’s pelvis showing an IUD – to be contradictory.
But while Lorde could still be using contraception for purposes beyond birth control, its presence shows that the album doesn’t shy away from discussions of sexual activities and the risk of pregnancy (two themes that are clearly discussed in the track Clearblue).
As she also shows with her approach to gender in the album’s opening song, Hammer (“Some days, I’m a woman, some days, I’m a man”), Lorde is testing and muddying common dualisms.
The scientific perspective offered by the album art forces the viewer to look through Lorde’s body, but we are also looking beyond her reproductive organs. Certainly, Lorde sometimes conceptualises virginity as something that can only be given once, as she explains on David.
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.
In Hammer, her quip “don’t know if it’s love or if it’s ovulation” is a comedic musing on whether an experience is profoundly transcendental or just the product of hormones. But what strikes me is the fact that her concepts and themes are not static or singular.
This album is exploring the idea of being made, or even remade, through experience. In If She Could See Me Now, Lorde recounts how painful moments “made me a woman”.
Like French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir’s phrase “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”, Lorde is exploring how her body is being changed by what she has been through. As she sings in What Was That?: “I try to let whatever has to pass through me pass through.”
Again, while she on the one hand describes something moving through her body, she’s also describing an attempt to move through something that has happened to her – turning a passive experience into one of acceptance and action. Here we might think of another notion of virginity: a substance before it is processed. Virginity is part of the experience of being changed, or reborn, into something else.
This is not to say that Virgin is uninterested in the body. Lorde’s discussion of her eating disorder in Broken Glass is a case in point.
Lorde as performance artist
The visuals accompanying Virgin emphasise Lorde’s status as a performance artist. The crescendo of the What Was That video is a spontaneous public performance of Virgin’s first single.
TRYING TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE A FONTANA, LIKE PAINTING BITTEN BY A MAN, LIKE THE NEW YORK EARTH ROOM. THE SOUND OF MY REBIRTH.
The simile here, or the idea of making music sound “like” visual art, emphasises the tactility of Lorde’s work. Each artistic piece referenced here is concerned with physically intervening into the conventional art gallery set-up.
Italian artist Lucio Fontana’s Spacial Concept series (1960) included slashed canvases a disruption of the body of the artwork with yonic – in other words, vulva-like – imagery (indeed, it challenges how “damaged” artworks are usually hidden from audiences, waiting to be restored).
Similarly, American artist Jasper Johns’ Painting Bitten by a Man (1961) is an encaustic painting (derived from the Greek word for “burned in”), which shows off the markings of someone who has bitten into the canvas.
The video for Man of the Year.
The music video for Man of the Year is filmed in a room that is filled with dirt. This is a clear nod to American sculptor Walter de Maria’s New York Earth Room (1977). The piece also fills a white room in New York with this unexpected material: earth inside a building, where mushrooms can grow.
The video for Man of the Year may also be referencing another artwork. Lorde is shown using duct tape to bind her breasts. While this points to Lorde’s exploration of her body and gender identity, the material also recalls Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan’s duct-taped banana artwork, Comedian.
Offering phallic imagery to Fontana’s yonic imagery, Cattelan’s piece mirrors Lorde’s concern with ontology, or definition. What makes something art?
Prometheus (Un)bound?
But just as Lorde is binding herself in new ways, she is unbinding herself in others. In If She Could See Me Now, Lorde declares: “I’m going back to the clay.”
Here that the album recalls the Prometheus myth: the ancient Greek story that Prometheus fashioned humans out of mud (or clay) and gave his creations fire.
The closing track, David, offers another ancient allusion, this time about David and Goliath. David – who, as a harpist, is a musician like Lorde – kills the giant man with stones. This reference furthers the song’s discussion of the problem of treating a man, a lover, like a god.
In David Lorde explores similar themes to Mary Shelley.
This subtle reference to the killing of Goliath adds another layer to the euphemism for male testicles explored in Shapeshifter: “Do you have the stones?”. Perhaps Virgin is doing what Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) did with the Prometheus tale: both exploring what happens when a man tries to create and determine the fate of another being, whether nature or nurture make a person, and how a new body can be refashioned from old ones.
After listening to the entire album, I was struck by how Lorde is exploring different facets of another question: who, exactly, is Lorde? Especially now that she is embracing who she is beyond the yoke of other people – or the demons – that have shaped her? Virgin shows that Lorde now wants to return “to the clay”, or to remake who she is, now that she is unbound by Prometheus.
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Lillian Hingley 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.
The global ecosystem of climate finance is complex, constantly changing and sometimes hard to understand. But understanding it is critical to demanding a green transition that’s just and fair. That’s why The Conversation has collaborated with climate finance experts to create this user-friendly guide, in partnership with Vogue Business. With definitions and short videos, we’ll add to this glossary as new terms emerge.
Blue bonds
Blue bonds are debt instruments designed to finance ocean-related conservation, like protecting coral reefs or sustainable fishing. They’re modelled after green bonds but focus specifically on the health of marine ecosystems – this is a key pillar of climate stability.
By investing in blue bonds, governments and private investors can fund marine projects that deliver both environmental benefits and long-term financial returns. Seychelles issued the first blue bond in 2018. Now, more are emerging as ocean conservation becomes a greater priority for global sustainability efforts.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon border adjustment mechanism
Did you know that imported steel could soon face a carbon tax at the EU border? That’s because the carbon border adjustment mechanism is about to shake up the way we trade, produce and price carbon.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a proposed EU policy to put a carbon price on imports like iron, cement, fertiliser, aluminium and electricity. If a product is made in a country with weaker climate policies, the importer must pay the difference between that country’s carbon price and the EU’s. The goal is to avoid “carbon leakage” – when companies relocate to avoid emissions rules and to ensure fair competition on climate action.
But this mechanism is more than just a tariff tool. It’s a bold attempt to reshape global trade. Countries exporting to the EU may be pushed to adopt greener manufacturing or face higher tariffs.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is controversial: some call it climate protectionism, others argue it could incentivise low-carbon innovation worldwide and be vital for achieving climate justice. Many developing nations worry it could penalise them unfairly unless there’s climate finance to support greener transitions.
Carbon border adjustment mechanism is still evolving, but it’s already forcing companies, investors and governments to rethink emissions accounting, supply chains and competitiveness. It’s a carbon price with global consequences.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon budget
The Paris agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030. The carbon budget is the maximum amount of CO₂ emissions allowed, if we want a 67% chance of staying within this limit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the remaining carbon budgets amount to 400 billion tonnes of CO₂ from 2020 onwards.
Think of the carbon budget as a climate allowance. Once it has been spent, the risk of extreme weather or sea level rise increases sharply. If emissions continue unchecked, the budget will be exhausted within years, risking severe climate consequences. The IPCC sets the global carbon budget based on climate science, and governments use this framework to set national emission targets, climate policies and pathways to net zero emissions.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Carbon credits
Carbon credits are like a permit that allow companies to release a certain amount of carbon into the air. One credit usually equals one tonne of CO₂. These credits are issued by the local government or another authorised body and can be bought and sold. Think of it like a budget allowance for pollution. It encourages cuts in carbon emissions each year to stay within those global climate targets.
The aim is to put a price on carbon to encourage cuts in emissions. If a company reduces its emissions and has leftover credits, it can sell them to another company that is going over its limit. But there are issues. Some argue that carbon credit schemes allow polluters to pay their way out of real change, and not all credits are from trustworthy projects. Although carbon credits can play a role in addressing the climate crisis, they are not a solution on their own.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon credits explained.
Carbon offsetting
Carbon offsetting is a way for people or organisations to make up for the carbon emissions they are responsible for. For example, if you contribute to emissions by flying, driving or making goods, you can help balance that out by supporting projects that reduce emissions elsewhere. This might include planting trees (which absorb carbon dioxide) or building wind farms to produce renewable energy.
The idea is that your support helps cancel out the damage you are doing. For example, if your flight creates one tonne of carbon dioxide, you pay to support a project that removes the same amount.
While this sounds like a win-win, carbon offsetting is not perfect. Some argue that it lets people feel better without really changing their behaviour, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as greenwashing.
Not all projects are effective or well managed. For instance, some tree planting initiatives might have taken place anyway, even without the offset funding, deeming your contribution inconsequential. Others might plant the non-native trees in areas where they are unlikely to reach their potential in terms of absorbing carbon emissions.
So, offsetting can help, but it is no magic fix. It works best alongside real efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage low-carbon lifestyles or supply chains.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon offsetting explained.
Carbon tax
A carbon tax is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing a direct price on CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.
A carbon tax is grounded in the concept of the social cost of carbon. This is an estimate of the economic damage caused by emitting one tonne of CO₂, including climate-related health, infrastructure and ecosystem impacts.
A carbon tax is typically levied per tonne of CO₂ emitted. The tax can be applied either upstream (on fossil fuel producers) or downstream (on consumers or power generators). This makes carbon-intensive activities more expensive, it incentivises nations, businesses and people to reduce their emissions, while untaxed renewable energy becomes more competitively priced and appealing.
Carbon tax was first introduced by Finland in 1990. Since then, more than 39 jurisdictions have implemented similar schemes. According to the World Bank, carbon pricing mechanisms (that’s both carbon taxes and emissions trading systems) now cover about 24% of global emissions. The remaining 76% are not priced, mainly due to limited coverage in both sectors and geographical areas, plus persistent fossil fuel subsidies. Expanding coverage would require extending carbon pricing to sectors like agriculture and transport, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and strengthening international governance.
What is carbon tax?
Sweden has one of the world’s highest carbon tax rates and has cut emissions by 33% since 1990 while maintaining economic growth. The policy worked because Sweden started early, applied the tax across many industries and maintained clear, consistent communication that kept the public on board.
Canada introduced a national carbon tax in 2019. In Canada, most of the revenue from carbon taxes is returned directly to households through annual rebates, making the scheme revenue-neutral for most families. However, despite its economic logic, inflation and rising fuel prices led to public discontent – especially as many citizens were unaware they were receiving rebates.
Carbon taxes face challenges including political resistance, fairness concerns and low public awareness. Their success depends on clear communication and visible reinvestment of revenues into climate or social goals. A 2025 study that surveyed 40,000 people in 20 countries found that support for carbon taxes increases significantly when revenues are used for environmental infrastructure, rather than returned through tax rebates.
By Meilan Yan, associate professor and senior lecturer in financial economics, Loughborough University
Climate resilience
Floods, wildfires, heatwaves and rising seas are pushing our cities, towns and neighbourhoods to their limits. But there’s a powerful idea that’s helping cities fight back: climate resilience.
Resilience refers to the ability of a system, such as a city, a community or even an ecosystem – to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and recover from climate-related shocks and stresses.
Sometimes people say resilience is about bouncing back. But it’s not just about surviving the next storm. It’s about adapting, evolving and thriving in a changing world.
Resilience means building smarter and better. It means designing homes that stay cool during heatwaves. Roads that don’t wash away in floods. Power grids that don’t fail when the weather turns extreme.
It’s also about people. A truly resilient city protects its most vulnerable. It ensures that everyone – regardless of income, age or background – can weather the storm.
And resilience isn’t just reactive. It’s about using science, local knowledge and innovation to reduce a risk before disaster strikes. From restoring wetlands to cool cities and absorb floods, to creating early warning systems for heatwaves, climate resilience is about weaving strength into the very fabric of our cities.
By Paul O’Hare, senior lecturer in geography and development, Manchester Metropolitan University
The meaning of climate resilience.
Climate risk disclosure
Climate risk disclosure refers to how companies report the risks they face from climate change, such as flood damage, supply chain disruptions or regulatory costs. It includes both physical risks (like storms) and transition risks (like changing laws or consumer preferences).
Mandatory disclosures, such as those proposed by the UK and EU, aim to make climate-related risks transparent to investors. Done well, these reports can shape capital flows toward more sustainable business models. Done poorly, they become greenwashing tools.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Emissions trading scheme
An emissions trading scheme is the primary market-based approach for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in many countries, including Australia, Canada, China and Mexico.
Part of a government’s job is to decide how much of the economy’s carbon emissions it wants to avoid in order to fight climate change. It must put a cap on carbon emissions that economic production is not allowed to surpass. Preferably, the polluters (that’s the manufacturers, fossil fuel companies) should be the ones paying for the cost of climate mitigation.
Regulators could simply tell all the firms how much they are allowed to emit over the next ten years or so. But giving every firm the same allowance across the board is not cost efficient, because avoiding carbon emissions is much harder for some firms (such as steel producers) than others (such as tax consultants). Since governments cannot know each firm’s specific cost profile either, it can’t customise the allowances. Also, monitoring whether polluters actually abide by their assigned limits is extremely costly.
An emissions trading scheme cleverly solves this dilemma using the cap-and-trade mechanism. Instead of assigning each polluter a fixed quota and risking inefficiencies, the government issues a large number of tradable permits – each worth, say, a tonne of CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e) – that sum up to the cap. Firms that can cut greenhouse gas emissions relatively cheaply can then trade their surplus permits to those who find it harder – at a price that makes both better off.
By Mathias Weidinger, environmental economist, University of Oxford
Emissions trading schemes, explained by climate finance expert Mathias Weidinger.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing
ESG investing stands for environmental, social and governance investing. In simple terms, these are a set of standards that investors use to screen a company’s potential investments.
ESG means choosing to invest in companies that are not only profitable but also responsible. Investors use ESG metrics to assess risks (such as climate liability, labour practices) and align portfolios with sustainability goals by looking at how a company affects our planet and treats its people and communities. While there isn’t one single global body governing ESG, various organisations, ratings agencies and governments all contribute to setting and evolving these metrics.
For example, investing in a company committed to renewable energy and fair labour practices might be considered “ESG aligned”. Supporters believe ESG helps identify risks and create long-term value. Critics argue it can be vague or used for greenwashing, where companies appear sustainable without real action. ESG works best when paired with transparency and clear data. A barrier is that standards vary, and it’s not always clear what counts as ESG.
Why do financial companies and institutions care? Issues like climate change and nature loss pose significant risks, affecting company values and the global economy.
However, gathering reliable ESG information can be difficult. Companies often self-report, and the data isn’t always standardised or up to date. Researchers – including my team at the University of Oxford – are using geospatial data, like satellite imagery and artificial intelligence, to develop global databases for high-impact industries, across all major sectors and geographies, and independently assess environmental and social risks and impacts.
For instance, we can analyse satellite images of a facility over time to monitor its emissions effect on nature and biodiversity, or assess deforestation linked to a company’s supply chain. This allows us to map supply chains, identify high-impact assets, and detect hidden risks and opportunities in key industries, providing an objective, real-time look at their environmental footprint.
The goal is for this to improve ESG ratings and provide clearer, more consistent insights for investors. This approach could help us overcome current data limitations to build a more sustainable financial future.
By Amani Maalouf, senior researcher in spatial finance, University of Oxford
Environmental, social and governance investing explained.
Financed emissions
Financed emissions are the greenhouse gas emissions linked to a bank’s or investor’s lending and investment portfolio, rather than their own operations. For example, a bank that funds a coal mine or invests in fossil fuels is indirectly responsible for the carbon those activities produce.
Measuring financed emissions helps reveal the real climate impact of financial institutions not just their office energy use. It’s a cornerstone of climate accountability in finance and is becoming essential under net zero pledges.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Green bonds
Green bonds are loans issued to fund environmentally beneficial projects, such as energy-efficient buildings or clean transportation. Investors choose them to support climate solutions while earning returns.
Green bonds are a major tool to finance the shift to a low-carbon economy by directing finance toward climate solutions. As climate costs rise, green bonds could help close the funding gap while ensuring transparency and accountability.
Green bonds are required to ensure funds are spent as promised. For instance, imagine a city wants to upgrade its public transportation by adding electric buses to reduce pollution. Instead of raising taxes or slashing other budgets, the city can issue green bonds to raise the necessary capital. Investors buy the bonds, the city gets the funding, and the environment benefits from cleaner air and fewer emissions.
The growing participation of government issuers has improved the transparency and reliability of these investments. The green bond market has grown rapidly in recent years. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the green bond market reached US$2.9 trillion (£2.1 trillion) in 2024 – nearly six times larger than in 2018. At the same time, annual issuance (the total value of green bonds issued in a year) hit US$700 billion, highlighting the increasing role of green finance in tackling climate change.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Just transition
Just transition is the process of moving to a low-carbon society that is environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive. In a broad sense, a just transition means focusing on creating a more fair and equal society.
Just transition has existed as a concept since the 1970s. It was originally applied to the green energy transition, protecting workers in the fossil fuel industry as we move towards more sustainable alternatives.
These days, it has so many overlapping issues of justice hidden within it, so the concept is hard to define. Even at the level of UN climate negotiations, global leaders struggle to agree on what a just transition means.
The big battle is between developed countries, who want a very restrictive definition around jobs and skills, and developing countries, who are looking for a much more holistic approach that considers wider system change and includes considerations around human rights, Indigenous people and creating an overall fairer global society.
A just transition is essentially about imagining a future where we have moved beyond fossil fuels and society works better for everyone – but that can look very different in a European city compared to a rural setting in south-east Asia.
For example, in a British city it might mean fewer cars and better public transport. In a rural setting, it might mean new ways of growing crops that are more sustainable, and building homes that are heatwave resistant.
By Alix Dietzel, climate justice and climate policy expert, University of Bristol
The meaning of just transition.
Loss and damage
A global loss and damage fund was agreed by nations at the UN climate summit (Cop27) in 2022. This means that the rich countries of the world put money into a fund that the least developed countries can then call upon when they have a climate emergency.
At the moment, the loss and damage fund is made up of relatively small pots of money. Much more will be needed to provide relief to those who need it most now and in the future.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains loss and damage.
Mitigation v adaptation
Mitigation means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. Adaptation means adjusting to its effects, like building sea walls or growing heat-resistant crops. Both are essential: mitigation tackles the cause, while adaptation tackles the symptoms.
Globally, most funding goes to mitigation, but vulnerable communities often need adaptation support most. Balancing the two is a major challenge in climate policy, especially for developing countries facing immediate climate threats.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Nationally determined contributions
Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are at the heart of the Paris agreement, the global effort to collectively combat climate change. NDCs are individual climate action plans created by each country. These targets and strategies outline how a country will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
Each nation sets its own goals based on its own circumstances and capabilities – there’s no standard NDC. These plans should be updated every five years and countries are encouraged to gradually increase their climate ambitions over time.
The aim is for NDCs to drive real action by guiding policies, attracting investment and inspiring innovation in clean technologies. But current NDCs fall short of the Paris agreement goals and many countries struggle to turn their plans into a reality. NDCs also vary widely in scope and detail so it’s hard to compare efforts across the board. Stronger international collaboration and greater accountability will be crucial.
By Doug Specht, reader in cultural geography and communication, University of Westminster
Fashion depends on water, soil and biodiversity – all natural capital. And forward-thinking designers are now asking: how do we create rather than deplete, how do we restore rather than extract?
Natural capital is the value assigned to the stock of forests, soils, oceans and even minerals such as lithium. It sustains every part of our economy. It’s the bees that pollinate our crops. It’s the wetlands that filter our water and it’s the trees that store carbon and cool our cities.
If we fail to value nature properly, we risk losing it. But if we succeed, we unlock a future that is not only sustainable but also truly regenerative.
My team at the University of Oxford is developing tools to integrate nature into national balance sheets, advising governments on biodiversity, and we’re helping industries from fashion to finance embed nature into their decision making.
Natural capital, explained by a climate finance expert.
By Mette Morsing, professor of business sustainability and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford
Net zero
Reaching net zero means reducing the amount of additional greenhouse gas emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere to zero. This concept was popularised by the Paris agreement, a landmark deal that was agreed at the UN climate summit (Cop21) in 2015 to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
There are some emissions, from farming and aviation for example, that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach absolute zero. Hence, the “net”. This allows people, businesses and countries to find ways to suck greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere, effectively cancelling out emissions while trying to reduce them. This can include reforestation, rewilding, direct air capture and carbon capture and storage. The goal is to reach net zero: the point at which no extra greenhouse gases accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains net zero.
For more expert explainer videos, visit The Conversation’s quick climate dictionary playlist here on YouTube.
Mark Maslin is Pro-Vice Provost of the UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge and Founding Director of the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. He was co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an advisor to Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow and has advised the UK Parliament. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, CIFF, Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Amani Maalouf receives funding from IKEA Foundation and UK Research and Innovation (NE/V017756/1).
Narmin Nahidi is affiliated with several academic associations, including the Financial Management Association (FMA), British Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA), American Finance Association (AFA), and the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CMBE). These affiliations do not influence the content of this article.
Paul O’Hare receives funding from the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Award reference NE/V010174/1.
Alix Dietzel, Dongna Zhang, Doug Specht, Mathias Weidinger, Meilan Yan, and Sankar Sivarajah do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Liverpool’s Portuguese forward Diogo Jota, 28, died in a car crash near Zamora in northwestern Spain with his brother, the Portuguese Football Federation said on Thursday.
The regional fire department of Castile and Leon, where Zamora is located, said on its website a car crashed early on Thursday, shortly after midnight, and burst into flames, with two men, aged 28 and 26, found dead.
“We have lost two champions. Their deaths represent irreparable losses for Portuguese football, and we will do everything we can to honour their legacy every day,” the Portuguese Football Federation said in a statement.
Spanish police told Reuters they could not yet officially confirm the names of the deceased, but everything pointed to it being Jota and his brother. The Lamborghini they were travelling veered off the road, the spokesperson said.
The bodies have been taken to a forensics unit in nearby Zamora where autopsies will be performed, they said.
Jota, who got married on June 28, helped Liverpool win the Premier League last season and also won the FA Cup and League Cup with the Merseyside outfit.
Jota arrived at Anfield from Wolverhampton Wanderers in 2020 and scored 65 goals in 182 appearances for the club in all competitions.
He also made 49 appearances for Portugal, twice winning the UEFA Nations League.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) on Thursday predicted heavy to very heavy rainfall in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand over the next five days.
As per IMD, heavy to very heavy rainfall activity is likely to continue over large parts of northwest, central, eastern, and northeastern India, as well as along the west coast, over the next six to seven days.
Extremely heavy rainfall – measuring 21 cm or more – is likely at isolated locations in east Rajasthan, the ghat areas of central Maharashtra, south coastal Maharashtra and Goa, and parts of coastal and south interior Karnataka today.
Weather forecast for Delhi-NCR
In the national capital region, Delhi is likely to see partly cloudy skies with light rain and thunderstorms over the coming days.
Today, the maximum temperature is expected to range between 36°C and 38°C, with very light to light rain accompanied by thunderstorms or lightning. Winds will predominantly blow from the southeast at speeds under 20 kmph during the afternoon, decreasing to 10–15 kmph by night.
On July 4, the weather will remain partly cloudy with chances of light rainfall and thunderstorms. Maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to range between 36–38°C and 26–28°C, respectively, remaining close to the seasonal average. Winds will be lighter, ranging from 8 to 15 kmph, mostly from the southeast and southwest directions.
By July 5, light to moderate rain with thunderstorms is predicted, accompanied by a drop in temperatures. The maximum temperature is expected to settle between 35°C and 37°C, while the minimum may fall to 24–26°C—1 to 3°C below normal. Winds will be relatively light, shifting from east to southeast during the day and picking up slightly by evening.
July 6 may bring further relief, with moderate rainfall expected and temperatures dipping further. The maximum temperature may range from 32°C to 34°C—3 to 5°C below normal—while the minimum is likely to stay between 26°C and 28°C. Winds will predominantly blow from the southwest at light speeds throughout the day.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) on Thursday predicted heavy to very heavy rainfall in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand over the next five days.
As per IMD, heavy to very heavy rainfall activity is likely to continue over large parts of northwest, central, eastern, and northeastern India, as well as along the west coast, over the next six to seven days.
Extremely heavy rainfall – measuring 21 cm or more – is likely at isolated locations in east Rajasthan, the ghat areas of central Maharashtra, south coastal Maharashtra and Goa, and parts of coastal and south interior Karnataka today.
Weather forecast for Delhi-NCR
In the national capital region, Delhi is likely to see partly cloudy skies with light rain and thunderstorms over the coming days.
Today, the maximum temperature is expected to range between 36°C and 38°C, with very light to light rain accompanied by thunderstorms or lightning. Winds will predominantly blow from the southeast at speeds under 20 kmph during the afternoon, decreasing to 10–15 kmph by night.
On July 4, the weather will remain partly cloudy with chances of light rainfall and thunderstorms. Maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to range between 36–38°C and 26–28°C, respectively, remaining close to the seasonal average. Winds will be lighter, ranging from 8 to 15 kmph, mostly from the southeast and southwest directions.
By July 5, light to moderate rain with thunderstorms is predicted, accompanied by a drop in temperatures. The maximum temperature is expected to settle between 35°C and 37°C, while the minimum may fall to 24–26°C—1 to 3°C below normal. Winds will be relatively light, shifting from east to southeast during the day and picking up slightly by evening.
July 6 may bring further relief, with moderate rainfall expected and temperatures dipping further. The maximum temperature may range from 32°C to 34°C—3 to 5°C below normal—while the minimum is likely to stay between 26°C and 28°C. Winds will predominantly blow from the southwest at light speeds throughout the day.
Huge aerial attacks on civilians and inflammatory remarks show us Moscow is not serious about peace: UK statement to the OSCE
UK Chargé d’Affaires, Deputy Ambassador James Ford, condemns Russia’s intensification of attacks against civilians in Ukraine, including its largest aerial assault of the war. This and inflammatory comments that run counter to Russia’s international commitments are further evidence that Moscow is still not serious about peace.
Thank you, Madam Chair. It is now nearly four months since Ukraine agreed to the US proposal for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire. By contrast, Russia has not only refused to accept the proposal but has continued to intensify its attacks against Ukraine.
In fact, since direct talks began on 16 May, Russia has launched its biggest aerial attacks of the war. It broke its shameful records again at the start of this week, when it launched more than 500 aerial weapons at Ukraine.
As well as being the most intense aerial attacks of the war, these recent assaults have also been among the most deadly for Ukraine’s innocent civilians. The attack on the Dnipro region on 24 June killed 20 civilians, left more than 270 others wounded and damaged schools and hospitals. And the horrific attack against Kyiv on 16-17 June, which destroyed a civilian residential building, killed 30 civilians and left a further 172 people injured. This was the second deadliest attack on Kyiv since the full-scale invasion began. So far in 2025, Russian attacks have killed more than 1000 civilians in Ukraine.
These are not the actions of a government that is serious about peace. They are the actions of those who believe they can take advantage while the world is distracted by events elsewhere. It is our collective responsibility here to dispel this notion, to remind them that the world is watching and to ensure that Moscow understands that there will be a cost for frustrating peace and attacking innocent civilians.
Madam Chair, when it comes to peace, we have learnt to assess Russia’s actions rather than Russian rhetoric. But if we needed further evidence that Moscow is not currently serious about compromise or ending the war, we can look at the recent comments made by the President of the Russian Federation, as our Ukrainian colleague also highlighted.
On 18 June he said that, if Ukraine did not agree to Russia’s terms, “we will achieve our goals by military means.” On 20 June he said that “the Russian and Ukrainian peoples are essentially one people. In that sense, we see Ukraine as ours.” He also described as a long-standing principle that “wherever the foot of a Russian soldier steps is Russian land.”
Clearly, such statements run directly counter to the Helsinki commitments to which we have all agreed. And, alongside the escalation in attacks against Ukrainian civilians, they underline Moscow’s lack of seriousness about peace talks.
Madam Chair, as the UK – along with the vast majority of participating States here at the OSCE – we continue to call on Russia to agree to a full, immediate and unconditional ceasefire to create the space for negotiations on a framework for a just and lasting peace. Regrettably, we see no evidence that Russia will engage meaningfully without further pressure to do so. We are therefore ready to act with partners to introduce new sanctions if Moscow continues to ignore these widespread calls for a ceasefire. Thank you.
New research led by Viktoria Cologna at ETH Zurich in Switzerland may help to explain what’s going on. Using data from around the world, the study suggests simple exposure to extreme weather events does not affect people’s view of climate action – but linking those events to climate change can make a big difference.
Global opinion, global weather
The new study, published in Nature Climate Change, looked at the question of extreme weather and climate opinion using two global datasets.
The first is the Trust in Science and Science-related Populism (TISP) survey, which includes responses from more than 70,000 people in 68 countries. It measures public support for climate policies and the extent that people think climate change is behind increases in extreme weather.
The second dataset estimates how much of each country’s population has been affected each year by events such as droughts, floods, heatwaves and storms. These estimates are based on detailed models and historical climate records.
Public support for climate policies
The survey measured public support for climate policy by asking people how much they supported five specific actions to cut carbon emissions. These included raising carbon taxes, improving public transport, using more renewable energy, protecting forests and land, and taxing carbon-heavy foods.
Responses ranged from 1 (not at all) to 3 (very much). On average, support was fairly strong, with an average rating of 2.37 across the five policies. Support was especially high in parts of South Asia, Africa, the Americas and Oceania, but lower in countries such as Russia, Czechia and Ethiopia.
Exposure to extreme weather events
The study found most people around the world have experienced heatwaves and heavy rainfall in recent decades. Wildfires affected fewer people in many European and North American countries, but were more common in parts of Asia, Africa and Latin America.
Cyclones mostly impacted North America and Asia, while droughts affected large populations in Asia, Latin America and Africa. River flooding was widespread across most regions, except Oceania.
Do people in countries with higher exposure to extreme weather events show greater support for climate policies? This study found they don’t.
In most cases, living in a country where more people are exposed to disasters was not reflected in stronger support for climate action.
Wildfires were the only exception. Countries with more wildfire exposure showed slightly higher support, but this link disappeared once factors such as land size and overall climate belief were considered.
In short, just experiencing more disasters does not seem to translate into increased support for mitigation efforts.
Seeing the link between weather and climate change
In the global survey, people were asked how much they think climate change has increased the impact of extreme weather over recent decades. On average, responses were moderately high (3.8 out of 5) suggesting that many people do link recent weather events to climate change.
Such an attribution was especially strong in Latin America, but lower in parts of Africa (such as Congo and Ethiopia) and Northern Europe (such as Finland and Norway).
Crucially, people who more strongly believed climate change had worsened these events were also more likely to support climate policies. In fact, this belief mattered more for policy support than whether they had actually experienced the events firsthand.
Prior research shows less dramatic and chronic events like rainfall or temperature anomalies have less influence on public views than more acute hazards like floods or bushfires. Even then, the influence on beliefs and behaviour tends to be slow and limited.
This study shows climate impacts alone may not change minds. However, it also highlights what may affect public thinking: helping people recognise the link between climate change and extreme weather events.
In countries such as Australia, climate change makes up only about 1% of media coverage. What’s more, most of the coverage focuses on social or political aspects rather than scientific, ecological, or economic impacts.
Omid Ghasemi receives funding from the Australian Academy of Science. He was a member of the TISP consortium and a co-author of the dataset used in this study.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lillian Hingley, Postdoctoral Researcher in English Literature, University of Oxford
With her latest album, Virgin, Lorde is stretching the concept of the virgin beyond the common definition. Some may consider the album’s title and its cover art – an X-ray of Lorde’s pelvis showing an IUD – to be contradictory.
But while Lorde could still be using contraception for purposes beyond birth control, its presence shows that the album doesn’t shy away from discussions of sexual activities and the risk of pregnancy (two themes that are clearly discussed in the track Clearblue).
As she also shows with her approach to gender in the album’s opening song, Hammer (“Some days, I’m a woman, some days, I’m a man”), Lorde is testing and muddying common dualisms.
The scientific perspective offered by the album art forces the viewer to look through Lorde’s body, but we are also looking beyond her reproductive organs. Certainly, Lorde sometimes conceptualises virginity as something that can only be given once, as she explains on David.
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.
In Hammer, her quip “don’t know if it’s love or if it’s ovulation” is a comedic musing on whether an experience is profoundly transcendental or just the product of hormones. But what strikes me is the fact that her concepts and themes are not static or singular.
This album is exploring the idea of being made, or even remade, through experience. In If She Could See Me Now, Lorde recounts how painful moments “made me a woman”.
Like French philosopher Simone de Beauvoir’s phrase “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”, Lorde is exploring how her body is being changed by what she has been through. As she sings in What Was That?: “I try to let whatever has to pass through me pass through.”
Again, while she on the one hand describes something moving through her body, she’s also describing an attempt to move through something that has happened to her – turning a passive experience into one of acceptance and action. Here we might think of another notion of virginity: a substance before it is processed. Virginity is part of the experience of being changed, or reborn, into something else.
This is not to say that Virgin is uninterested in the body. Lorde’s discussion of her eating disorder in Broken Glass is a case in point.
Lorde as performance artist
The visuals accompanying Virgin emphasise Lorde’s status as a performance artist. The crescendo of the What Was That video is a spontaneous public performance of Virgin’s first single.
TRYING TO MAKE IT SOUND LIKE A FONTANA, LIKE PAINTING BITTEN BY A MAN, LIKE THE NEW YORK EARTH ROOM. THE SOUND OF MY REBIRTH.
The simile here, or the idea of making music sound “like” visual art, emphasises the tactility of Lorde’s work. Each artistic piece referenced here is concerned with physically intervening into the conventional art gallery set-up.
Italian artist Lucio Fontana’s Spacial Concept series (1960) included slashed canvases a disruption of the body of the artwork with yonic – in other words, vulva-like – imagery (indeed, it challenges how “damaged” artworks are usually hidden from audiences, waiting to be restored).
Similarly, American artist Jasper Johns’ Painting Bitten by a Man (1961) is an encaustic painting (derived from the Greek word for “burned in”), which shows off the markings of someone who has bitten into the canvas.
The video for Man of the Year.
The music video for Man of the Year is filmed in a room that is filled with dirt. This is a clear nod to American sculptor Walter de Maria’s New York Earth Room (1977). The piece also fills a white room in New York with this unexpected material: earth inside a building, where mushrooms can grow.
The video for Man of the Year may also be referencing another artwork. Lorde is shown using duct tape to bind her breasts. While this points to Lorde’s exploration of her body and gender identity, the material also recalls Italian artist Maurizio Cattelan’s duct-taped banana artwork, Comedian.
Offering phallic imagery to Fontana’s yonic imagery, Cattelan’s piece mirrors Lorde’s concern with ontology, or definition. What makes something art?
Prometheus (Un)bound?
But just as Lorde is binding herself in new ways, she is unbinding herself in others. In If She Could See Me Now, Lorde declares: “I’m going back to the clay.”
Here that the album recalls the Prometheus myth: the ancient Greek story that Prometheus fashioned humans out of mud (or clay) and gave his creations fire.
The closing track, David, offers another ancient allusion, this time about David and Goliath. David – who, as a harpist, is a musician like Lorde – kills the giant man with stones. This reference furthers the song’s discussion of the problem of treating a man, a lover, like a god.
In David Lorde explores similar themes to Mary Shelley.
This subtle reference to the killing of Goliath adds another layer to the euphemism for male testicles explored in Shapeshifter: “Do you have the stones?”. Perhaps Virgin is doing what Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein (1818) did with the Prometheus tale: both exploring what happens when a man tries to create and determine the fate of another being, whether nature or nurture make a person, and how a new body can be refashioned from old ones.
After listening to the entire album, I was struck by how Lorde is exploring different facets of another question: who, exactly, is Lorde? Especially now that she is embracing who she is beyond the yoke of other people – or the demons – that have shaped her? Virgin shows that Lorde now wants to return “to the clay”, or to remake who she is, now that she is unbound by Prometheus.
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
Lillian Hingley 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.
The global ecosystem of climate finance is complex, constantly changing and sometimes hard to understand. But understanding it is critical to demanding a green transition that’s just and fair. That’s why The Conversation has collaborated with climate finance experts to create this user-friendly guide, in partnership with Vogue Business. With definitions and short videos, we’ll add to this glossary as new terms emerge.
Blue bonds
Blue bonds are debt instruments designed to finance ocean-related conservation, like protecting coral reefs or sustainable fishing. They’re modelled after green bonds but focus specifically on the health of marine ecosystems – this is a key pillar of climate stability.
By investing in blue bonds, governments and private investors can fund marine projects that deliver both environmental benefits and long-term financial returns. Seychelles issued the first blue bond in 2018. Now, more are emerging as ocean conservation becomes a greater priority for global sustainability efforts.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon border adjustment mechanism
Did you know that imported steel could soon face a carbon tax at the EU border? That’s because the carbon border adjustment mechanism is about to shake up the way we trade, produce and price carbon.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a proposed EU policy to put a carbon price on imports like iron, cement, fertiliser, aluminium and electricity. If a product is made in a country with weaker climate policies, the importer must pay the difference between that country’s carbon price and the EU’s. The goal is to avoid “carbon leakage” – when companies relocate to avoid emissions rules and to ensure fair competition on climate action.
But this mechanism is more than just a tariff tool. It’s a bold attempt to reshape global trade. Countries exporting to the EU may be pushed to adopt greener manufacturing or face higher tariffs.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is controversial: some call it climate protectionism, others argue it could incentivise low-carbon innovation worldwide and be vital for achieving climate justice. Many developing nations worry it could penalise them unfairly unless there’s climate finance to support greener transitions.
Carbon border adjustment mechanism is still evolving, but it’s already forcing companies, investors and governments to rethink emissions accounting, supply chains and competitiveness. It’s a carbon price with global consequences.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon budget
The Paris agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030. The carbon budget is the maximum amount of CO₂ emissions allowed, if we want a 67% chance of staying within this limit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the remaining carbon budgets amount to 400 billion tonnes of CO₂ from 2020 onwards.
Think of the carbon budget as a climate allowance. Once it has been spent, the risk of extreme weather or sea level rise increases sharply. If emissions continue unchecked, the budget will be exhausted within years, risking severe climate consequences. The IPCC sets the global carbon budget based on climate science, and governments use this framework to set national emission targets, climate policies and pathways to net zero emissions.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Carbon credits
Carbon credits are like a permit that allow companies to release a certain amount of carbon into the air. One credit usually equals one tonne of CO₂. These credits are issued by the local government or another authorised body and can be bought and sold. Think of it like a budget allowance for pollution. It encourages cuts in carbon emissions each year to stay within those global climate targets.
The aim is to put a price on carbon to encourage cuts in emissions. If a company reduces its emissions and has leftover credits, it can sell them to another company that is going over its limit. But there are issues. Some argue that carbon credit schemes allow polluters to pay their way out of real change, and not all credits are from trustworthy projects. Although carbon credits can play a role in addressing the climate crisis, they are not a solution on their own.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon credits explained.
Carbon offsetting
Carbon offsetting is a way for people or organisations to make up for the carbon emissions they are responsible for. For example, if you contribute to emissions by flying, driving or making goods, you can help balance that out by supporting projects that reduce emissions elsewhere. This might include planting trees (which absorb carbon dioxide) or building wind farms to produce renewable energy.
The idea is that your support helps cancel out the damage you are doing. For example, if your flight creates one tonne of carbon dioxide, you pay to support a project that removes the same amount.
While this sounds like a win-win, carbon offsetting is not perfect. Some argue that it lets people feel better without really changing their behaviour, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as greenwashing.
Not all projects are effective or well managed. For instance, some tree planting initiatives might have taken place anyway, even without the offset funding, deeming your contribution inconsequential. Others might plant the non-native trees in areas where they are unlikely to reach their potential in terms of absorbing carbon emissions.
So, offsetting can help, but it is no magic fix. It works best alongside real efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage low-carbon lifestyles or supply chains.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon offsetting explained.
Carbon tax
A carbon tax is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing a direct price on CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.
A carbon tax is grounded in the concept of the social cost of carbon. This is an estimate of the economic damage caused by emitting one tonne of CO₂, including climate-related health, infrastructure and ecosystem impacts.
A carbon tax is typically levied per tonne of CO₂ emitted. The tax can be applied either upstream (on fossil fuel producers) or downstream (on consumers or power generators). This makes carbon-intensive activities more expensive, it incentivises nations, businesses and people to reduce their emissions, while untaxed renewable energy becomes more competitively priced and appealing.
Carbon tax was first introduced by Finland in 1990. Since then, more than 39 jurisdictions have implemented similar schemes. According to the World Bank, carbon pricing mechanisms (that’s both carbon taxes and emissions trading systems) now cover about 24% of global emissions. The remaining 76% are not priced, mainly due to limited coverage in both sectors and geographical areas, plus persistent fossil fuel subsidies. Expanding coverage would require extending carbon pricing to sectors like agriculture and transport, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and strengthening international governance.
What is carbon tax?
Sweden has one of the world’s highest carbon tax rates and has cut emissions by 33% since 1990 while maintaining economic growth. The policy worked because Sweden started early, applied the tax across many industries and maintained clear, consistent communication that kept the public on board.
Canada introduced a national carbon tax in 2019. In Canada, most of the revenue from carbon taxes is returned directly to households through annual rebates, making the scheme revenue-neutral for most families. However, despite its economic logic, inflation and rising fuel prices led to public discontent – especially as many citizens were unaware they were receiving rebates.
Carbon taxes face challenges including political resistance, fairness concerns and low public awareness. Their success depends on clear communication and visible reinvestment of revenues into climate or social goals. A 2025 study that surveyed 40,000 people in 20 countries found that support for carbon taxes increases significantly when revenues are used for environmental infrastructure, rather than returned through tax rebates.
By Meilan Yan, associate professor and senior lecturer in financial economics, Loughborough University
Climate resilience
Floods, wildfires, heatwaves and rising seas are pushing our cities, towns and neighbourhoods to their limits. But there’s a powerful idea that’s helping cities fight back: climate resilience.
Resilience refers to the ability of a system, such as a city, a community or even an ecosystem – to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and recover from climate-related shocks and stresses.
Sometimes people say resilience is about bouncing back. But it’s not just about surviving the next storm. It’s about adapting, evolving and thriving in a changing world.
Resilience means building smarter and better. It means designing homes that stay cool during heatwaves. Roads that don’t wash away in floods. Power grids that don’t fail when the weather turns extreme.
It’s also about people. A truly resilient city protects its most vulnerable. It ensures that everyone – regardless of income, age or background – can weather the storm.
And resilience isn’t just reactive. It’s about using science, local knowledge and innovation to reduce a risk before disaster strikes. From restoring wetlands to cool cities and absorb floods, to creating early warning systems for heatwaves, climate resilience is about weaving strength into the very fabric of our cities.
By Paul O’Hare, senior lecturer in geography and development, Manchester Metropolitan University
The meaning of climate resilience.
Climate risk disclosure
Climate risk disclosure refers to how companies report the risks they face from climate change, such as flood damage, supply chain disruptions or regulatory costs. It includes both physical risks (like storms) and transition risks (like changing laws or consumer preferences).
Mandatory disclosures, such as those proposed by the UK and EU, aim to make climate-related risks transparent to investors. Done well, these reports can shape capital flows toward more sustainable business models. Done poorly, they become greenwashing tools.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Emissions trading scheme
An emissions trading scheme is the primary market-based approach for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in many countries, including Australia, Canada, China and Mexico.
Part of a government’s job is to decide how much of the economy’s carbon emissions it wants to avoid in order to fight climate change. It must put a cap on carbon emissions that economic production is not allowed to surpass. Preferably, the polluters (that’s the manufacturers, fossil fuel companies) should be the ones paying for the cost of climate mitigation.
Regulators could simply tell all the firms how much they are allowed to emit over the next ten years or so. But giving every firm the same allowance across the board is not cost efficient, because avoiding carbon emissions is much harder for some firms (such as steel producers) than others (such as tax consultants). Since governments cannot know each firm’s specific cost profile either, it can’t customise the allowances. Also, monitoring whether polluters actually abide by their assigned limits is extremely costly.
An emissions trading scheme cleverly solves this dilemma using the cap-and-trade mechanism. Instead of assigning each polluter a fixed quota and risking inefficiencies, the government issues a large number of tradable permits – each worth, say, a tonne of CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e) – that sum up to the cap. Firms that can cut greenhouse gas emissions relatively cheaply can then trade their surplus permits to those who find it harder – at a price that makes both better off.
By Mathias Weidinger, environmental economist, University of Oxford
Emissions trading schemes, explained by climate finance expert Mathias Weidinger.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing
ESG investing stands for environmental, social and governance investing. In simple terms, these are a set of standards that investors use to screen a company’s potential investments.
ESG means choosing to invest in companies that are not only profitable but also responsible. Investors use ESG metrics to assess risks (such as climate liability, labour practices) and align portfolios with sustainability goals by looking at how a company affects our planet and treats its people and communities. While there isn’t one single global body governing ESG, various organisations, ratings agencies and governments all contribute to setting and evolving these metrics.
For example, investing in a company committed to renewable energy and fair labour practices might be considered “ESG aligned”. Supporters believe ESG helps identify risks and create long-term value. Critics argue it can be vague or used for greenwashing, where companies appear sustainable without real action. ESG works best when paired with transparency and clear data. A barrier is that standards vary, and it’s not always clear what counts as ESG.
Why do financial companies and institutions care? Issues like climate change and nature loss pose significant risks, affecting company values and the global economy.
However, gathering reliable ESG information can be difficult. Companies often self-report, and the data isn’t always standardised or up to date. Researchers – including my team at the University of Oxford – are using geospatial data, like satellite imagery and artificial intelligence, to develop global databases for high-impact industries, across all major sectors and geographies, and independently assess environmental and social risks and impacts.
For instance, we can analyse satellite images of a facility over time to monitor its emissions effect on nature and biodiversity, or assess deforestation linked to a company’s supply chain. This allows us to map supply chains, identify high-impact assets, and detect hidden risks and opportunities in key industries, providing an objective, real-time look at their environmental footprint.
The goal is for this to improve ESG ratings and provide clearer, more consistent insights for investors. This approach could help us overcome current data limitations to build a more sustainable financial future.
By Amani Maalouf, senior researcher in spatial finance, University of Oxford
Environmental, social and governance investing explained.
Financed emissions
Financed emissions are the greenhouse gas emissions linked to a bank’s or investor’s lending and investment portfolio, rather than their own operations. For example, a bank that funds a coal mine or invests in fossil fuels is indirectly responsible for the carbon those activities produce.
Measuring financed emissions helps reveal the real climate impact of financial institutions not just their office energy use. It’s a cornerstone of climate accountability in finance and is becoming essential under net zero pledges.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Green bonds
Green bonds are loans issued to fund environmentally beneficial projects, such as energy-efficient buildings or clean transportation. Investors choose them to support climate solutions while earning returns.
Green bonds are a major tool to finance the shift to a low-carbon economy by directing finance toward climate solutions. As climate costs rise, green bonds could help close the funding gap while ensuring transparency and accountability.
Green bonds are required to ensure funds are spent as promised. For instance, imagine a city wants to upgrade its public transportation by adding electric buses to reduce pollution. Instead of raising taxes or slashing other budgets, the city can issue green bonds to raise the necessary capital. Investors buy the bonds, the city gets the funding, and the environment benefits from cleaner air and fewer emissions.
The growing participation of government issuers has improved the transparency and reliability of these investments. The green bond market has grown rapidly in recent years. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the green bond market reached US$2.9 trillion (£2.1 trillion) in 2024 – nearly six times larger than in 2018. At the same time, annual issuance (the total value of green bonds issued in a year) hit US$700 billion, highlighting the increasing role of green finance in tackling climate change.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Just transition
Just transition is the process of moving to a low-carbon society that is environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive. In a broad sense, a just transition means focusing on creating a more fair and equal society.
Just transition has existed as a concept since the 1970s. It was originally applied to the green energy transition, protecting workers in the fossil fuel industry as we move towards more sustainable alternatives.
These days, it has so many overlapping issues of justice hidden within it, so the concept is hard to define. Even at the level of UN climate negotiations, global leaders struggle to agree on what a just transition means.
The big battle is between developed countries, who want a very restrictive definition around jobs and skills, and developing countries, who are looking for a much more holistic approach that considers wider system change and includes considerations around human rights, Indigenous people and creating an overall fairer global society.
A just transition is essentially about imagining a future where we have moved beyond fossil fuels and society works better for everyone – but that can look very different in a European city compared to a rural setting in south-east Asia.
For example, in a British city it might mean fewer cars and better public transport. In a rural setting, it might mean new ways of growing crops that are more sustainable, and building homes that are heatwave resistant.
By Alix Dietzel, climate justice and climate policy expert, University of Bristol
The meaning of just transition.
Loss and damage
A global loss and damage fund was agreed by nations at the UN climate summit (Cop27) in 2022. This means that the rich countries of the world put money into a fund that the least developed countries can then call upon when they have a climate emergency.
At the moment, the loss and damage fund is made up of relatively small pots of money. Much more will be needed to provide relief to those who need it most now and in the future.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains loss and damage.
Mitigation v adaptation
Mitigation means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. Adaptation means adjusting to its effects, like building sea walls or growing heat-resistant crops. Both are essential: mitigation tackles the cause, while adaptation tackles the symptoms.
Globally, most funding goes to mitigation, but vulnerable communities often need adaptation support most. Balancing the two is a major challenge in climate policy, especially for developing countries facing immediate climate threats.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Nationally determined contributions
Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are at the heart of the Paris agreement, the global effort to collectively combat climate change. NDCs are individual climate action plans created by each country. These targets and strategies outline how a country will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
Each nation sets its own goals based on its own circumstances and capabilities – there’s no standard NDC. These plans should be updated every five years and countries are encouraged to gradually increase their climate ambitions over time.
The aim is for NDCs to drive real action by guiding policies, attracting investment and inspiring innovation in clean technologies. But current NDCs fall short of the Paris agreement goals and many countries struggle to turn their plans into a reality. NDCs also vary widely in scope and detail so it’s hard to compare efforts across the board. Stronger international collaboration and greater accountability will be crucial.
By Doug Specht, reader in cultural geography and communication, University of Westminster
Fashion depends on water, soil and biodiversity – all natural capital. And forward-thinking designers are now asking: how do we create rather than deplete, how do we restore rather than extract?
Natural capital is the value assigned to the stock of forests, soils, oceans and even minerals such as lithium. It sustains every part of our economy. It’s the bees that pollinate our crops. It’s the wetlands that filter our water and it’s the trees that store carbon and cool our cities.
If we fail to value nature properly, we risk losing it. But if we succeed, we unlock a future that is not only sustainable but also truly regenerative.
My team at the University of Oxford is developing tools to integrate nature into national balance sheets, advising governments on biodiversity, and we’re helping industries from fashion to finance embed nature into their decision making.
Natural capital, explained by a climate finance expert.
By Mette Morsing, professor of business sustainability and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford
Net zero
Reaching net zero means reducing the amount of additional greenhouse gas emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere to zero. This concept was popularised by the Paris agreement, a landmark deal that was agreed at the UN climate summit (Cop21) in 2015 to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
There are some emissions, from farming and aviation for example, that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach absolute zero. Hence, the “net”. This allows people, businesses and countries to find ways to suck greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere, effectively cancelling out emissions while trying to reduce them. This can include reforestation, rewilding, direct air capture and carbon capture and storage. The goal is to reach net zero: the point at which no extra greenhouse gases accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains net zero.
For more expert explainer videos, visit The Conversation’s quick climate dictionary playlist here on YouTube.
Mark Maslin is Pro-Vice Provost of the UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge and Founding Director of the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. He was co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an advisor to Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow and has advised the UK Parliament. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, CIFF, Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Amani Maalouf receives funding from IKEA Foundation and UK Research and Innovation (NE/V017756/1).
Narmin Nahidi is affiliated with several academic associations, including the Financial Management Association (FMA), British Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA), American Finance Association (AFA), and the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CMBE). These affiliations do not influence the content of this article.
Paul O’Hare receives funding from the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Award reference NE/V010174/1.
Alix Dietzel, Dongna Zhang, Doug Specht, Mathias Weidinger, Meilan Yan, and Sankar Sivarajah do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Robert Bird, Professor of Business Law & Eversource Energy Chair in Business Ethics, University of Connecticut
Something dangerous is happening to the U.S. economy, and it’s not inflation or trade wars. Chaotic deregulation and the selective enforcement of laws have upended markets and investor confidence. At one point, the threat of tariffs and resulting chaos evaporated US$4 trillion in value in the U.S. stock market. This approach isn’t helping the economy, and there are troubling signs it will hurt both the U.S. and the global economy in the short and long term.
The rule of law – the idea that legal rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or political connections − is essential for a thriving economy. Yet globally the respect for the rule of law is slipping, and the U.S. is slipping with it. According to annual rankings from the World Justice Project, the rule of law has declined in more than half of all countries for seven years in a row. The rule of law in the U.S., the most economically powerful nation in the world, is now weaker than the rule of law in Uruguay, Singapore, Latvia and over 20 other countries.
When regulation is unnecessarily burdensome for business, government should lighten the load. However, arbitrary and frenzied deregulation does not free corporations to earn higher profits. As a business school professor with an MBA who has taught business law for over 25 years, and the author of a recently published book about the importance of legal knowledge to business, I can affirm that the opposite is true. Chaotic deregulation doesn’t drive growth. It only fuels risk.
Chaos undermines investment, talent and trust
Legal uncertainty has become a serious drag on American competitiveness.
A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that public policy risks — such as unexpected changes in taxes, regulation and enforcement — ranked among the top challenges businesses face, alongside more familiar business threats such as competition or economic volatility. Companies that can’t predict how the law might change are forced to plan for the worst. That means holding back on long-term investment, slowing innovation and raising prices to cover new risks.
When the government enforces rules arbitrarily, it also undermines property rights.
For example, if a country enters into a major trade agreement and then goes ahead and violates it, that threatens the property rights of the companies that relied on the agreement to conduct business. If the government can seize assets without due process, those assets lose their stability and value. And if that treatment depends on whether a company is in the government’s political favor, it’s not just bad economics − it’s a red flag for investors.
When government doesn’t enforce rules fairly, it also threatens people’s freedom to enter into contracts.
Consider presidential orders that threaten the clients of law firms that have challenged the administration with cancellation of their government contracts. The threat alone jeopardizes the value of those agreements.
If businesses can’t trust public contracts to be respected, they’ll be less likely to work with the government in the first place. This deprives the government, and ultimately the American people, of receiving the best value for their tax dollars in critical areas such as transportation, technology and national defense.
Regulatory chaos also allows corruption to spread.
For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from bribing foreign government officials, has leveled the playing field for firms and enabled the best American companies to succeed on their merits. Before the law was enacted in 1977, some American companies felt pressured to pay bribes to compete. “Pausing” enforcement of the law, as the current presidential administration has done, increases the cost of doing business and encourages a wild west economy where chaos thrives.
Chaotic enforcement of the law also corrodes labor markets.
American companies require a strong pool of talented professionals to fuel their financial success. When legal rights are enforced arbitrarily or unjustly, the very best talent that American companies need may leave the country.
The science brain drain is already happening. American scientists have submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad compared with last year. Nonscientists are leaving too. Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs has witnessed a 50% increase in Americans taking steps to obtain an Irish passport. Employers in the U.K. saw a spike in job applications from the United States.
Business from other countries will gladly accept American talent as they compete against American companies. During the Third Reich, Nazi Germany lost its best and brightest to other countries, including America. Now the reverse is happening, as highly talented Americans leave to work for firms in other nations.
Threats of arbitrary legal actions also drive away democratic allies and their prosperous populations that purchase American-made goods and services. For example, arbitrarily threatening to punish or even annex a closely allied nation does not endear its citizens to that government or the businesses it represents. So it’s no surprise that Canadians are now boycotting American goods and services. This is devastating businesses in American border towns and hurts the economy nationwide.
Similarly, the Canadian government has responded to whipsawing U.S. tariff announcements with counter-tariffs, which will slice the profits of American exporters. Close American allies and trading partners such as Japan, the U.K. and the European Union are also signaling their own willingness to impose retaliatory tariffs, increasing the costs of operations to American business even more.
Modern capitalism depends on smart regulation to thrive. Smart regulation is not an obstacle to capitalism. Smart regulation is what makes American capitalism possible. Smart regulation is what makes American freedom possible.
Clear and consistently applied legal rules allow businesses to aggressively compete, carefully plan, and generate profits. An arbitrary rule of law deprives business of the true power of capitalism – the ability to promote economic growth, spur innovation and improve the overall living standards of a free society. Americans deserve no less, and it is up to government to make that happen for everyone.
Robert Bird 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.
About 600 miles off the west coast of Africa, large clusters of thunderstorms begin organizing into tropical storms every hurricane season. They aren’t yet in range of Hurricane Hunter flights, so forecasters at the National Hurricane Center rely on weather satellites to peer down on these storms and beam back information about their location, structure and intensity.
The satellite data helps meteorologists create weather forecasts that keep planes and ships safe and prepare countries for a potential hurricane landfall.
Now, meteorologists are about to lose access to three of those satellites.
On June 25, 2025, the Trump administration issued a service change notice announcing that the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program, DMSP, and the Navy’s Fleet Numerical Meteorology and Oceanography Center would terminate data collection, processing and distribution of all DMSP data no later than June 30. The data termination was postponed until July 31 following a request from the head of NASA’s Earth Science Division.
How hurricanes form. NOAA
I am a meteorologist who studies lightning in hurricanes and helps train other meteorologists to monitor and forecast tropical cyclones. Here is how meteorologists use the DMSP data and why they are concerned about it going dark.
Looking inside the clouds
At its most basic, a weather satellite is a high-resolution digital camera in space that takes pictures of clouds in the atmosphere.
These are the satellite images you see on most TV weather broadcasts. They let meteorologists see the location and some details of a hurricane’s structure, but only during daylight hours.
Hurricane Flossie spins off the Mexican coast on July 1, 2025. Images show the top of the hurricane from space as day turns to night. NOAA GOES
Meteorologists can use infrared satellite data, similar to a thermal imaging camera, at all hours of the day to find the coldest cloud-top temperatures, highlighting areas where the highest wind speeds and rainfall rates are found.
But while visible and infrared satellite imagery are valuable tools for hurricane forecasters, they provide only a basic picture of the storm. It’s like a doctor diagnosing a patient after a visual exam and checking their temperature.
Infrared bands show more detail of Hurricane Flossie’s structure on July 1, 2025. NOAA GOES
For more accurate diagnoses, meteorologists rely on the DMSP satellites.
The three satellites orbit Earth 14 times per day with special sensor microwave imager/sounder instruments, or SSMIS. These let meteorologists look inside the clouds, similar to how an MRI in a hospital looks inside a human body. With these instruments, meteorologists can pinpoint the storm’s low-pressure center and identify signs of intensification.
Precisely locating the center of a hurricane improves forecasts of the storm’s future track. This lets meteorologists produce more accurate hurricane watches, warnings and evacuations.
About 80% of major hurricanes – those with wind speeds of at least 111 mph (179 kilometers per hour) – rapidly intensify at some point, ramping up the risks they pose to people and property on land. Finding out when storms are about to undergo intensification allows meteorologists to warn the public about these dangerous hurricanes.
Where are the defense satellites going?
NOAA’s Office of Satellite and Product Operations described the reason for turning off the flow of data as a need to mitigate “a significant cybersecurity risk.”
The three satellites have already operated for longer than planned.
The DMSP satellites were launched between 1999 and 2009 and were designed to last for five years. They have now been operating for more than 15 years. The United States Space Force recently concluded that the DMSP satellites would reach the end of their lives between 2023 and 2026, so the data would likely have gone dark soon.
The advanced technology microwave sounder, or ATMS, can provide data similar to the special sensor microwave imager/sounder, or SSMIS, but at a lower resolution. It provides a more washed-out view that is less useful than the SSMIS for pinpointing a storm’s location or estimating its intensity.
Images of Hurricane Erick off the coast of Mexico, viewed from NOAA-20’s ATMS (left) and DMPS SSMIS (right) on June 18 show the difference in resolution and the higher detail provided by the SSMIS data. U.S. Naval Research Laboratory, via Michael Lowry
ML-1A is a microwave satellite that will help replace some of the DMSP satellites’ capabilities. However, the government hasn’t announced whether the ML-1A data will be available to forecasters, including those at the National Hurricane Center.
Why are satellite replacements last minute?
Satellite programs are planned over many years, even decades, and are very expensive. The current geostationary satellite program launched its first satellite in 2016 with plans to operate until 2038. Development of the planned successor for GOES-R began in 2019.
Scientists prepare a GOES-R satellite for packing aboard a rocket in 2016. NASA/Charles Babir
Delays in developing the satellite instruments and funding cuts caused the National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System and Defense Weather Satellite System to be canceled in 2010 and 2012 before any of their satellites could be launched.
The 2026 NOAA budget request includes an increase in funding for the next-generation geostationary satellite program, so it can be restructured to reuse spare parts from existing geostationary satellites. The budget also terminates contracts for ocean color, atmospheric composition and advanced lightning mapper instruments.
Hurricane forecasters will continue to use all available tools, including satellite, radar, weather balloon and dropsonde data, to monitor the tropics and issue hurricane forecasts. But the loss of satellite data, along with other cuts to data, funding and staffing, could ultimately put more lives at risk.
Chris Vagasky is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the National Weather Association.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, describes the U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear sites, which occurred on June 21, 2025, .AP Photo/Alex Brandon
The U.S. Air Force dropped a dozen ground-penetrating bombs, each weighing 30,000 pounds (13,607 kilograms), in a raid on Iran’s nuclear site at Fordo on June 21, 2025. The attack was an attempt to reach the uranium enrichment facility buried deep inside a mountain. The target, President Donald Trump declared, was “completely and totally obliterated.”
Others were less sure. On June 24, the administration canceled a classified intelligence briefing to members of Congress, leading to frustration among those with questions about White House claims. While Defense Intelligence Agency analysts apparently agree that the strikes did real damage, they dispute the idea that the attack permanently destroyed Iran’s enrichment capability. Reports emerged that their initial analysis found that the strikes had only set Iran back a few months.
Such disagreements are unsurprising. Battle damage assessment – originally called bomb damage assessment – is notoriously difficult, and past wars have featured intense controversies among military and intelligence professionals. In World War II, poor weather and the limits of available technology conspired against accuracy.
Battle damage assessment remained a thorny problem decades later, even after radical improvements in surveillance technology. In the first Gulf War in 1990, for example, military leaders argued with CIA officials over the effects of airstrikes against Iraq’s armored forces.
How the U.S. military’s ‘bunker buster’ bomb works.
Tools of the trade
The intelligence community has a number of tools and techniques that can help with challenges like assessing the damage at Fordo. Imagery intelligence such as satellite photography is the obvious starting point. Before-and-after comparisons might reveal collapsed tunnels or topographical changes, suggesting unseen subterranean damage.
More exotic data collection techniques may be able to help infer the underground effects based on particle and electromagnetic emissions from the site. These platforms provide what is called measurement and signatures intelligence. Specialized sensors can measure nuclear radiation, seismographic information and other potentially revealing information from camouflaged facilities. When combined with traditional imagery, measurement and signatures intelligence can provide a more detailed model of the likely effects of the bombing.
Other sources may prove useful as well. Reporting from human intelligence assets – spies or unwitting informers with firsthand or secondhand knowledge – may provide information on internal Iranian assessments. These may be particularly valuable because Iranian officials presumably know how much equipment was removed in advance, as well as the location of previously enriched uranium.
The same is true for signals intelligence, which intercepts and interprets communications. Ideally, battle damage assessment will become more comprehensive and accurate as these sources of intelligence are integrated into a single assessment.
Pervasive uncertainty
But even in that case, it will still be difficult to estimate the broader effects on Iran’s nuclear program. Measuring the immediate physical effects on Fordo and other nuclear sites is a kind of puzzle, or a problem that can be solved with sufficient evidence. Estimating the long-term effects on Iranian policy is a mystery, or a problem that cannot be solved even with abundant information on hand. It’s impossible to know how Iran’s leaders will adapt over time to their changing circumstances. They themselves cannot know either; perceptions of the future are inherently uncertain.
Regarding the puzzle over Fordo, Trump seems to believe that the sheer volume of explosives dropped on the site must have done the job. As White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt put it: “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”
But the fact that Fordo is buried in the side of a mountain is a reason to doubt this commonsense conclusion. In addition, Iran may have moved enriched uranium and specialized equipment from the site in advance, limiting the effects on its nuclear program.
Trump’s instincts might be right. Or the skeptics might be right. Both make plausible claims. Analysts will need more intelligence from more sources to make a confident judgment about the effects on Fordo and on Iran’s broader nuclear efforts. Even then, it is likely that they will disagree on the effects, because this requires making predictions.
News coverage of the attack on Fordo and White House claims of success.
Politicized intelligence
In a perfect world, policymakers and intelligence officials would wrestle with dueling assessments in good faith. Such a process would take place outside the political fray, giving both sides the opportunity to offer criticism without being accused of political mischief. In this idealized scenario, policymakers could use reasonable intelligence conclusions to inform their decision-making process. After all, there are a lot of decisions about Middle Eastern security left to be made.
But we are not in a perfect world, and hopes for a good faith debate seem hopelessly naïve. Already the battle lines are being drawn. Congressional Democrats are suspicious that the administration is being disingenuous about Iran. The White House, for its part, is going on the offensive. “The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump,” Leavitt declared in a written statement, “and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission.”
Relations between policymakers and their intelligence advisers are often contentious, and U.S. presidents have a long history of clashing with spy chiefs. But intelligence-policy relations today are in a particularly dismal state. Trump bears the most responsibility, given his repeated disparagement of intelligence officials. For example, he dismissed the congressional testimony on Iran from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “I don’t care what she said.”
The problem goes deeper than the president, however. Intelligence-policy relations in a democracy are difficult because of the persuasive power of secret information. Policymakers fear that intelligence officials who control secrets might use them to undermine the policymakers’ plans. Intelligence officials worry that the policymakers will bully them into giving politically convenient answers. Such fears led to intelligence-policy breakdowns over estimates of enemy strength in the Vietnam War and estimates of Soviet missile capabilities in the early years of detente.
This mutual suspicion has become progressively worse since the end of the Cold War, as secret intelligence has become increasingly public. Intelligence leaders have become recognizable public figures, and intelligence judgments on current issues are often quickly declassified. The public now expects to have access to intelligence findings, and this has helped turn intelligence into a political football.
What lies ahead
What does all this mean for intelligence on Iran? Trump might ignore assessments he dislikes, given his history with intelligence. But the acrimonious public dispute over the Fordo strike may lead the White House to pressure intelligence leaders to toe the line, especially if critics demand a public accounting of secret intelligence.
Such an outcome would benefit nobody. The public would not have a better sense of the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear effort, the intelligence community would suffer a serious blow to its reputation, and the administration’s efforts to use intelligence in public might backfire, as was the case for the George W. Bush administration after the war in Iraq.
Source: The Conversation – USA (2) – By Robert Bird, Professor of Business Law & Eversource Energy Chair in Business Ethics, University of Connecticut
Something dangerous is happening to the U.S. economy, and it’s not inflation or trade wars. Chaotic deregulation and the selective enforcement of laws have upended markets and investor confidence. At one point, the threat of tariffs and resulting chaos evaporated US$4 trillion in value in the U.S. stock market. This approach isn’t helping the economy, and there are troubling signs it will hurt both the U.S. and the global economy in the short and long term.
The rule of law – the idea that legal rules apply to everyone equally, regardless of wealth or political connections − is essential for a thriving economy. Yet globally the respect for the rule of law is slipping, and the U.S. is slipping with it. According to annual rankings from the World Justice Project, the rule of law has declined in more than half of all countries for seven years in a row. The rule of law in the U.S., the most economically powerful nation in the world, is now weaker than the rule of law in Uruguay, Singapore, Latvia and over 20 other countries.
When regulation is unnecessarily burdensome for business, government should lighten the load. However, arbitrary and frenzied deregulation does not free corporations to earn higher profits. As a business school professor with an MBA who has taught business law for over 25 years, and the author of a recently published book about the importance of legal knowledge to business, I can affirm that the opposite is true. Chaotic deregulation doesn’t drive growth. It only fuels risk.
Chaos undermines investment, talent and trust
Legal uncertainty has become a serious drag on American competitiveness.
A study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce found that public policy risks — such as unexpected changes in taxes, regulation and enforcement — ranked among the top challenges businesses face, alongside more familiar business threats such as competition or economic volatility. Companies that can’t predict how the law might change are forced to plan for the worst. That means holding back on long-term investment, slowing innovation and raising prices to cover new risks.
When the government enforces rules arbitrarily, it also undermines property rights.
For example, if a country enters into a major trade agreement and then goes ahead and violates it, that threatens the property rights of the companies that relied on the agreement to conduct business. If the government can seize assets without due process, those assets lose their stability and value. And if that treatment depends on whether a company is in the government’s political favor, it’s not just bad economics − it’s a red flag for investors.
When government doesn’t enforce rules fairly, it also threatens people’s freedom to enter into contracts.
Consider presidential orders that threaten the clients of law firms that have challenged the administration with cancellation of their government contracts. The threat alone jeopardizes the value of those agreements.
If businesses can’t trust public contracts to be respected, they’ll be less likely to work with the government in the first place. This deprives the government, and ultimately the American people, of receiving the best value for their tax dollars in critical areas such as transportation, technology and national defense.
Regulatory chaos also allows corruption to spread.
For example, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits businesses from bribing foreign government officials, has leveled the playing field for firms and enabled the best American companies to succeed on their merits. Before the law was enacted in 1977, some American companies felt pressured to pay bribes to compete. “Pausing” enforcement of the law, as the current presidential administration has done, increases the cost of doing business and encourages a wild west economy where chaos thrives.
Chaotic enforcement of the law also corrodes labor markets.
American companies require a strong pool of talented professionals to fuel their financial success. When legal rights are enforced arbitrarily or unjustly, the very best talent that American companies need may leave the country.
The science brain drain is already happening. American scientists have submitted 32% more applications for jobs abroad compared with last year. Nonscientists are leaving too. Ireland’s Department of Foreign Affairs has witnessed a 50% increase in Americans taking steps to obtain an Irish passport. Employers in the U.K. saw a spike in job applications from the United States.
Business from other countries will gladly accept American talent as they compete against American companies. During the Third Reich, Nazi Germany lost its best and brightest to other countries, including America. Now the reverse is happening, as highly talented Americans leave to work for firms in other nations.
Threats of arbitrary legal actions also drive away democratic allies and their prosperous populations that purchase American-made goods and services. For example, arbitrarily threatening to punish or even annex a closely allied nation does not endear its citizens to that government or the businesses it represents. So it’s no surprise that Canadians are now boycotting American goods and services. This is devastating businesses in American border towns and hurts the economy nationwide.
Similarly, the Canadian government has responded to whipsawing U.S. tariff announcements with counter-tariffs, which will slice the profits of American exporters. Close American allies and trading partners such as Japan, the U.K. and the European Union are also signaling their own willingness to impose retaliatory tariffs, increasing the costs of operations to American business even more.
Modern capitalism depends on smart regulation to thrive. Smart regulation is not an obstacle to capitalism. Smart regulation is what makes American capitalism possible. Smart regulation is what makes American freedom possible.
Clear and consistently applied legal rules allow businesses to aggressively compete, carefully plan, and generate profits. An arbitrary rule of law deprives business of the true power of capitalism – the ability to promote economic growth, spur innovation and improve the overall living standards of a free society. Americans deserve no less, and it is up to government to make that happen for everyone.
Robert Bird 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.
Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, describes the U.S. military attack on Iranian nuclear sites, which occurred on June 21, 2025, .AP Photo/Alex Brandon
The U.S. Air Force dropped a dozen ground-penetrating bombs, each weighing 30,000 pounds (13,607 kilograms), in a raid on Iran’s nuclear site at Fordo on June 21, 2025. The attack was an attempt to reach the uranium enrichment facility buried deep inside a mountain. The target, President Donald Trump declared, was “completely and totally obliterated.”
Others were less sure. On June 24, the administration canceled a classified intelligence briefing to members of Congress, leading to frustration among those with questions about White House claims. While Defense Intelligence Agency analysts apparently agree that the strikes did real damage, they dispute the idea that the attack permanently destroyed Iran’s enrichment capability. Reports emerged that their initial analysis found that the strikes had only set Iran back a few months.
Such disagreements are unsurprising. Battle damage assessment – originally called bomb damage assessment – is notoriously difficult, and past wars have featured intense controversies among military and intelligence professionals. In World War II, poor weather and the limits of available technology conspired against accuracy.
Battle damage assessment remained a thorny problem decades later, even after radical improvements in surveillance technology. In the first Gulf War in 1990, for example, military leaders argued with CIA officials over the effects of airstrikes against Iraq’s armored forces.
How the U.S. military’s ‘bunker buster’ bomb works.
Tools of the trade
The intelligence community has a number of tools and techniques that can help with challenges like assessing the damage at Fordo. Imagery intelligence such as satellite photography is the obvious starting point. Before-and-after comparisons might reveal collapsed tunnels or topographical changes, suggesting unseen subterranean damage.
More exotic data collection techniques may be able to help infer the underground effects based on particle and electromagnetic emissions from the site. These platforms provide what is called measurement and signatures intelligence. Specialized sensors can measure nuclear radiation, seismographic information and other potentially revealing information from camouflaged facilities. When combined with traditional imagery, measurement and signatures intelligence can provide a more detailed model of the likely effects of the bombing.
Other sources may prove useful as well. Reporting from human intelligence assets – spies or unwitting informers with firsthand or secondhand knowledge – may provide information on internal Iranian assessments. These may be particularly valuable because Iranian officials presumably know how much equipment was removed in advance, as well as the location of previously enriched uranium.
The same is true for signals intelligence, which intercepts and interprets communications. Ideally, battle damage assessment will become more comprehensive and accurate as these sources of intelligence are integrated into a single assessment.
Pervasive uncertainty
But even in that case, it will still be difficult to estimate the broader effects on Iran’s nuclear program. Measuring the immediate physical effects on Fordo and other nuclear sites is a kind of puzzle, or a problem that can be solved with sufficient evidence. Estimating the long-term effects on Iranian policy is a mystery, or a problem that cannot be solved even with abundant information on hand. It’s impossible to know how Iran’s leaders will adapt over time to their changing circumstances. They themselves cannot know either; perceptions of the future are inherently uncertain.
Regarding the puzzle over Fordo, Trump seems to believe that the sheer volume of explosives dropped on the site must have done the job. As White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt put it: “Everyone knows what happens when you drop 14 30,000-pound bombs perfectly on their targets: total obliteration.”
But the fact that Fordo is buried in the side of a mountain is a reason to doubt this commonsense conclusion. In addition, Iran may have moved enriched uranium and specialized equipment from the site in advance, limiting the effects on its nuclear program.
Trump’s instincts might be right. Or the skeptics might be right. Both make plausible claims. Analysts will need more intelligence from more sources to make a confident judgment about the effects on Fordo and on Iran’s broader nuclear efforts. Even then, it is likely that they will disagree on the effects, because this requires making predictions.
News coverage of the attack on Fordo and White House claims of success.
Politicized intelligence
In a perfect world, policymakers and intelligence officials would wrestle with dueling assessments in good faith. Such a process would take place outside the political fray, giving both sides the opportunity to offer criticism without being accused of political mischief. In this idealized scenario, policymakers could use reasonable intelligence conclusions to inform their decision-making process. After all, there are a lot of decisions about Middle Eastern security left to be made.
But we are not in a perfect world, and hopes for a good faith debate seem hopelessly naïve. Already the battle lines are being drawn. Congressional Democrats are suspicious that the administration is being disingenuous about Iran. The White House, for its part, is going on the offensive. “The leaking of this alleged assessment is a clear attempt to demean President Trump,” Leavitt declared in a written statement, “and discredit the brave fighter pilots who conducted a perfectly executed mission.”
Relations between policymakers and their intelligence advisers are often contentious, and U.S. presidents have a long history of clashing with spy chiefs. But intelligence-policy relations today are in a particularly dismal state. Trump bears the most responsibility, given his repeated disparagement of intelligence officials. For example, he dismissed the congressional testimony on Iran from Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard: “I don’t care what she said.”
The problem goes deeper than the president, however. Intelligence-policy relations in a democracy are difficult because of the persuasive power of secret information. Policymakers fear that intelligence officials who control secrets might use them to undermine the policymakers’ plans. Intelligence officials worry that the policymakers will bully them into giving politically convenient answers. Such fears led to intelligence-policy breakdowns over estimates of enemy strength in the Vietnam War and estimates of Soviet missile capabilities in the early years of detente.
This mutual suspicion has become progressively worse since the end of the Cold War, as secret intelligence has become increasingly public. Intelligence leaders have become recognizable public figures, and intelligence judgments on current issues are often quickly declassified. The public now expects to have access to intelligence findings, and this has helped turn intelligence into a political football.
What lies ahead
What does all this mean for intelligence on Iran? Trump might ignore assessments he dislikes, given his history with intelligence. But the acrimonious public dispute over the Fordo strike may lead the White House to pressure intelligence leaders to toe the line, especially if critics demand a public accounting of secret intelligence.
Such an outcome would benefit nobody. The public would not have a better sense of the questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear effort, the intelligence community would suffer a serious blow to its reputation, and the administration’s efforts to use intelligence in public might backfire, as was the case for the George W. Bush administration after the war in Iraq.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) on Thursday predicted heavy to very heavy rainfall in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand over the next five days.
As per IMD, heavy to very heavy rainfall activity is likely to continue over large parts of northwest, central, eastern, and northeastern India, as well as along the west coast, over the next six to seven days.
Extremely heavy rainfall – measuring 21 cm or more – is likely at isolated locations in east Rajasthan, the ghat areas of central Maharashtra, south coastal Maharashtra and Goa, and parts of coastal and south interior Karnataka today.
Weather forecast for Delhi-NCR
In the national capital region, Delhi is likely to see partly cloudy skies with light rain and thunderstorms over the coming days.
Today, the maximum temperature is expected to range between 36°C and 38°C, with very light to light rain accompanied by thunderstorms or lightning. Winds will predominantly blow from the southeast at speeds under 20 kmph during the afternoon, decreasing to 10–15 kmph by night.
On July 4, the weather will remain partly cloudy with chances of light rainfall and thunderstorms. Maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to range between 36–38°C and 26–28°C, respectively, remaining close to the seasonal average. Winds will be lighter, ranging from 8 to 15 kmph, mostly from the southeast and southwest directions.
By July 5, light to moderate rain with thunderstorms is predicted, accompanied by a drop in temperatures. The maximum temperature is expected to settle between 35°C and 37°C, while the minimum may fall to 24–26°C—1 to 3°C below normal. Winds will be relatively light, shifting from east to southeast during the day and picking up slightly by evening.
July 6 may bring further relief, with moderate rainfall expected and temperatures dipping further. The maximum temperature may range from 32°C to 34°C—3 to 5°C below normal—while the minimum is likely to stay between 26°C and 28°C. Winds will predominantly blow from the southwest at light speeds throughout the day.
The India Meteorological Department (IMD) on Thursday predicted heavy to very heavy rainfall in Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand over the next five days.
As per IMD, heavy to very heavy rainfall activity is likely to continue over large parts of northwest, central, eastern, and northeastern India, as well as along the west coast, over the next six to seven days.
Extremely heavy rainfall – measuring 21 cm or more – is likely at isolated locations in east Rajasthan, the ghat areas of central Maharashtra, south coastal Maharashtra and Goa, and parts of coastal and south interior Karnataka today.
Weather forecast for Delhi-NCR
In the national capital region, Delhi is likely to see partly cloudy skies with light rain and thunderstorms over the coming days.
Today, the maximum temperature is expected to range between 36°C and 38°C, with very light to light rain accompanied by thunderstorms or lightning. Winds will predominantly blow from the southeast at speeds under 20 kmph during the afternoon, decreasing to 10–15 kmph by night.
On July 4, the weather will remain partly cloudy with chances of light rainfall and thunderstorms. Maximum and minimum temperatures are expected to range between 36–38°C and 26–28°C, respectively, remaining close to the seasonal average. Winds will be lighter, ranging from 8 to 15 kmph, mostly from the southeast and southwest directions.
By July 5, light to moderate rain with thunderstorms is predicted, accompanied by a drop in temperatures. The maximum temperature is expected to settle between 35°C and 37°C, while the minimum may fall to 24–26°C—1 to 3°C below normal. Winds will be relatively light, shifting from east to southeast during the day and picking up slightly by evening.
July 6 may bring further relief, with moderate rainfall expected and temperatures dipping further. The maximum temperature may range from 32°C to 34°C—3 to 5°C below normal—while the minimum is likely to stay between 26°C and 28°C. Winds will predominantly blow from the southwest at light speeds throughout the day.
Hundreds of firefighters battled a blaze Thursday on Crete island, which burnt swathes of forest and olive groves and forced the evacuation of over 1,000 people, officials said, underscoring the region’s vulnerability to destructive wildfires.
At least 230 firefighters, along with 46 engines and helicopters, were deployed to contain the conflagration, which broke out a day earlier near Ierapetra townon the southeastern coast of Greece’s largest island.
Stoked by gale-force winds, the blaze reached houses and hotels, fire brigade and local officials said, with local media reporting damage to some homes but no injuries.
Scores of residents and tourists were evacuated and moved to a temporary shelter at an indoor stadium in Ierapetra. Some left Crete by boats, authorities said.
“Three settlements were evacuated and more than 1,000 left their homes. Some were taken to health centres with respiratory problems,” Crete’s deputy civil protection governor, George Tsapakos, told public broadcaster ERT.
ERT footage showed a water bomber flying over an area thick with grey smoke.
Alongside reinforcements from Athens on Thursday, firefighters fought to tame several resurgent blazes whipped up by winds, fire brigade spokesman Vassilis Vathrakogiannis said.
“There are wind gusts in the area, some measuring 9 on the Beaufort scale, which are triggering rekindling and hindering firefighting efforts,” Vathrakogiannis said.
July tended to be the most difficult month of the fire season due to high temperatures and strong winds, he said.
Greece and other countries in the Mediterranean are in an area scientists have called “a wildfire hotspot” – with blazes common during hot and dry summers. These have become more destructive in recent years, authorities say, due to a fast-changing climate.
Thousands havefled wildfires in Turkey and at least eight people have died as a result of a heatwavein Europe.
