Donald Trump’s recent statement describing Gaza as a “demolition site” – and his suggestion to “evacuate” Palestinians in Gaza to Egypt and Jordan to “clean out that whole thing” – has sent shockwaves across the region.
Trump reportedly told journalists travelling with him on Air Force One at the weekend that he had spoken with King Abdullah of Jordan and planned to talk with Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. “You’re talking about probably a million and a half people, and we just clean out that whole thing,” he said.
He added that relocating Palestinian civilians to “some of the Arab nations, and build[ing] housing in a different location, where they can maybe live in peace for a change” could be “done temporarily or could be long term”.
But it has been widely criticised across the region as a potential “second Nakba” – referring to the violence and displacement of Palestinians after Israel’s unilateral declaration of statehood in 1948. The proposal has also been outright rejected by Egypt and Jordan. It has also been strongly condemned by the Palestinians.
It remains unclear to what extent this aligns with US policy and diplomacy, but such rhetoric risks undermining the pivotal regional diplomatic efforts. These efforts, led by Qatar and Egypt in close coordination with Washington, are focused on continuing the negotiations on the ceasefire, monitoring progress, and verifying compliance.
So it’s far from certain if this is an official US policy position or another example of the US president simply airing his thoughts. But what is clear is that his latest pronouncement will further complicate the ceasefire deal agreed on January 17.
The deal already faces significant challenges and uncertainties, not least the mutual distrust between the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships. History tells us that this lack of trust has developed, in part, because of the numerous times ceasefires have been used for purposes other than pursuing long-term settlement, such as opportunities to regroup, rearm or reposition strategically.
So the staged nature of the current deal carries considerable risks, as it creates opportunities for “spoilers” on both sides to derail the process. The recent violence of Jewish settlers on the West Bank and Hamas’s active encouragement of confrontation there are other examples of things that could derail the ceasefire.
The negotiation process is further complicated by dynamics tied to the political survival of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. One party (Jewish Power) has already left his coalition government in protest against the ceasefire. Meanwhile the leader of the Religious Zionist party, Bezalel Smotrich, has threatened to do the same if the military operation against Hamas is not resumed.
Hamas, in turn, has attempted to reassert its control in Gaza. We’ve seen examples of that during the hostage exchange process when Hamas fighters conspicuously present at the handovers. Hamas may have been severely weakened, but it still controls significant parts of Gaza’s bureaucracy and policing and wants the world to know it.
Challenges ahead
If any part of the agreement falters there is a substantial risk that each side will blame the other of breaching the terms of the ceasefire. Two of the most contentious issues in the second phase are determining who will govern Gaza and how to implement a full Israeli withdrawal.
While Israel continues its security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority (PA) in the West Bank, it vehemently opposes any PA role in Gaza. There is also considerable doubt as to whether Israel will agree to any long-term solution which involves complete withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) from Gaza.
The recent resignation of the IDF’s chief of staff Herzl Halevi, as he took responsibility for the IDF’s failures on October 7, has further destabilised the political and military dynamics in Israel. A lot will depend on his successor.
Recent geopolitical shifts have reshaped regional dynamics. This presents challenges and opportunities for any diplomatic initiatives surrounding Israel and Palestine. The weakening of Iran’s so-called “axis of resistance”, including Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in neighbouring Lebanon – and the now-collapsed Assad regime in Syria – may provide an opportunity for the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia.
This in turn will offer an opportunity to reshape the Middle East’s geopolitical landscape. This potential breakthrough builds on the Abraham accords, which was one of Trump’s foreign policy initiatives. It’s a transactional approach to diplomacy, which prioritises pragmatic and results-oriented negotiations.
The new US Middle East envoy, former real estate developer Steve Witkoff, has emphasised “courageous diplomacy”, as well as strong leadership and what he called “reciprocal actions” from the parties to the peace deal. Whether the new US administration will revive the 2020 Trump plan for a Palestinian state remains uncertain.
That plan proposed granting 70% of the West Bank and Gaza to Palestinians while allowing Israel to retain sovereignty over Jerusalem. It also included US approval for Israeli annexation of territories with Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
For Israel, normalisation with Saudi Arabia would be a major diplomatic victory. Washington is playing a crucial role here, offering incentives such as sale of advanced American weapons systems to Riyadh. But Saudi Arabia has reportedly demanded concrete steps toward establishing a Palestinian state as part of the deal. Trump’s latest gambit, if it becomes official US policy, would make that a non-starter.
Karin Aggestam has received research funding from Riksbankens Jubileumsfond, Australian Reseach Council, Wallenberg Foundation and others.
Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael Harrison, Senior Lecturer in Economics and Finance, University of East London
Addressing the climate crisis was one of the key themes at the World Economic Forum in Davos.Rustam Zagidullin/Shutterstock
Every year, leaders from politics and business come together with economists, investors and even celebrities at the World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davos. One of the five key themes of this year’s event was safeguarding the planet. The forum’s own figures suggest that human-caused climate change has cost the planet US$3.6 trillion (£2.9 trillion) in damage since 2000 alone.
Many of the sessions at Davos focused on climate change, which was especially pertinent after US president Donald Trump’s decision to abandon for a second time the Paris Agreement – a framework to keep the warming of the planet to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.
In an online address to Davos delegates, Trump even argued that the oil-producers’ group Opec should reduce the price of oil. This is in stark contrast to the views of many other governments – exemplified by UK energy and climate change secretary Ed Miliband’s assertion that net zero is “unstoppable”.
But one of the less discussed elements of the path to net-zero by the year 2050 (a key target to keep the Paris Agreement on track) is the role of the financial sector.
As economists, we believe that banks and financial institutions should play a key role in making the green transition happen. Companies that produce goods and services will need to invest in equipment and technology – either to make new greener products or to ensure that they pollute less.
But this will cost money – likely money that firms do not actually have on their balance sheet or under their mattress. When banks assist in providing funding for this type of investment, it is known as green finance.
Green finance from banks can take two forms. Either the banks underwrite corporate bonds, which means they sell bonds to investors in exchange for a fee. Or they become involved in the provision of a syndicated loan, which is when they collaborate with other banks to lend money.
But both options are constrained by the rule that a bank will only provide finance out of self-interest. This means they act only when the profit they earn is proportional to the credit risk they take on. But this was in contrast to the message from Davos that businesses should take the lead, with the aid of finance from banks, in mitigating the risks of climate change.
With easier access to finance, more firms could invest in innovative ways to go green like this car park with inbuilt solar panels in Leeds. Clare Louise Jackson/Shutterstock
Sources of credit for businesses to make green investments include philanthropists, public finance and the private sector (that is, commercial banks). However, it is arguable that charity and public money are best used in partnership with private banks, to finance projects that are perceived high risk and low return. Banks alone would not support these because of their promotion of self-interest.
However, philanthropy can be limited and inconsistent in providing funds for green projects. And the public sector has so many demands on its purse that its ability to support is also limited. This is where the private sector plays a key role in mitigating climate change and where partnerships between these three sectors could offer a way forward.
This pathway was discussed at Davos but the speakers were not clear on what effective partnerships would look like. As academics who have researched the factors that influence green finance provision across multiple European countries, we would suggest a partnership structure between the public sector and the private sector, based on risk-sharing.
In these cases where banks perceive the risk to be unbearable (and therefore not in their self-interest), governments could partner with banks in offering finance and so share the consequences of a bad project outcome. In other words, they would form a partnership with the bank to share the downside risk.
A bank may consider an investment to be higher risk where a project has less certain outcomes, or requires funding for a longer period of time. Both of these factors are comparatively common in green financing deals. This could be because a firm is investing in new or untested tech or production methods – for example car manufacturers exploring new electric vehicle battery technologies.
The struggle for smaller businesses
This partnership approach could especially benefit small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which make up 99% of Europe’s companies. But these businesses can struggle to access finance from banks due to their lack of capital, which can make banks see them as a high risk. And this of course is challenging for SMEs, which mostly have no other sources of external finance.
Research shows that medium-sized firms often rely on loans for finance. Our work focuses on how companies in Europe and the UK source green financing. It has highlighted that larger companies, as well as more liquid and more profitable firms, tend to raise finance via bonds (issued by banks and bought by investors) rather than loans (from a bank or other financial institution).
In fact, our research shows that in some European countries (including Latvia, Malta and Romania), domestic banks have no record whatsoever of providing green finance to companies.
This means it is much easier for larger businesses to get green finance compared to their smaller peers. And smaller companies tend to obtain relatively lower amounts of green financing, creating a real risk that SMEs may not get what they need in order to play their part in reducing their emissions.
Without a significant shift in allowing SMEs to get the finance they need to become greener, governments will struggle to get close to their net-zero goals. But, along with financial regulators, governments could lead the way to create partnerships with banks and other financial institutions to overcome the barriers that SMEs face.
Sharing the risk would ensure banks continue their green lending activities and accelerate progress toward meeting government climate targets.
The authors 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.
President Donald Trump has begun to radically change how the U.S. government handles immigration, from challenging long-held legal concepts about who gets citizenship to using the military to transport migrants back to their countries of origin.
Trump’s administration is doing more than reshaping the approach of the federal government toward migrants: It has now ordered state and local officials to comply with all federal immigration laws, including any new executive orders. It has warned that if those officials refuse, it may criminally prosecute them.
The specter of a federal prosecutor putting a city’s mayor or a state’s governor in jail will raise what may be the greatest source of conflict in the U.S. Constitution. That conflict is how much power the federal government can wield over the states, a long-standing and unresolved dispute that will move again to the front and center of American politics and, in all likelihood, into American courtrooms.
A sign prohibiting the entry of ICE or Homeland Security personnel is posted on a door at St. Paul and St. Andrew United Methodist Church in New York City. Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images
In the Jan. 21, 2024, memo, Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove, one of Trump’s former private attorneys, directs federal prosecutors to “investigate … for potential prosecution” state and local officials who “resist, obstruct, or otherwise fail to comply” with the new administration’s immigration orders.
Acting Deputy Attorney General Emil Bove asserted in a recent memo that the Constitution and other legal authorities ‘require state and local actors to comply with the Executive Branch’s immigration enforcement initiatives.’ Jeenah Moon-Pool/Getty Images
By ordering federal prosecutors to potentially arrest, charge and imprison state and local officials, it strikes at a fundamental tension embedded in the nation’s constitutional structure in a way that Trump’s other orders do not. That tension has never been fully resolved, in either the political or legal arenas.
The practicalities of this dual sovereignty – where two governments exercise supreme power – have had to play out in practice, with often very messy results. The crux of the problem is that the Constitution explicitly grants power to both federal and state governments – but the founders did not specify what to do if the two sovereigns disagree or how any ensuing struggle should be resolved.
As Bove correctly noted in his memo, Article 4 of the U.S Constitution contains the supremacy clause, which declares that federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land.”
But Bove failed to mention that the Constitution also contains the 10th Amendment. Its language, that “(a)ll powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people, respectively,” has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to create a sphere of state sovereignty into which the federal government may not easily intrude.
This is not to say that the federal government is barred from making policies in these areas. Indeed, the great puzzle of federalism – and the great challenge for courts – has been to figure out the boundaries between state and federal power and how two sovereigns can coexist.
If it sounds confusing, that’s because it is. The country’s best legal minds have long wrestled with how to balance the powers granted by the supremacy clause and the 10th Amendment.
Push and pull
In a 1997 opinion, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the Constitution barred the federal government from ‘impress[ing] into its service…the police officers of the 50 States.’ Alex Wong/Getty Images
Reflecting this tension, the Supreme Court developed a pair of legal doctrines that sit uneasily alongside each other.
The first is the doctrine of “preemption,,” in which federal law can supersede state policy in certain circumstances, such as when a congressional statute expressly withdraws certain powers from the states.
At the same time, the court has limited the reach of the federal government, particularly in its ability to tell states what to do, a doctrine now known as the “anti-commandeering rule.” Were the Trump administration to go after state or local officials, both of these legal principles could come into play.
The anti-commandeering rule was first articulated in 1992 when the Supreme Court ruled in New York v. United States that the federal government could not force a state to take control of radioactive waste generated within its boundaries.
The court relied on the doctrine again five years later, in Printz v. United States, when it rejected the federal government’s attempt to require local law enforcement officials to conduct background checks before citizens could purchase handguns.
In an opinion authored by conservative icon Antonin Scalia and joined by four other Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices, the court held that the Constitution’s framers intended states to have a “residuary and inviolable sovereignty” that barred the federal government from “impress[ing] into its service … the police officers of the 50 States.”
“This separation of the two spheres is one of the Constitution’s structural protections of liberty,” Scalia wrote. Allowing state law enforcement to be conscripted into service for the federal government would disrupt what James Madison called the “double security” the founders wanted against government tyranny and would allow the “accumulation of excessive power” in the federal government.
Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, pointing out that the 10th Amendment preserves for states only those powers that are not already given to the federal government.
What happens at the Supreme Court?
The anti-commandeering and preemption doctrines were on display again during the first Trump administration, when jurisdictions around the country declared themselves “sanctuary cities” that would protect residents from federal immigration officials.
Subsequent litigation tested whether the federal government could punish these locales by withholding federal funds. The administration lost most cases. Several courts ruled that despite its extensive power over immigration, the federal government could not financially punish states for failing to comply with federal law.
One circuit court, in contrast, formulated an “immigration exception” to the anti-commandeering rule and upheld the administration’s financial punishment of uncooperative states.
The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on how the anti-commandeering rule works in the context of immigration. While the Printz decision would seem to bar the Justice Department from acting on its threats, the court could rule that given the federal government’s nearly exclusive power over immigration, such actions do not run afoul of the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Whether such a case ever makes it to the Supreme Court is unknown. Recent events, in which a Chicago school’s staff denied entry to people they thought were immigration agents, seem to be heading toward a federal and state confrontation.
Health supplements have become increasingly popular in recent years, with many people turning to them in hopes of improving overall health and reducing risk of diseases like cancer. The allure of these products is understandable – who doesn’t want a simple pill or powder to ward off serious illness?
Dietary supplements come in a wide variety of forms, including vitamins, minerals, herbs and other substances – and it’s a multi-billion pound industry. Often fuelled by marketing claims and anecdotal evidence from friends, family members and celebrity wellness gurus who swear by certain supplements, many people take them with the belief that they can fill nutritional gaps in their diet or provide additional health benefits.
However, when it comes to cancer prevention and treatment, the scientific evidence supporting the use of supplements is mixed and often inconclusive.
Supermodel Elle McPherson claims she refused chemotherapy and treated her breat cancer “holistically”, including taking many wellness supplements.
The world of supplement research is vast and complex, with studies often producing conflicting results. Some smaller studies have suggested potential benefits of certain supplements in cancer prevention but large scale, randomised clinical trials – considered the gold standard in medical research – have often failed to show significant benefits of supplement use in cancer prevention. In fact, some studies have even shown potential harm from certain supplements.
For example, the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial tested whether these supplements could reduce the risk of prostate cancer. Contrary to expectations, the study found that vitamin E supplementation could increase the risk of prostate cancer, especially in healthy, young men.
Similarly, studies on beta carotene supplements showed an increased risk of lung cancer in smokers. These findings highlight the importance of approaching supplement use with caution – more is not always better when it comes to nutrients.
For example, thanks to wellness influencers and Mel Gibson – who’s now as famous for his controversial outburts as he is for his acting – the synthetic dye methylene blue has attracted attention on social media for it’s use as a cancer-fighting supplement. While methylene blue does have legitimate medical uses – and has shown some promise in certain areas of cancer research – it’s crucial to approach these claims with a healthy degree of scepticism.
In cancer research, methylene blue has shown potential as a “photosensitiser” in treatments using laser light – meaning it makes certain cancer cells more vulnerable to treatment. However, it’s important to stress that these are specific medical applications under controlled conditions, not a general cancer prevention strategy that can be applied broadly through supplement use.
Claims about methylene blue as a cancer-preventing supplement are not supported by robust scientific evidence. In fact, long-term toxicity studies on methylene blue have shown mixed results, with some animal studies suggesting potential risks at high doses.
This underscores the importance of not misinterpreting preliminary research or specific medical applications as justification for casual supplement use.
When considering the role of supplements in cancer prevention, it’s essential to adopt a holistic view of health and wellbeing. This approach considers the whole person – body, mind and spirit – rather than focusing on individual components or symptoms.
One of the most important elements of this approach is nutrition. Rather than relying on supplements, people should aim to meet their nutritional needs through a varied, balanced diet rich in fruits, vegetables, whole grains and lean proteins.
This approach not only provides essential nutrients but also offers the benefits of fibre, phytochemicals and other compounds found in whole foods that may work together to promote health.
Regular physicalactivity is another crucial component of a holistic approach to cancer prevention. Numerous, large, well-conductedstudies have consistently linked regular exercise to lower cancer risk, as well as improved overall health and wellbeing.
Exercise helps maintain a healthy weight, reduces inflammation and may have direct effects on cancer cell growth and proliferation. Practices such as mindfulness, meditation, yoga, or deep breathing exercises can help manage stress and promote overall wellbeing.
Personal choice – based on robust evidence
While the evidence for many supplements in cancer prevention is limited, it’s crucial to respect personal choice in health decisions. However, it’s also important that these decisions are based on accurate information and in consultation with healthcare professionals. Good, medically sound evidence and advice is available.
Medical professionals can help evaluate the potential benefits and risks of supplement use, taking into account factors such as existing health conditions, medications and overall nutritionalstatus.
It’s also important to be wary of products claiming to be “miracle cures” for cancer or other serious diseases. These claims are often unfounded and can lead vulnerable people to delay seeking proper medical treatment. Instead, focus on evidence-based strategies for cancer prevention and overall health.
The most effective approach to reducing cancer risk remains a holistic one, focusing on a balanced diet, regular physical activity, stress management and other lifestyle factors including avoiding tobacco and too much alcohol. While supplements may have a role in specific situations, they should not be seen as a substitute for a healthy lifestyle.
In conclusion, while the idea of taking supplements to reduce cancer risk is appealing, the reality is more complex. Current scientific evidence does not support the use of most supplements for cancer prevention, and in some cases, certain high-dose supplementation may even increase risk.
However, this doesn’t mean all supplements are harmful or useless. For individuals with specific nutritional deficiencies or health conditions, supplements can play an important role when used under the right supervision.
Justin Stebbing 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.
North Carolina is still reeling from Hurricane Helene in autumn 2024.Karl Dudman
Another day brings another monster tide for residents of Carteret county, North Carolina, whose coastal towns and villages are being swallowed by the rising Atlantic. Nonetheless, its voters returned Donald Trump to the White House, a man who denies the science of climate change and had withdrawn his country from the Paris agreement on climate change (for a second time) before the sun had even set on his first day back in office.
It is a contradiction that has captured the imaginations of many. In 2017, when Trump first quit the agreement which symbolically pledges countries to limit global heating to well below 2°C, the word “denialism” lit up late-night talk shows and circulated at annual UN summits.
Denialism evokes a pathological rejection of the reality of climate change. It has come to imply a public that can no longer tell fact from fiction, often to their own detriment. Meanwhile, climate-conscious leaders in a handful of Democratic states have repeated their commitment to scientific facts.
As an anthropologist, I felt uncomfortable with the way the fabled Trump voter was spoken about while rarely being allowed to speak for themselves. I have participated in climate politics as a researcher, activist and diplomat, and I felt there was little reflection among the treaty’s advocates about their own role in the US departure.
I started a PhD to understand the non-participants of climate politics. It took me to coastal North Carolina where, like so many other American communities, the effects of climate change sit alongside a seeming indifference to the crisis.
I wanted to understand how people here related to climate science, and what this thing called denialism actually looked like. I spent a year talking to residents with “Trump Won” flags on their lawns, but I also met scientists, government officials, activists and Democrats.
Here is one thing I found, and one thing I didn’t.
Culture trumps ‘facts’
The science of climate change is incredibly robust, but science alone cannot tell us what makes a solution fair, or who should get a say in its design. The Paris agreement, for example, has a strong moral component that was hard won by developing nations, small island states and international activists.
It depicts a world in which the blame for climate change and the responsibility for addressing it lie predominantly with rich countries such as the US, and it prescribes financial flows to victim countries to help them adapt. For many precarious Americans who feel neither rich nor villainous, this is a difficult narrative to swallow.
I saw a similar pattern in my own research. Racial justice, indigenous knowledge, urban inequality and youth are themes that typically frame public engagement with climate action by the federal government and grassroots movements. These aren’t necessarily topics that will always resonate in rural, conservative communities such as Carteret county.
Fishing has been a major local employer in North Carolina for several generations. Karl Dudman
This helps explain why advocates for climate action tend to speak to the already engaged, by referencing other progressive causes. But advocates are not necessarily more influenced by facts than sceptics. It’s simply easier to sign up to a cause you can see yourself in.
‘Denialism’ is a weak concept
What I didn’t find in North Carolina was what I came looking for: climate denialism. Climate change rarely came up naturally in the conversations I had in Carteret county, but when it did, the responses were inconsistent, ranging from concern to curiosity and from ambivalence and apathy to fatalism and scepticism. What mention there was hardly fit the stereotype of bitter, conspiracy-fuelled rejection of reality.
In this tight-knit fishing community, people had become wary of outside interventions. Some were ill-disposed to environmental movements after feeling lectured by regulatory scientists or environmental campaigners on how to manage a coastline they knew well.
Others were fatalist about resisting sea-level rise – generations spent on the Atlantic’s ferocious frontline taught them that you don’t fight storms, you ride them out. Many people saw things were changing but were too strapped for time and money to do much, or else found it intolerable to wake up each day contemplating the death of their community.
North Carolina’s fishers face several threats to their livelihood. Karl Dudman
Denialism had no explanatory power here. On the contrary, by failing to distinguish between disagreement and lack of agreement, it misrepresented complex social dynamics as a matter of simply believing facts or rejecting them.
So why does any of this matter? Because, when we identify one group as the sole cause of a problem we give ourselves permission to stop asking what we could be doing differently. After all, climate action’s advocates – from UN officers to individual voters – play a role in shaping what legitimate climate action looks like, and who will want to be part of it.
To react to the US withdrawal from Paris by repeating that “science is real”, in the vein of world leaders and American lawn signs, is to miss the point. Public dissent is often less a question of if we should fix climate change than of whose vision of a good world we are working towards.
This is not to shift blame for Trump’s withdrawal. Nor should it excuse people in politics, business and the media who have repeatedly obscured the climate debate in bad faith.
Carteret’s older residents have seen the decline of local industries and ecosystems. Karl Dudman
But reducing public dissent to a matter of misinformation and gullibility shows a lack of humility and dismisses concerns that may not crystallise into opposition if treated respectfully. Asking more questions of ourselves is something we can all do to make climate politics less toxic.
As Trump signed his first executive orders, I pressed send on my thesis’s final corrections. How the international community reacts this time remains to be seen, but the last four years have taught me that it may influence whether or not there is a next time.
Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?
Karl Dudman 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 Angadh Nanjangud, Lecturer in Aerospace/Spacecraft Engineering, Queen Mary University of London
Of all the things that Donald Trump’s return as US president could mean, one is that Elon Musk’s plan to use Starship rockets for long-distance flights on Earth could move forward. Dubbed Starship Earth to Earth, this would see passengers transported by rocket between cities. They would briefly leave the planet’s atmosphere during the journey before flying back down to reach their destination.
Musk claims it will be possible to travel to anywhere on Earth within an hour. His rocket company, SpaceX, has given examples such as New York to Paris in 30 minutes and London to Hong Kong in 34 minutes. In response to a post about it on his X platform, Musk responded: “This is now possible.”
Unlike previous governments, this Trump administration appears focused on reducing regulatory barriers hindering technological progress in all areas. This could make it easier for Musk to rapidly push towards realising this futuristic travel option. But what hurdles must be overcome first?
On whether Musk is right about the technical feasibility, the answer is “sort of”. The necessary technology was arguably first proven when Nasa achieved a Mars landing in 2012.
This was the first to land retropropulsively, meaning touching down softly on a planetary surface with rocket engines (technically called retrorockets). In contrast, previous Mars landings had used parachutes for the entry phase and airbags for the landing phase.
The 2012 landing opened the door to rockets and boosters becoming reusable, thereby greatly reducing the cost of launch. It was repeated in SpaceX’s historic Falcon 9 rocket landings in 2016, using some of the same Nasa engineers who had worked on the Mars landers. This technological shift has been vital for rockets becoming an economically viable alternative to aircraft.
Starship’s Earth to Earth journeys would involve visiting low Earth orbit (LEO), some 110 miles to 1,240 miles above the Earth’s surface. To do this, the rocket would use two stages. The first, known as the super heavy booster, would lift it through the dense lower atmosphere, approximately 5 to 9 miles above the Earth.
This would break away some 40 miles above the Earth, then begin a controlled descent back to the planet’s surface. SpaceX has matured this technology by leaps and bounds in the past decade, including better heat shields, adjustable lattice fins, improved aerodynamics and state-of-the-art landing algorithms.
The second stage – known just as Starship – would contain the passengers and take over the flight to reach LEO after the first stage has detached. There is still work to be done before this is passenger ready, as demonstrated when a second stage blew up during a Starship testflight on January 16.
There will be no more Starship launches until the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has completed its formal investigation into the cause. On the upside, the incident occurred within predefined hazard areas to ensure public safety.
Of course, this is the very purpose of a testflight: to learn what could go wrong and iteratively solve it, meaning repeatedly making improvements after each failure. No one can compete with SpaceX’s cost-effective iteration process, for example in its crewed trips to the International Space Station (ISS).
The malfunction of Boeing’s Starliner spacecraft in August was a recent reminder here: it left two Nasa astronauts stranded on the ISS, awaiting a return trip on SpaceX’s Dragon capsule in the coming weeks.
Other considerations
Other long-term challenges pertain to how passengers access the vehicle. Videos of astronauts boarding the Space Shuttle indicate that entering one’s seat in a vertically parked rocket takes a few people to help buckle you in. Making that workable over the length of a rocket will require clever engineering.
Building spaceports in different countries also won’t be trivial; we’ve seen considerable pushback against efforts to build a UK spaceport, for instance. The same goes for worldwide regulatory approvals. It’s already standard for rocket companies to need a launch licence per flight, while America’s FAA also requires them to obtain re-entry licences before launch.
Of course, regulatory hurdles can be overcome for transformational tech (once it’s proven to be safe and reliable). No doubt lawyers will have many things to say about these issues, though I doubt any will be insurmountable. And SpaceX must know a thing or two about dealing with regulations, having launched the world’s largest constellation of satellites into orbit.
Finally, rockets expel significant quantities of microscopic particles (particulates) into the upper reaches of the atmosphere. This would have seriously detrimental effects if they were flying in anything like the numbers of long-distance airliners.
Starship’s Raptor engines use methalox, a combination of liquid methane and liquid oxygen. Unlike the kerosene that has traditionally powered rockets, liquid methane prevents the build-up of sooty residue in the engine and is also safer to work with than liquid hydrogen. While Starship still burns vastly more fuel per trip than conventional aircraft, its potential to slash intercontinental travel times could drive critical research into carbon-neutral methane production. This would be integral to making a viable long-haul alternative.
At present, UK rocket companies Skyrora and Orbex are among those developing alternatives to traditional fuels. Skyrora is developing Ecosene, an aerospace grade kerosene made from unrecyclable plastic waste. Orbex’s Prime rocket will make use of a BioLPG derived from plant and vegetable waste.
Both tackle different sustainability problems, but are unlikely to meet the performance demanded by larger Starship-class vehicles. Another promising alternative is nuclear-powered engines, but using them close to Earth will likely be fiercely resisted by environmental campaigners.
In sum, we are in uncharted territory with landing second stages of rockets, but the general trend from 2012 to today indicates that such technical challenges are solvable. Doing so with crews will be even more challenging, but it does align with SpaceX’s mission to make humans multiplanetary. The same technology will be used to land humans safely on Mars, so developing it is probably inevitable.
Uncrewed Starship launches to Mars are supposed to happen in 2026. Crewed Mars missions will follow, without the same landing-related regulations as would be required on Earth. I suspect crewed Earth-to-Earth transport will only be approved after humans have landed on Mars safely.
If there’s one team that can’t be bet against turning visions into reality, it’s the SpaceX engineers who have been revolutionising launch vehicles for over ten years.
Angadh Nanjangud 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.
We are now well beyond the 24 hours that Donald Trump had promised it would take him to secure an end to the Russian war of aggression against Ukraine. But Trump’s first week since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, has nonetheless been a busy one regarding Ukraine.
In his inauguration address, Trump only made a passing and indirect reference to Ukraine, criticising his predecessor Joe Biden of running “a government that has given unlimited funding to the defence of foreign borders but refuses to defend American borders”.
Trump’s first more substantive statement on Ukraine was a post on his TruthSocial network, threatening Russia taxes, tariffs and sanctions if his Russian counterpart doesn’t agree to make a deal soon. He reiterated this point on January 23 in comments at the World Economic Forum in Davos, adding that he “really would like to be able to meet with President Putin”.
Donald Trump/Truth Social
Trump’s nominee for treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, had already backed Trump’s approach during his Senate confirmation hearing on January 16. Like Trump, Bessent specifically emphasised increasing sanctions on Russian oil companies “to levels that would bring the Russian Federation to the table”.
The following day, Putin responded by saying that he and Trump should indeed meet to discuss Ukraine and oil prices. But this was far from a firm commitment to enter into negotiations, and particularly not with Ukraine.
Putin alluded to an October 2022 decree by Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelensky, banning any negotiations with the Kremlin after Russia formally annexed four regions of Ukraine. Zelensky has since clarified that the decree applies to everyone but him, thus signalling that he would not stand in the way of opening direct talks with Russia.
Yet, Putin is likely to continue playing for time. The most likely first step in a Trump-brokered deal will be a ceasefire freezing the line of contact at the time of agreement. With his forces still advancing on the ground in Ukraine, every day of fighting brings Putin additional territorial gains.
Nor are there any signs of waning support from Russian allies. Few and far between as they may be, China, Iran and North Korea have been critical in sustaining the Kremlin’s war effort. Moscow now has added a treaty on a comprehensive strategic partnership with Iran to the one it had sealed with North Korea in June 2024.
Meanwhile, the Russia-China no-limits partnership of 2022, further deepened in 2023, shows no signs of weakening. And with Belarusian president Alexander Lukashenko winning a seventh consecutive term on January 26, Putin is unlikely to be too worried about additional US sanctions.
Zelensky, like Putin, may play for time. Trump’s threat of sanctions against Russia is likely an indication of some level of frustration on the part of the US president that Putin seems less amenable to cutting a deal. Russia may continue to make territorial gains in eastern Ukraine, but it has not achieved any strategic breakthrough.
War of attrition
A significant increase in US military assistance to Ukraine since September 2024, as well as commitments from European allies, including the UK, have likely put Kyiv into a position that it can sustain its current defensive efforts through 2025.
Ukraine may not be in a position to launch a major offensive but could continue to keep costs for Russia high. On the battlefield, these costs are estimated at 102 casualties per square kilometre of Ukrainian territory captured. Beyond the frontlines, Ukraine has also continued its drone campaign against targets inside Russia, especially the country’s oil infrastructure.
This is not to say that Trump is going to fail in his efforts to end the fighting in Ukraine. But there is a big difference between a ceasefire and a sustainable peace agreement. And while a ceasefire, at some point, may be in both Russia’s and Ukraine’s interest, sustainable peace is much more difficult to achieve.
Putin’s vision of total victory is as much an obstacle here as western reluctance to provide credible security guarantees for Ukraine.
The two options most regularly raised: Nato membership for Ukraine or a western-led peacekeeping force that could act as a credible deterrent, both appear unrealistic at this point. It is certainly inconceivable that Europe could muster the 200,000 troops that Zelensky envisaged as a deployment in Ukraine to guarantee any deal with Putin. But a smaller force, led by the UK and France, might be possible.
Kyiv and Moscow continue to be locked in a war of attrition and neither Putin nor Zelensky have blinked so far. It is not clear yet whether, and in which direction, Trump will tilt the balance and how this will affect either side’s willingness to submit to his deal-making efforts.
So far, Trump’s moves are not a gamechanger. But this is the first serious attempt in nearly three years of war to forge a path towards an end of the fighting. It remains to be seen whether Trump, and everyone else, has the imagination and stamina to ensure that this path will ultimately lead to a just and secure peace for Ukraine.
Stefan Wolff is a past recipient of grant funding from the Natural Environment Research Council of the UK, the United States Institute of Peace, the Economic and Social Research Council of the UK, the British Academy, the NATO Science for Peace Programme, the EU Framework Programmes 6 and 7 and Horizon 2020, as well as the EU’s Jean Monnet Programme. He is a Trustee and Honorary Treasurer of the Political Studies Association of the UK and a Senior Research Fellow at the Foreign Policy Centre in London.
Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council
Following are UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ remarks to the General Assembly on the Observance of the International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust, in New York today:
It is an honour to be here with you. I am humbled to have Holocaust survivors and their families with us today.
Before we begin, I want to acknowledge that more than a year has passed since the appalling 7 October 2023 terror attacks by Hamas. We welcome, at long last, the ceasefire and hostage-release deal. The deal offers hope, as well as much needed relief. We will do our utmost to ensure it leads to the release of all hostages. Since the beginning, we have asked for the unconditional immediate release of all hostages and a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
Every year on this day, we come together to mark the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau. We mourn the 6 million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators, as they sought to destroy an entire people.
We grieve the Roma and Sinti also targeted for genocide, the people with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ people and all those enslaved, persecuted, tortured and killed. We stand alongside victims, survivors and their families.
And we renew our resolve never to forget: Never to forget the atrocities that so “outraged the conscience” of humankind. And never to forget their putrid foundations: millennia of antisemitic hate — manifest in marginalization, discrimination, expulsions and murder.
This year, our commemoration marks a milestone. Eighty years ago, the Holocaust ended. And our efforts began to keep the terrible truth alive; building on the work of those who chronicled Nazi atrocities as they were perpetrated around them — and against them.
The courage of survivors in telling their stories has played an enormous role. We are deeply grateful to them all. But, the responsibility belongs to every one of us. Remembrance is not only a moral act. Remembrance is a call to action.
To allow the Holocaust to fade from memory would dishonour the past and betray the future. The extraordinary Auschwitz survivor, Primo Levi — who bore witness to all he had seen and endured — urged us to carve the knowledge into our hearts. And we must.
To know the history of the Holocaust is to know the depths to which humanity can sink. It is to understand how the Nazis were able to commit their heinous crimes, with the complicity of others. And it is to comprehend our solemn duty to speak up against hate, to stand up for the human rights of all and to make those rights a reality.
Following the hell of the Holocaust, countries came together: They created the United Nations and our Charter 80 years ago — affirming the worth of every human person; they adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide — for which we owe a debt of gratitude to the Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin; and they established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights — the foundation of all international human rights law.
As one of the drafters, Lebanese diplomat and intellectual, Charles Malik, said, the Declaration was: “…inspired by opposition to the barbarous doctrines of Nazism and fascism.”
The dignity of every member of our human family is enshrined in that document, which draws from traditions around the world. It is a pure expression of our shared humanity. And in dark times it remains a shining light.
Today, our world is fractured and dangerous. Eighty years since the Holocaust’s end, antisemitism is still with us — fuelled by the same lies and loathing that made the Nazi genocide possible.
And it is rising. Discrimination is rife. Hatred is being stirred up across the globe. One of the clearest and most troubling examples is the spreading cancer of Holocaust denial. Indisputable historical facts are being distorted, diminished and dismissed.
Efforts are being made to recast and rehabilitate Nazis and their collaborators. We must stand up to these outrages. We must promote education, combat lies and speak the truth.
And we must condemn antisemitism wherever and whenever it appears — as we must condemn all forms of racism, prejudice and religious bigotry which we see proliferating today. Because we know these evils wither our morality, corrode our compassion and seek to blind us to suffering — opening the door to atrocities.
The United Nations has long worked to combat antisemitism, through a wide range of activities, including our Holocaust Outreach programmes. And we recently launched our Action Plan on Antisemitism, recommending the ways the United Nations system can further enhance those efforts.
In these days of division, it is all the more important — that we hold fast to our common humanity and renew our resolve to defend the dignity and human rights of all.
Every one of us has a duty. The history of the Holocaust shows us what can happen when people choose not to see and not to act. And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prescribes that: “Every individual and every organ of society […] shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms.”
Each of us must answer that call: denounce lies, resist hate and ensure our common humanity overcomes division. These causes are at the very core of the United Nations. We will never forget. And we will never waver in that fight.
I am humbled to have Holocaust survivors and their families with us today.
Before we begin, I want to acknowledge that more than a year has passed since the appalling 7th October terror attacks by Hamas.
We welcome, at long last, the ceasefire and hostage release deal.
The deal offers hope, as well as much needed relief.
We will do our utmost to ensure it leads to the release of all hostages. Since the beginning, we have asked for the unconditional immediate release of all hostages and a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
Dear Friends,
Every year on this day, we come together to mark the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
We mourn the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators, as they sought to destroy an entire people.
We grieve the Roma and Sinti also targeted for genocide, the people with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ people, and all those enslaved, persecuted, tortured, and killed.
We stand alongside victims, survivors and their families.
And we renew our resolve never to forget:
Never to forget the atrocities that so “outraged the conscience” of humankind.
And never to forget their putrid foundations: millennia of antisemitic hate – manifest in marginalisation, discrimination, expulsions, and murder.
Dear Friends,
This year, our commemoration marks a milestone.
80 years ago, the Holocaust ended.
And our efforts began to keep the terrible truth alive; building on the work of those who chronicled Nazi atrocities as they were perpetrated around them – and against them.
The courage of survivors in telling their stories has played an enormous role.
We are deeply grateful to them all.
But the responsibility belongs to every one of us.
Remembrance is not only a moral act. Remembrance is a call to action.
To allow the Holocaust to fade from memory would dishonour the past and betray the future.
The extraordinary Auschwitz survivor, Primo Levi – who bore witness to all he had seen and endured – urged us to carve the knowledge into our hearts.
And we must.
To know the history of the Holocaust is to know the depths to which humanity can sink.
It is to understand how the Nazis were able to commit their heinous crimes, with the complicity of others.
And it is to comprehend our solemn duty to speak-up against hate, to stand-up for the human rights of all, and to make those rights a reality.
Dear Friends,
Following the hell of the Holocaust, countries came together:
They created the United Nations and our Charter 80 years ago – affirming the worth of every human person…
They adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – for which we owe a debt of gratitude to the Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin…
And they established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the foundation of all international human rights law.
As one of the drafters, Lebanese diplomat and intellectual, Charles Malik, said, the Declaration was:
“…Inspired by opposition to the barbarous doctrines of Nazism and fascism.”
The dignity of every member of our human family is enshrined in that document, which draws from traditions around the world.
It is a pure expression of our shared humanity.
And in dark times it remains a shining light.
Dear Friends,
Today, our world is fractured and dangerous.
Eighty years since the Holocaust’s end, antisemitism is still with us – fuelled by the same lies and loathing that made the Nazi genocide possible.
And it is rising.
Discrimination is rife.
Hatred is being stirred-up across the globe.
One of the clearest and most troubling examples is the spreading cancer of Holocaust denial.
Indisputable historical facts are being distorted, diminished, and dismissed.
Efforts are being made to recast and rehabilitate Nazis and their collaborators.
We must stand up to these outrages.
We must promote education, combat lies, and speak the truth.
And we must condemn antisemitism wherever and whenever it appears – as we must condemn all forms of racism, prejudice and religious bigotry which we see proliferating today.
Because we know these evils wither our morality, corrode our compassion, and seek to blind us to suffering – opening the door to atrocities.
The United Nations has long worked to combat antisemitism, through a wide range of activities, including our Holocaust Outreach programs.
And we recently launched our Action Plan on antisemitism, recommending the ways the United Nations System can further enhance those efforts.
In these days of division it is all the more important – that we hold fast to our common humanity…
And renew our resolve to defend the dignity and human rights of all.
Every one of us has a duty.
The history of the Holocaust shows us what can happen when people choose not to see and not to act.
And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prescribes that:
“…every individual and every organ of society… shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms…”
Each of us must answer that call: denounce lies; resist hate; and ensure our common humanity overcomes division.
These causes are at the very core of the United Nations.
We will never forget. And we will never waver in that fight.
Source: United Nations General Assembly and Security Council
Following is UN Secretary-General António Guterres’ message to International Holocaust Remembrance Service at Park East Synagogue, delivered by Miguel Ángel Moratinos Cuyaubé, High Representative for the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations, in New York today:
It is an honour to send you a message today. At this sombre occasion, I want to acknowledge that more than a year has passed since the appalling 7 October 2023 terror attacks by Hamas. We welcome, at long last, the ceasefire and hostage-release deal. The deal offers hope, as well as much needed relief. The United Nations will do our utmost to ensure it leads to the release of all hostages and a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
This year marks 80 years since the end of the Holocaust. The history of the Holocaust is one of total moral collapse, dehumanization, complicity and unimaginable atrocities. But, amidst all the horror, there are also stories of humanity, and of courage.
I think of those victims who resisted Nazi brutality and supported one another with kindness and solidarity. I think of those survivors who have told their stories to the world, including Rabbi Schneier and others present today. We owe you — and the children of survivors who made sure those stories lived on — a profound debt of gratitude. And I think of those noble people of conscience who may not have been targeted by the Nazis, but were so horrified by what they saw that they felt compelled to act.
That includes a number of diplomats who used their power to save lives. They were from a variety of countries, including many represented here today.
One important example from my own country, Portugal, is Aristides de Sousa Mendes. Stationed in Bordeaux, as the Nazis approached in 1940, Sr. Sousa Mendes faced crowds desperate for visas out of France.
The orders of the Portuguese Government were clear. The infamous “Circular 14” had been issued, denying visas for refugees’ safe passage to Portugal — with Jews named specifically. Sr. Sousa Mendes decided to disobey and worked quite literally day and night to issue thousands of visas, saving countless lives.
The Government punished Sr. Sousa Mendes for his defiance. He died in poverty, after being expelled from the diplomatic corps without pension. But, his extraordinary efforts have not been forgotten. In 1966, he was recognized as one of the Righteous Among the Nations, and last year, I was pleased to support the opening of a museum in his honour in Portugal.
In these days of global turmoil, rising anti-Semitism and growing hate towards many communities, it is vital that we remember the stories of people like Sr. Sousa Mendes, who used their power for good in the worst of times. They remind us that it is our duty — individually and collectively — to stand with humanity and against bigotry and discrimination.
In that spirit, I am pleased to report that the United Nations has launched an Action Plan to Enhance Monitoring and Response to Antisemitism. We have long worked to combat this evil, through a wide range of activities, including our Holocaust Outreach Programme. This new Plan builds on that work, and the insights of people like Rabbi Schneier, to recommend ways the United Nations system will further enhance efforts to combat antisemitism.
This goes to the heart of the mission of the United Nations, which was established in the aftermath of the Holocaust. We will never waver in the fight for a world that promotes and protects the human rights of all.
I am humbled to have Holocaust survivors and their families with us today.
Before we begin, I want to acknowledge that more than a year has passed since the appalling 7th October terror attacks by Hamas.
We welcome, at long last, the ceasefire and hostage release deal.
The deal offers hope, as well as much needed relief.
We will do our utmost to ensure it leads to the release of all hostages. Since the beginning, we have asked for the unconditional immediate release of all hostages and a permanent ceasefire in Gaza.
Dear Friends,
Every year on this day, we come together to mark the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau.
We mourn the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis and their collaborators, as they sought to destroy an entire people.
We grieve the Roma and Sinti also targeted for genocide, the people with disabilities, LGBTIQ+ people, and all those enslaved, persecuted, tortured, and killed.
We stand alongside victims, survivors and their families.
And we renew our resolve never to forget:
Never to forget the atrocities that so “outraged the conscience” of humankind.
And never to forget their putrid foundations: millennia of antisemitic hate – manifest in marginalisation, discrimination, expulsions, and murder.
Dear Friends,
This year, our commemoration marks a milestone.
80 years ago, the Holocaust ended.
And our efforts began to keep the terrible truth alive; building on the work of those who chronicled Nazi atrocities as they were perpetrated around them – and against them.
The courage of survivors in telling their stories has played an enormous role.
We are deeply grateful to them all.
But the responsibility belongs to every one of us.
Remembrance is not only a moral act. Remembrance is a call to action.
To allow the Holocaust to fade from memory would dishonour the past and betray the future.
The extraordinary Auschwitz survivor, Primo Levi – who bore witness to all he had seen and endured – urged us to carve the knowledge into our hearts.
And we must.
To know the history of the Holocaust is to know the depths to which humanity can sink.
It is to understand how the Nazis were able to commit their heinous crimes, with the complicity of others.
And it is to comprehend our solemn duty to speak-up against hate, to stand-up for the human rights of all, and to make those rights a reality.
Dear Friends,
Following the hell of the Holocaust, countries came together:
They created the United Nations and our Charter 80 years ago – affirming the worth of every human person…
They adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide – for which we owe a debt of gratitude to the Polish Jewish lawyer Raphael Lemkin…
And they established the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the foundation of all international human rights law.
As one of the drafters, Lebanese diplomat and intellectual, Charles Malik, said, the Declaration was:
“…Inspired by opposition to the barbarous doctrines of Nazism and fascism.”
The dignity of every member of our human family is enshrined in that document, which draws from traditions around the world.
It is a pure expression of our shared humanity.
And in dark times it remains a shining light.
Dear Friends,
Today, our world is fractured and dangerous.
Eighty years since the Holocaust’s end, antisemitism is still with us – fuelled by the same lies and loathing that made the Nazi genocide possible.
And it is rising.
Discrimination is rife.
Hatred is being stirred-up across the globe.
One of the clearest and most troubling examples is the spreading cancer of Holocaust denial.
Indisputable historical facts are being distorted, diminished, and dismissed.
Efforts are being made to recast and rehabilitate Nazis and their collaborators.
We must stand up to these outrages.
We must promote education, combat lies, and speak the truth.
And we must condemn antisemitism wherever and whenever it appears – as we must condemn all forms of racism, prejudice and religious bigotry which we see proliferating today.
Because we know these evils wither our morality, corrode our compassion, and seek to blind us to suffering – opening the door to atrocities.
The United Nations has long worked to combat antisemitism, through a wide range of activities, including our Holocaust Outreach programs.
And we recently launched our Action Plan on antisemitism, recommending the ways the United Nations System can further enhance those efforts.
In these days of division it is all the more important – that we hold fast to our common humanity…
And renew our resolve to defend the dignity and human rights of all.
Every one of us has a duty.
The history of the Holocaust shows us what can happen when people choose not to see and not to act.
And the Universal Declaration of Human Rights prescribes that:
“…every individual and every organ of society… shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms…”
Each of us must answer that call: denounce lies; resist hate; and ensure our common humanity overcomes division.
These causes are at the very core of the United Nations.
We will never forget. And we will never waver in that fight.
Anglia Ruskin University (ARU) is leading a new £2 million initiative to help prevent food shortages that could potentially trigger civil unrest in the UK.
The project, called Backcasting to Increase Food System Resilience in the UK, is being led by experts from Anglia Ruskin’s Global Sustainability Institute and has received £2,048,461 in funding from the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, part of UK Research and Innovation (UKRI).
Building on recent research that found that over 40% of food experts believe widespread civil unrest linked to food shortages, such as demonstrations and violent looting, is possible or likely in the UK within the next 10 years, the new project aims to urgently address vulnerabilities in the nation’s food supply.
The UK’s food system is currently optimised for efficiency rather than resilience, relying heavily on imports, seasonal labour, and just-in-time supply chains.
This makes it particularly susceptible to disruptions that could lead to a collapse, defined as a situation where the public lack access to affordable food, resulting in economic productivity losses, disease outbreaks, extreme hunger, malnutrition, or civil unrest.
Potential causes of such a collapse include geopolitical instability and conflict around the world, pandemics, extreme weather events exacerbated by climate change, and trade tariffs.
The project aims to identify and find ways of mitigating the potential tipping points that could lead to a collapse and prioritise the areas within the UK food system that urgently need to strengthen their resilience to likely risks and shocks.
To achieve these goals, the researchers will work closely with key stakeholders including food producers, importers, distributers and retailers.
A “backcasting” mapping exercise will be carried out to identify the most likely pathways leading to civil unrest with a focus on addressing problems at the early stages of these pathways, well before any unrest arises.
Anglia Ruskin University is leading the project in partnership with experts from the University of York, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, the University of the West of England and the Royal Agricultural University.
Other partners include WTW, the Food Farming & Countryside Commission, the Food Ethics Council, WRAP, DEFRA, Trussell, Sustain, Better Food Traders, Samworth Brothers, the Food Standards Agency, the Institute of Grocery Distributors and WWF.
“The Backcasting to Increase Food System Resilience in the UK project is a major investment into understanding how future shocks could significantly impact the UK food system and how we can build resilience to these.
“The food system is exposed to various risks from climate change and biodiversity loss to geopolitical events, such as wars or cyberterrorism. Supporting the UK’s food system stakeholders from farmers through to retail, by working with them to build on their knowledge to deliver a transformation towards resilience, is vital.
“The project will also involve placements inside organisations focusing on food system challenges, to better understand the interventions that may be possible, and allow wider lessons to be captured and shared. These placements will be open to PhDs from across the UK and will be announced in 2026.”
Professor Aled Jones, Director of the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University (ARU)
There is a palpable sense of fear among environmentalists and those concerned about climate change following Trump’s re-election. His “drill baby drill” support for fossil fuels in the U.S. and frequent criticisms of renewable energy suggest that the world can expect to see a U.S. government that is far less interested in addressing climate change.
In addition to leaving the Paris deal, Trump is likely to peel back the climate change elements of former president Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and disempower the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Trump’s nominee to head the EPA, Lee Zeldin, has promised to “pursue energy dominance.” Meanwhile, Chris Wright, Trump’s choice for energy secretary, is the CEO of Liberty Energy, a fracking company.
Despite the challenges a second Trump administration is likely to bring, Canada can continue to address climate change by working with sub-national leadership in the U.S.
Donald Trump signs an executive order withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement.
U.S. states still making progress
There are clear indications that Trump will move to dismantle key environmental policies. A dominant Trump adviser, Tesla CEO Elon Musk, has indicated his support for removing US$7,500 tax credits for the purchase of electric vehicles (EVs), apparently viewing it as a way to undermine Tesla competitors.
Canada must accelerate its own transition to a low-carbon economy by supporting renewable energy initiatives in engineering, construction, transportation and carbon sequestration.
Renewable energy opportunities that align with U.S. interests exist, and can be pursued irrespective of Trump’s policies. For example, Canada has an opportunity, jointly with the U.S., to expand our mutual critical mineral industry.
Electrification is set to proceed apace regardless of the political leanings of governments, and the transformation of transportation from fossil fuels to electricity and battery power will require vast amounts of lithium, a mineral Canada has in large quantities. It will also require large investments in cutting-edge battery technology, which is a key limitation to green electrification.
Considering both the need for these minerals and how tightly integrated the auto industry is in North America, such integration of supply chains fits within Trump’s general goal of reducing reliance on China. Canada can leverage this role to try to ensure it captures key portions of the supply chain that will create good jobs, particularly as oil demand inevitably winds down.
Canada could also be a key partner in expanding nuclear energy production. We understand the resistance many have to this suggestion, but it’s worth reconsidering given the intermittency of renewable energy such as wind and solar.
By taking these steps, Canada could make significant contributions to helping tackle climate change both in North America and around the world.
Andy Hira is the Director of the Clean Energy Research Group based at Simon Fraser University. The group has received funding from the Willow Grove Foundation and SFU.
John J Clague 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.
As is the usual practice in leadership bids, each has sought to advance competing visions tied to their personal credentials and desirability as candidates.
In contrast, Carney has framed himself as a pragmatic outsider. To his supporters, his monetary management of both Brexit and the 2008 financial crisis shows he can effectively address Canada’s economic challenges while remaining above the apparent politicking, ideological excesses and questionable policy decisions of the Trudeau years.
The importance of the ground game
It’s difficult to say for certain who is most likely to prevail. Most polls suggest many Liberals are still undecided, although Carney and Freeland are at the same level of support among Canadian voters at large.
The incredibly short timeline for the race — voters need to be registered as Liberals by the end of today to vote for a leader — does not provide enough time for discernible trends to emerge. Despite the focus on the personality of the candidates, the Liberal leadership will be won or lost on the basis of “ground-game” organization — that is, who can identify, register and mobilize the greatest number of supporters.
At this point, however, it’s safe to say that Carney has an advantage. Compared to Freeland, he has secured the endorsements of most senior cabinet ministers, including Francois-Philippe Champagne, Melanie Joly, Steven Guilbeault, Harjit Sajjan and Jonathan Wilkinson. This provides not only legitimacy but, far more importantly, greater organizational prowess.
Also important is the fact that, in an environment of anti-Trudeau sentiment, he has much more — though not complete — distance from the incumbent government. It’s difficult to see how Freeland, regardless of her experience, can effectively avoid associations with the consequences of the past or existing policies that she herself was instrumental in bringing about.
Of course, Carney has his own challenges. He will likely have to clarify his relationship with the departing Trudeau government. Since 2020, the precise nature of his role as an informal policy adviser to the prime minister — including as the chair of a task force on economic growth — remains a mystery.
And for all of his emphasis on the importance of good policy, the substance of his actual, announced policy proposals are thin, including an ambiguous stance on the carbon tax.
Impressive resumé
Nonetheless, Carney simply has far more flexibility and potential than the more rigid limitations of Freeland’s candidacy. When compared to Freeland, Carney’s pitch to Canadians seems, at least on paper, to be a much smarter response to Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives.
His impressive resumé has the potential to be a strong, substantive contrast to the sloganeering that has so far been offered by the Conservatives. Carney could represent a reasonable alternative to voters who, while desiring change, aren’t sold on Poilievre.
But can Carney really reverse the fortunes of the Liberal Party? Although the next leader of the party is guaranteed to be Canada’s 24th prime minister, they face near Herculean odds in establishing a term that will last more than a couple of weeks due the near certainty of a non-confidence vote in Parliament after it resumes on March 24, 15 days after the Liberal convention.
Poilievre’s Conservatives are well over 20 points ahead in public opinion polls as they benefit from an anti-incumbent sentiment that, although commonly expressed in a personal dislike for Trudeau, is really about a deeper discontent with Canada’s structural and economic challenges.
While Carney’s outsider status may inspire the Liberal faithful, his electoral performance is more likely to highlight the drawbacks of political inexperience. Although he has potential in terms of political skills, he may not have the time to realize that potential.
Past Liberal leaders
Historically, and to a greater degree than the Conservatives, the Liberals have been successful at recruiting leaders with accomplishments outside of partisan electoral politics.
The difference, however, is that — with the exception of academic Michael Ignatieff in 2011 — each of these former leaders had some, albeit limited, experience. They may have been recruited for their potential as future prime ministerial candidates, but each accumulated the requisite political experience.
Carney, on the other hand, has never run for office nor made any public interjections into partisan conflicts.
Special skill set
Electoral politics requires a special skill set that, unless it comes naturally, can only be learned through experience. It requires a unique combination of policy aptitude, communication ability, emotional intelligence, coalition-building and raw instinct.
Those qualities are honed with frequent exposure to voters, whether through stump speeches, stakeholder meetings or community barbecues. Carney simply does not have these experiences.
And faced with an anti-incumbent mood, his administrative experience may be casting him not as an interesting outsider, but as a technocratic voice of the very economic, political and cultural elite who Canadians are upset with.
Sam Routley 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: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
A study published in Nature Medicine estimates heat and cold related deaths in Europe as a result of climate change.
Dr Garyfallos Konstantinoudis, Lecturer at the Grantham Institute – Climate Change and the Environment, Imperial College London, said:
Is this good quality research? Are the conclusions backed up by solid data?
“The study is of high quality, offering a thorough assessment of future scenarios regarding net changes in temperature-related mortality, factoring in various climate, demographic, and adaptation scenarios. Its conclusions are strongly supported by solid data. However, it’s important to note that the applicability of these results is primarily limited to European urban settings.”
What does this study add to our understanding of heat/cold deaths after climate change? Was there doubt before now that on balance deaths would increase in Europe with warmer temperatures?
“Previous estimates based on historical data have suggested that for every heat-related death, there are roughly 10 cold-related deaths. This raises important questions about the net impact of temperature changes due to anthropogenic climate change. This new study underscores a crucial point: without any adaptation to temperature, projections suggest that temperature-related deaths are likely to increase overall, with heat-related deaths surpassing cold-related ones. A related study in Europe also highlighted the significance of mitigation efforts in shaping this net effect, noting that in the most extreme scenarios, mitigation could lead to a positive outcome, balancing the impact of temperature change (https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(21)00150-9/fulltext).”
What does the study tell us about excess heat deaths even under relatively optimistic scenarios?
“In the most optimistic scenario—warming is kept below 2°C—while assuming no adaptation to heat, heat-related deaths are projected to outnumber cold-related deaths by 12 per 100,000 person years in 2050-2054. By the end of the century, this gap is expected to widen, with heat-related deaths potentially exceeding cold-related deaths by 50 per 100,000 person years.
“It is clear a hotter world is a more dangerous world. With every fraction of a degree of warming, we will also face increased spread of mosquito-transmitted disease and more intense extreme weather, among other threats to human health.”
Dr Luke Parsons, Applied Climate Modeling Scientist, Global Science, The Nature Conservancy, said:
“I appreciate that this study used different temperature-mortality relationships for different age groups, because we know that different age groups in different locations can respond differently to temperature extremes.
“Additionally, these researchers derived local temperature-mortality relationships and did not extrapolate spatially to grossly different geographies- for example, many studies have tried to estimate global temperature-related mortality changes under warming, but we these studies often lack data for most of Africa (outside of South Africa) and many other countries, so studies often have to make very broad assumptions about how people will react to temperatures without concrete local health data to validate form relationships.
“Despite these strengths, something I worry about that I didn’t see addressed in this paper:
“Heat waves are often associated with increases in deaths, but many studies also find increased deaths in cold times of year, concluding that cold season deaths are due to colder temperatures; therefore, as the globe warms and the cold season becomes warmer, we should see decreases in deaths. However, a variety of other factors could lead to cold-season deaths (such as respiratory infections during the cold season)- if we are indeed over-counting cold-season deaths and their potential reductions in a warmer world, the net impacts of increasing temperatures could result in even larger numbers of early deaths than studies like this estimate. However, we also don’t know how humans will react to the heat- as far as I can tell, these studies don’t take into account migration (for example, do people leave exceedingly hot areas in southern Europe in a warmer world?) or other possible factors- although they do try to account for potential adaptation.
“Additionally, as the authors acknowledge, the health data are aggregated to the city level, and within cities, people can respond quite differently in disparate neighborhoods to temperature extremes depending on social networks, income, housing, and other factors. We have this problem with health data in the US often as well- to keep data anonymous, it is often aggregated, but then we lose really important local information about how more and less vulnerable areas within cities are being impacted by climate change.”
Dr Matthew Maley, Lecturer in Environmental Ergonomics at Loughborough University, said:
Is this good quality research? Are the conclusions backed up by solid data?
“The study should be commended for accounting for variations in demographics (i.e. age) whilst presenting various future climate change scenarios in various adaptation scenarios.”
What does this study add to our understanding of heat/cold deaths after climate change? Was there doubt before now that on balance deaths would increase in Europe with warmer temperatures?
“This study confirms a consistent trend of increasing heat-related deaths, particularly under high-warming scenarios. The study also extends what we know by including European regions not included in previous studies.”
The study focuses on a relatively low mitigation and adaptation scenario – (SSP3-7.0) – can you comment on this? How likely/unlikely is it considered to be?
“It’s certainly a pessimistic scenario but one that could be our reality given current emission trajectories and failure to achieve our international climate change goals.”
What does the study tell us about excess heat deaths even under relatively optimistic scenarios?
“The more optimistic scenarios (SSP1-2.6 and SSP2-4.5) predict an increase in heat-related deaths, though to a lesser extent than SSP3-7.0. This emphasises that adaptation measures must accompany mitigation efforts to manage heat-related health impacts effectively.”
The study suggests that a significant amount of these deaths could be reduced with adaptation. In the cities where the largest death tolls are predicted (Barcelona, Rome, Naples, Madrid, Milan, Athens), what kinds of adaptation measures would be most effective?
“Effective adaptation measures for these Mediterranean cities could include:
Increase green space to enhance urban ventilation and implement reflective building materials.
Develop early warning systems akin to storm warning systems.
Targeted interventions for vulnerable populations (e.g. older adults).
Encourage behaviour change (e.g. advise to not go outdoors in peak temperatures).”
Dr Christopher Callahan, Postdoctoral Scholar in Earth System Science, Stanford University, said:
“This study is an impressive synthesis of heat- and cold-related mortality across Europe. While climate change may reduce cold-related deaths in winter, these results are unambiguous that increased heat-related mortality will outweigh these potential benefits, with an escalating death toll for every degree of global warming.
“One limitation of this study is that their numbers only account for about 40% of the population of the countries analyzed. The total death toll of climate change in these countries is likely substantially greater than these numbers indicate.
“One of the scenarios the authors examine is SSP3-7.0, which is a scenario of relatively high warming. While the most extreme emissions scenarios appear less likely today than previously, we should not discount the potential for very high levels of warming even given current climate policy. Many countries are on track to miss their stated emissions targets, and the rise of the second Trump administration in the United States may impede further progress on emissions reductions.”
Dr Raquel Nunes, Assistant Professor in Health and Environment at the University of Warwick Medical School, said:
“The findings of this study have serious implications for public health. As climate change leads to more extreme heat events, the number of heat-related deaths is expected to rise, putting additional pressure on healthcare systems. Vulnerable groups, such as older adults, those with chronic illnesses, and low-income communities, will be at the highest risk. Without strong adaptation measures, public health systems could struggle to cope with the increased demand for emergency services and hospital admissions.
“To protect public health, governments and policymakers need to invest in early warning systems, public education campaigns, and infrastructure improvements to help individuals stay cool and safe. Health professionals must also be trained to recognise and respond to heat-related illnesses. Additionally, social policies that provide support for vulnerable populations, such as access to cooling centres and affordable healthcare, will be essential in reducing the impact of extreme temperatures.
“This study highlights the urgent need for a coordinated public health response to climate change, focusing on prevention, preparedness, and adaptation to reduce future health risks. A significant proportion of current and future heat-related illnesses and deaths is preventable. What is essential now is the development and implementation of policies and actions aimed at minimising both morbidity and mortality.”
Prof Tim Osborn, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia (UEA), said:
“Cold weather and hot weather kill tens of thousands of people across Europe every year. Climate change is bringing less severe cold weather but more frequent hot weather, but it isn’t yet known if that means more or fewer people will die from temperature-related deaths in future. The clear finding of this new research is that the net effect of climate change will be more temperature-related deaths in future. Put bluntly, the increase in hot weather will kill more people than the decrease in cold weather will save.”
“While this new study isn’t the final say on the matter, and more research will certainly refine and could still change the overall prediction of future temperature-related deaths, it does break new ground by scrutinizing people’s vulnerability to extreme temperatures by age and by city to a much better level of detail than previous work. This extra level of detail ought to make the new study’s results more reliable.”
“This study also confirms two more general features about climate change. First, the harm from climate change impacts people very unevenly (in this case, with far greater increases in temperature-related deaths predicted for southern Europe than for northern Europe, where milder winters may even reduce the number of deaths). Second, we can greatly reduce the harm from climate change by adaptation — making changes that increase our resilience to extreme weather — but these adaptations are far more successful if we also limit the amount of climate change that we are faced with by accelerating the move away from fossil fuels as our primary energy source.”
Prof Simon Gosling, Professor of Climate Risks & Environmental Modelling at University of Nottingham, said:
“This is a high quality study that uses established modelling methods. It shows an increase in the overall number of deaths from temperature due to future global warming could be avoided if society makes big adaptations to heat. However, we are talking about a really big level of adaptation here – a level where the risk of dying from the heat is half of what it is nowadays. The models aren’t specific about how such a high level of adaptation could be achieved in reality. The way that this might be seen in the real world is through a combination of societal adjustments – in our cities, our homes, public services and work environments. Examples include increasing the amount of green spaces in our cities to help keep them cool, providing cooling centres where people can get relief from the heat, changing our work environments and work policies so that people are at less risk from heat stress at work, and by ensuring the people most vulnerable to heat are cared for and protected. There are some great examples of how this is starting to happen, but it’s a challenge that society has to rise to and achieve at scale, because this study very clearly shows that without high levels of adaptation, we are looking at an overall increase in deaths due to temperature in the future. Reducing global warming is also really important – lowering greenhouse gas emissions will help to significantly lessen the blow on society if we don’t achieve the high levels of adaptation needed to avoid an increase in deaths in the future.”
‘Estimating future heat-related and cold-related mortality under climate change, demographic and adaptation scenarios in 854 European cities’ by Pierre Masselot et al. was published in Nature Medicine at 16:00 UK time on Monday 27 January 2025.
DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-03452-2
Declared interests
Professor Tim Osborn: No interests to declare.
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.
Source: United Kingdom – Executive Government & Departments
Scientists comment on the first human case of Avian flu detected in the UK, as announced by UKHSA.
Dr Alastair Ward, Associate Professor of Biodiversity and Ecosystem; Programme Lead for Zoology, University of Leeds, said:
How likely is it that the virus has or will spread human-to-human from this case?
“Highly unlikely. The person infected with H5N1 was asymptomatic. Their contacts have been traced and all have tested negative. Very specific genetic changes are required for avian influenzas to become transmissible among humans, and these changes are not present in the viruses isolated in this case.
What could be done to prevent future cases of H5N1?
“Adherence to biosecurity best practice, including the use of PPE and disinfection when handing poultry or material that may have been contaminated by them, may limit transmission of H5N1 from infected poultry to humans. Reporting of symptoms observed within a poultry flock to the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and subsequent statutory testing and control measures are critical for preventing further spread among birds, as they have been in this case.
How worried should we be about this? How does the risk of contracting bird flu differ between people working in close contact with birds versus the general public?
“The UKHSA and APHA have avian influenzas under ongoing surveillance. We know what the genetic changes are that make the viruses more likely to jump to humans and to transmit between humans, and they have not been detected in the UK. Risks to the general public likely remain very low. Risks to people who work in close contact with birds, particularly ducks, geese, swans, chickens and turkeys are greater, but can be reduced by implementing biosecurity best-practice, including use of PPE and disinfection when making contact with birds or material that has been contaminated by them.
Any other information should readers know about the situation?
“This was an isolated case involving a man in his early 80s and who kept a large flock of Muscovy ducks in a domestic setting. The man has isolated since his diagnosis and has been administered a course of antiviral medication as a precautionary measure. His contacts have been traced and tested negative. 19 of the 20 ducks tested were positive for H5N1 and so the flock was culled. These statutory measures seem to have been successful in preventing further spread among birds and to humans.”
Prof Andrew Preston from the Milner Centre of Evolution, and Department of Life Sciences at the University of Bath, said:
“This announcement will rightly provoke concern. The evolution of an influenza virus derived from a high pathogenicity avian influenza clone to one that is adapted to human-to-human spread is one of the most feared infectious disease threats we face. Thankfully, this is yet to happen during the current, prolonged H5N1 outbreak. This case appears to result from high levels of exposure of the individual to the virus due to their workplace contact with infected birds, a known risk factor for contracting the virus. The swift response that include tracing contacts of the individual and their monitoring and prophylactic treatment, is key to minimising any small chance of virus being passed from human to another human host.
“However, this case highlights the continued threat posed by these avian viruses. The mixing of infected birds and other species is the major risk factor for adaptation of the virus to new host species and high vigilance for instances of this is essential to containing any possible onward transmission.”
Professor Wendy Barclay, Regius Professor of Infectious Disease at Imperial College London, said:
“Since the number of cases of H5N1 in poultry premises has increased again this winter, this is not unexpected.
“It’s important to remember that bird flu does not transmit readily between people without several simultaneous adaptive mutations in different genes.
“Genetic sequencing would confirm if this has happened, but with just one individual case, it is highly unlikely.”
Declared interests
Dr Alastair Ward I am a member of the FluMAP and Flu:TrailMAP consortia: multi-disciplinary groups of scientists funded by UKRI and Defra to better understand the ongoing H5N1 panzootic and how to better control it.
Prof Andrew Preston I have received research funding from several companies that make vaccines, but not for any work related to influenza.
For all other experts, no reply to our request for DOIs was received.
Elon Musk has emerged as one of the most influential and controversial powerbrokers in the new Trump administration. He spent at least US$277 million (about A$360 million) of his own money to help Donald Trump win re-election, campaigning alongside him around the country.
This significant investment of time and money raises the question of what the world’s wealthiest person hopes to receive in return. Critics have wondered whether Musk’s support for Trump is just a straightforward commercial transaction, with Musk expecting to receive political favours.
Or does it reflect Musk’s own genuinely held political views, and perhaps personal political ambition?
From left to alt-right
Decoding Musk’s political views and tracking how they have changed over time is a complex exercise. He’s hard to pin down, largely by design.
Musk’s current X feed, for example, is a bewildering mix of far-right conspiracy theories about immigration, clips of neoliberal economist Milton Friedman warning about the dangers of inflation, and advertisements for Tesla.
Historically, Musk professes to have been a left libertarian. He says he voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012, Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Joe Biden in 2020.
Musk claims that over time, the Democratic party has moved further to the left, leaving him feeling closer politically to the Republican party.
Key to Musk’s political shift, at least by his own account, is his estrangement from his transgender daughter, Vivian Jenna Wilson.
After Vivian’s transition, Musk claimed she was “dead, killed by the woke mind virus”. She is very much alive.
He’s since repeatedly signalled his opposition to transgender rights and gender-affirming care, and diversity, equity and inclusion policies more broadly.
However, if the mere existence of a trans person in his family was enough to cause a political meltdown, Musk was clearly already on a trajectory towards far-right politics.
Rather than responding to a shift in the Democratic Party, it makes more sense to understand Musk’s changing politics as part of a much broader recent phenomenon known as as “the libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.
The political science, explained
Libertarianism has historically tended to be divided between left-wing and right-wing forms.
Left libertarians support economic policies of limited government, such as cutting taxes and social spending, and deregulation more broadly. This is combined with progressive social policies, such as marriage equality and drug decriminalisation.
By contrast, right libertarians support the same set of economic policies, but hold conservative social views, such as opposing abortion rights and celebrating patriotism.
Historically, the Libertarian Party in the United States adopted an awkward middle ground between the two poles.
The past decade, though, has seen the Libertarian Party, and libertarianism more generally, move strongly to the right. In particular, many libertarians have played leading roles in the alt-right movement.
The alt-right or “alternative right” refers to the recent resurgence of far-right political movements opposing multiculturalism, gender equality and diversity, and supporting white nationalism.
The alt-right is a very online movement, with its leading activists renowned for internet trolling and “edgelording” – that is, the posting of controversial and confronting content to deliberately stoke controversy and attract attention.
Though some libertarians have resisted the pull of the alt-right, many have been swept along the pipeline, including prominent leaders in the movement.
Making sense of Musk
While this discussion of theory may seem abstract, it helps to understand what Musk’s values are (beneath the chaotic tweets and Nazi salutes).
In economic terms, Musk remains a limited-government libertarian. He advocates cutting government spending, reducing taxes and repealing regulation – especially regulations that put limits on his businesses.
His formal role in the Trump administration as head of the “Department of Government Efficiency”, also known as DOGE, is targeted at these goals.
Musk has suggested that in cutting government spending, he will particularly target diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This is the alt-right influence on display.
Alt-right sensibilities are most evident, however, in Musk’s online persona.
On X, Musk has deliberately stoked controversy by boosting and engaging with white nationalists and racist conspiracy theories.
For example, he has favourably engaged with far-right politicians advocating for the antisemitic “Great Replacement theory”. This theory claims Jews are encouraging mass migration to the global north as part of a deliberate plot to eliminate the white race.
More recently, Musk has endorsed the far-right in Germany. He’s also shared videos from known white supremacists outlining the racist “Muslim grooming gangs” conspiracy theory in the United Kingdom.
Whether Musk actually believes these outlandish racist conspiracy theories is, in many ways, irrelevant.
Rather, Musk’s public statements are better understood as reflecting philosopher Harry Frankfurt’s famous definition of “bullshit”. For Frankfurt, “bullshit” refers to statements made to impress or provoke in which the speaker is simply not concerned with whether the statement is actually true.
Much of Musk’s online persona is part of a deliberate alt-right populist strategy to stoke controversy, upset “the left”, and then claim to be a persecuted victim when criticised.
Theory vs practice
Though Musk’s public statements might fit nicely into contemporary libertarianism, there are always contradictions when putting ideology into practice.
For example, despite Musk’s oft-stated preference for limited government, it’s well documented that his companies have received extensive subsidies and support from various governments.
Musk will expect this special treatment to continue under a quintessentially transactional president such as Trump.
The vexed issue of immigration also presents some contradictions.
Across the campaign, both Musk and Trump repeatedly criticised immigration to the US. Reprising the themes of the far-right Great Replacement theory, Musk claimed illegal immigration was a deliberate plot by Democrats to “replace” the existing electorate with “compliant illegals”.
However, after the election Musk has argued Trump should preserve categories of skilled migration such as the H1-B visas. This angered more explicit white supremacists, such as Trump advisor Laura Loomer.
Musk’s motives in arguing for the visas are not humanitarian. H1-B visas allow temporary workers to enter the country for up to six years, making them entirely dependent on the sponsoring company. It’s a situation some have called “indentured servitude”.
These visas have been used heavily in the technology sector, including in companies owned by both Musk and Trump.
An unsteady alliance
So what might we expect from Musk now that he has both political office and influence?
Musk’s stated aim of using DOGE to cut $2 trillion from the US budget would represent an unprecedented transformation of government. It also seems highly unlikely.
Instead, expect Musk to focus on creating controversy by cutting DEI initiatives and other politically sensitive programs, such as support for women’s reproductive rights.
Musk will clearly use his political influence to look after the interests of his companies. Shares in Tesla surged to record highs following Trump’s re-election, suggesting investors believe Musk will be a major financial beneficiary of the second Trump administration.
Finally, Musk will undoubtedly use his new position to remain in the public eye. This last part might lead Musk into conflict with another expert in shaping the media cycle – Trump himself.
Musk has already reportedly fallen out with Vivek Ramaswamy, who will now no longer co-lead DOGE with Musk.
Exactly how stable the alliance between Trump and Musk is, and whether the egos and interests of the two billionaires can continue to coexist, remains to be seen.
If the alliance persists, it will be a key factor in shaping what many are terming the emergence of a “new gilded age” of political corruption and soaring inequality.
Henry Maher 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.
Three public figures known for their achievements in Plymouth and in recognition of their outstanding leadership, were awarded Freedom of the City at the Full Council meeting today (27 January).
Sir Gary Streeter
Gary had a career in politics spanning over 30 years, he started his involvement with politics in 1986 as he was passionate about contributing to the community.
Gary was an Elected Member of Parliament for Plymouth Sutton from 1992 to 1997 when the boundaries changed, and subsequently elevated to the whip’s office. He was also then promoted to Minister in the Lord Chancellor’s department in 1996 to 1997.
Gary was Shadow Secretary of State for International Development from 1998 to 2001.
Gary was re-elected as MP for South West Devon, and became Vice Chairman of the Conservative party in 2001 to 2002, and Member of Parliament for South West Devon from 1997 to 2024.
Gary said: “It is a great honour to be granted the freedom of such a great city. It has been an absolute privilege to serve so many Plymouth residents for over 30 years as their member of parliament. I am very grateful to the city council for bestowing such an honour upon me.”
Kevin Nancekivell
Kevin played non-league football for Bideford Town and Tiverton Town before getting his chance with Argyle at the age of 28.
Retiring from playing in 2004, Kevin began a coaching journey that saw him rise through various roles with Argyle’s Centres of Excellence and Academy, gaining his UEFA A Licence in 2010.
In 2011, new Argyle manager Carl Fletcher asked Nancekivell to join his first-team coaching staff, and when Fletcher left in 2013 Kevin, along with Romain Larrieu, took temporary charge of the team.
It was the first of five times where Nance has taken caretaker charge of Argyle, either solo or as a unit, typically with strong results.
For his passion, dedication and honesty, not to mention his skill as a coach, Kevin is a beloved figure to the Green Army, who sometimes refer to him as ‘Mr Plymouth Argyle’.
Kevin said: ‘I’m incredibly honoured to receive the Freedom of the City award. Plymouth has been a huge part of my life, and it’s a privilege to represent this great city through football.
“To be recognised in this way is truly humbling but it wouldn’t have been possible with the support and dedication of my family, colleagues, teammates and of course Argyle supporters.”
Linda Gilroy
With a political career spanning over 40 years, Linda started her journey in Plymouth politics in 1987, when she was elected as the secretary to the Plymouth Drake Constituency Labour Party and was elected chairwoman of the Cornwall Labour Party for four years from 1990.
Linda was the Member of Parliament (MP) for Plymouth Sutton for 13 years from 1997 until 2010.
In parliament she was a member of the European legislation select committee from 1997 until the 2001 General Election when she was appointed Minister of State for Local and Regional Government. From 2005 to 2010 she served on the Defence Select Committee and as Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Science Minister.
Linda said: “In thanking the Lord Mayor and the Council for this honour, I would like to pay tribute to Plymouth City Council’s award-winning work. During my time representing the city this helped many campaigns succeed. These included bringing down the dockyard wall and the regeneration of Devonport still flowing from this, rescuing Ford Park Cemetery from dereliction and securing investment for the Peninsula Medical and Dental Schools and community health facilities in Cattedown and Mount Gould. It is good to see that work going from strength to strength.”
Lord Mayor of Plymouth, Tina Tuohy added: “I am pleased to present the award to Sir Gary, Kevin and Linda for their achievements in the service of Plymouth, and in recognition of their outstanding leadership, contributions to the public and the Plymouth communities.
“This is why we have chosen to grant Freedom of the City to them today. I would like to thank them for all the incredible work that they do. A huge congratulations to them all.”
Kevin Nancekivell, Lord Mayor Councillor Tina Tuohy and Sir Gary Streeter
VIENNA, Va, Jan. 27, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Urgent.ly Inc. (Nasdaq: ULY) (“Urgently” or “the Company”), a U.S.-based leading provider of digital roadside and mobility assistance technology and services, announced today its board of directors has appointed Alex Zyngier to serve as a member of the board, effective January 23, 2025.
“Alex is a seasoned leader with a proven track record of navigating complex business challenges and driving growth,” said Matt Booth, Chief Executive Officer and President of Urgently. “With over 30 years of investment, strategy, governance and operating experience across a range of industries, Alex brings a wealth of expertise to Urgently as the Company continues to transform the roadside assistance industry. We are thrilled to welcome him to our board and look forward to his contributions.”
“I am honored to join the Board of Directors at Urgently, a company at the forefront of digital innovation in roadside assistance,” said Alex Zyngier. “Since debuting as a public company, Urgently has made remarkable progress in driving margin expansion through financial and operational improvements, while continuing to deliver an exceptional customer experience and value to its partners. In addition, the Company has demonstrated positive traction in the marketplace, as evident by the significant contract renewals, expansions and new customer wins. Urgently is at an exciting point in its growth, and I look forward to working with the board and leadership team to help drive strategic initiatives, enhance operational excellence, and expand Urgently’s impact on the mobility ecosystem.”
Alex is the Founder and Managing Director of Batuta Capital Advisors, a private investment and advisory firm. He currently serves as Chairman of the Board for COFINA and EVO Transportation, as well as a director for various public and private companies, including Atari SA, Nu Ride, SlamCorp and Unifin Financiera. His extensive experience includes leadership roles in complex transactions, mergers and acquisitions, and strategic financial advisory. Alex’s diverse background spans roles as a Portfolio Manager at Alden Global/Smith Management, Goldman Sachs, and Deutsche Bank, focusing on distressed investments and special situations. He has also served as an Engagement Manager at McKinsey & Co. and a Technical Brand Manager at Procter & Gamble. His educational background includes an MBA in Finance and Accounting from the University of Chicago and a Bachelor of Science in Chemical Engineering from UNICAMP.
About Urgently
Urgently is focused on helping everyone move safely, without disruption, by safeguarding drivers, promptly assisting their journey, and employing technology to proactively avert possible issues. The company’s digitally native software platform combines location-based services, real-time data, AI and machine-to-machine communication to power roadside assistance solutions for leading brands across automotive, insurance, telematics and other transportation-focused verticals. Urgently fulfills the demand for connected roadside assistance services, enabling its partners to deliver exceptional user experiences that drive high customer satisfaction and loyalty, by delivering innovative, transparent and exceptional connected mobility assistance experiences on a global scale. For more information, visit www.geturgently.com.
For media and investment inquiries, please contact:
Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.
Title of course:
The Fundamentals of Beer
What prompted the idea for the course?
After 25 years of working in professional kitchens and as a server in fine dining, I became an adjunct professor and then director of special projects in the Food and Hospitality Management department at Drexel University. Lynn Hoffman, the founder of the school’s culinary program and the author of “The Short Course in Beer,” suggested we create a 10-week beer course.
It seemed like a no-brainer, given beer’s popularity with college students. But it was also an opportunity to help our students appreciate beer’s dizzying array of styles, as well as its deep cultural and historical significance – including right here in Philadelphia.
What does the course explore?
The course explores the history of brewing and how different societies – specifically Sumerian, German, English and Belgian – influenced the ingredients and brewing techniques used to make different styles of beers.
Some styles are named after their city of origin – for example, pilsners originated in Pilzen, Czech Republic. Others are derived from the brewing procedure. “Lager,” for example, is German for “to stock or store.” These beers are stored at refrigerated temperatures for months after they’re brewed in order for residual flavors to subside, making way for a cleaner, crisper and more refreshing profile. Meanwhile, “porters” are named after the London working-class longshoremen – those who loaded and unloaded cargo at ports – who commonly consumed them.
After studying the foundational aspects of beer, students learn about its evolution in America, with a focus on the Philadelphia region.
For example, Yuengling, originally named Eagle Brewery, was established in 1829 in Pottsville, Pennsylvania, about 100 miles outside Philadelphia, and is credited with being America’s oldest continuously operating brewery. And in the city itself, local brewer Robert Hare Jr. made what George Washington referred to as “the best porter in Philadelphia,” just down the street from where America’s first lager was purportedly brewed by Bavarian expat John Wagner around 1840.
Beer and other alcoholic beverages have a significant financial impact on the restaurant industry, where many businesses operate on thin margins. Restaurants can attract diners with a dynamic beverage offering. A good beer program requires an informed staff, locally brewed options and an array of diverse styles. They might showcase classic lagers and ales alongside popular contemporary favorites such as New England IPAs and Italian pilsners, and off-the-wall experiments like Fruity Pebbles kettle sour ales.
What’s a critical lesson from the course?
Beer appreciation is not inebriation.
There is a proper way to analyze beer through sight, aroma, palate texture and flavor. We use a tasting grid to guide students through this process. First we assess the beer’s color, clarity and foam, which gives us our initial ideas regarding the beer’s character. We then evaluate the beer’s aroma, which is derived from the grains, hops and fermentation. Then we sip and focus on the texture of the beer to determine the weight of it on the palate, the quality of the carbonation and the mouthfeel – whether it is thin, full or silky. Last, we assess the flavor profile.
Students get the opportunity to distinguish the various malt and hop characters present in many popular beer styles – from the crisp, biscuit or cracker flavor and light green bitterness of a pilsner, to the dried fruit and dark caramel-laden quality of doppelbocks, to the cold-brew coffee style of dry stouts.
“Tasting” and not simply “drinking” beer enables students to understand and appreciate what is in their glass. It is also important to note that when analyzing a beer, the glass must be clean, clear and of a certain shape – tulip. Having a globe to swirl the beer allows tasters to judge the viscosity, test the carbonation and open up the aromas.
What materials does the course feature?
Lynn Hoffman’s “Short Course in Beer” offers a digestible summation of beer styles, history and how beer can be enjoyed in settings ranging from tailgates to fine dining.
Joshua Bernstein’s “The Complete Beer Course” illustrates the beer family tree in great detail, includes interviews with prominent brewers and provides textbook examples of various beer styles.
The Brewers Association’s Style Guidelines
and Tasting Grid are go-to guides for how beer styles are delineated using a scale of color, bitterness and flavor attributes.
Six 1-oz. weekly samples allow students to taste historical representations and current iterations of a particular beer style, such as Bohemian pilsners, German hefeweizens, English bitters and Belgian tripels.
We also do a guided tour and tasting at one of Philadelphia’s larger independent craft beer brewers, Yards brewery.
What will the course prepare students to do?
Students learn about the history of beer production and its cultural relevance, and develop an understanding of tasting notes and profiles for various beer styles so they can distinguish between ale and lager family styles. By the end of the course, they should also be able to design their own beer menu for a restaurant.
Paul O’Neill 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.
William Schaffner, a professor of preventive medicine and infectious diseases at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, discusses the symptoms of norovirus, how best to treat it, and the populations most vulnerable to this illness.
Dr. William Schaffner discusses the norovirus.
The Conversation has collaborated with SciLine to bring you highlights from the discussion that have been edited for brevity and clarity.
What are the symptoms of a norovirus infection?
William Schaffner: Norovirus is an intestinal virus that can make you very, very sick. It is indelicately called winter vomiting disease, and it begins suddenly, often with an explosive vomit that then repeats itself.
Norovirus can cause abdominal pain and diarrhea at the same time, along with a fever. It will probably make you feel miserable for two or three days – but then everybody pretty much recovers.
How should norovirus be treated?
William Schaffner: The major problem norovirus causes is dehydration from all that vomiting and diarrhea. So you have to stay hydrated. Do this with little sips of clear liquids, because if you take too much, it’ll come right back up. Sports drinks are very good.
Most people who get into trouble are either very young or older and more frail. They may have to go to the hospital to get rehydrated with an IV. When the occasional death occurs due to this dehydrating infection, it’s in those vulnerable populations.
Why does norovirus tend to surge during the winter?
William Schaffner: You can get it any time of the year, but there is a seasonal increase in the winter for reasons that scientists are not quite sure of. But people spend a lot of time indoors with each other in wintertime, so that makes it easier for the virus to get from one place to another. All that travel over the holidays, as well as family gatherings and parties, can spread the virus.
How can people protect themselves from the norovirus?
William Schaffner: The most important thing is good hand hygiene. Washing with soap and water works the best. Those hand hygiene gels and wipes – the hand sanitizers – that people tend to use aren’t as effective against norovirus, so just wash frequently with good old soap and water. And then, of course, avoid people who are sick.
Also, remember that the virus can survive on environmental surfaces, like counters, doorknobs and tables. You don’t want to pick up those viruses on your fingers. If you get a little bit of virus on your fingertips and then touch your lips, you can get an infection because it just takes a small dose of the virus to make you sick.
Who’s particularly vulnerable to norovirus?
William Schaffner: The people who are more susceptible to catching it are those living in semi-enclosed or enclosed populations. For example, people in nursing homes, schools and prisons – essentially any circumstance where people are together for a long period of time.
Another place where the virus can spread is cruise ships, which is why norovirus is also called the cruise ship virus. When people are confined on a ship for days and days, these outbreaks can run through most of the passengers.
Interestingly enough – and this has never been well explained – the crew is usually less affected.
But again, the most serious illness occurs in older, frail and immune-compromised people, or in the very young, where dehydration can be more serious.
Where’s the research on developing a norovirus vaccine?
William Schaffner: Norovirus has presented some scientific challenges. It’s actually rather difficult to grow in the laboratory, and so that has delayed the development of a vaccine. But researchers are working on it.
Are there other infectious diseases going around right now?
William Schaffner: Along with norovirus, respiratory viruses are still out there: influenza, COVID-19 and respiratory syncytial virus, or RSV. They’re all perking up at the same time. It looks as though we’re having a very brisk winter viral season.
SciLine is a free service based at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, a nonprofit that helps journalists include scientific evidence and experts in their news stories.
William Schaffner receives funding from the CDC-sponsored Emerging Infections Program Collaborative Agreement.
Source: The Conversation – USA – By Yenisel Cruz-Almeida, Associate Professor & Associate Director, Pain Research & Intervention Center Of Excellence, University of Florida
“How come you feel pain when you fall and get a scrape?” – Tillman, age 9, Asheville, North Carolina
Nobody likes to feel pain, but it’s something every person will experience at some point in their life.
But why is that?
I am a neuroscientist, and my job is to research why and how people feel pain in order to help doctors understand how to treat it better.
What is pain?
To understand why people feel pain, it helps first to understand what pain is. Pain is the unpleasant sensation you feel when your body is experiencing harm, or thinks it is.
Not everyone experiences pain the same way. Pain is a highly personal experience influenced by a variety of biological, psychological and social factors. For example, research has shown differences in the pain experiences of women and men, young and older people, and even across people from different cultures.
It’s important for kids to communicate with a trusted adult if they’re experiencing pain.
Danger signals
A network of nerves similar to wires runs all through the human body, from the tips of your fingers and toes, through your back inside the spinal cord and up to your brain. Specialized pain receptors called nociceptors can be found at the end of the nerves on your skin, muscles, joints and internal organs.
Each nociceptor is designed to activate its nerve if it detects a danger signal. One way scientists classify nociceptors is based on the type of danger signal that activates them.
Mechanical nociceptors respond to physical damage, such as cuts or pressure, while thermal nociceptors react to extreme temperatures. Chemical nociceptors are triggered by chemicals that the body’s own tissues release when they are damaged. These receptors may also be triggered by external irritants, such as the chemical capsaicin, which gives chili peppers their heat. This is why eating spicy food can cause you pain.
Finally, there are the nociceptors that are activated by a combination of various triggers. For example, one of these receptors in your skin could be activated by the poke of a sharp object, the cold of an ice pack, the heat from a mug of cocoa, a chemical burn from household bleach, or a combination of all three kinds of stimulation.
When you fall and get a scrape, the mechanical nociceptors in your skin spring into action. As soon as you hit the ground, they activate an electrical signal that travels through the nearby nerves to the spinal cord and up to your brain. Your brain interprets these signals to locate the place in your body that is hurting and determine how intense the pain is.
Your brain knows that a pain signal is an SOS message from your body that something isn’t right. So it activates multiple systems all at once to get you out of danger and help you survive.
Your brain may call on other parts of your nervous system to release chemicals called endorphins that will reduce your pain. It may tell your endocrine system to release hormones that prepare your body to handle the stress of your fall by increasing your heart rate, for example. And it may order your immune system to send special immune cells to the site of your scrape to help manage swelling and heal your skin.
As all of this is happening, your brain takes in information about where you are in the world so that you can respond accordingly. Do you need to move away from something hurting you? Did you fall in the middle of the road and now need to get out of the way of moving cars?
Not only is your brain working to keep you safe in the moments after your fall, it also is looking ahead to how it can prevent this scenario from happening again. The pain signals from your fall activate parts of your brain called the hippocampus and anterior cingulate cortex that process memory and emotions. They will help you remember how bad falling made you feel so that you will learn how to avoid it in the future.
But why do we need to feel pain?
As this example shows, pain is like a warning signal from your body. It helps protect you by telling you when something is wrong so that you can stop doing it and avoid getting hurt more.
In fact, it’s a problem if you can’t feel pain. Some people have a genetic mutation that changes the way their nociceptors function and do not feel pain at all. This can be very dangerous, because they won’t know when they’re hurt.
Ultimately, feeling that scrape and the pain sensation from it helps keep you safe from harm.
Hello, curious kids! Do you have a question you’d like an expert to answer? Ask an adult to send your question to CuriousKidsUS@theconversation.com. Please tell us your name, age and the city where you live.
And since curiosity has no age limit – adults, let us know what you’re wondering, too. We won’t be able to answer every question, but we will do our best.
Yenisel Cruz-Almeida receives funding from the National Institutes of Health. She is an Associate Editor at the Journal of Pain and serves as Treasurer on the US Association for the Study of Pain.
Launching The Big Apprenticeship Event for 2025 is SRC CEO Lee Campbell and the Deputy Lord Mayor of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon, Councillor Kyle Savage.
Southern Regional College’s Big Apprenticeship Event returns this February to Craigavon’s Civic Centre on Thursday 6th February from 5:00pm to 7:30pm. The Big Apprenticeship Event is a one stop shop for those seeking to start a new apprenticeship course from level 2 to level 5 from September 2025. The event seeks to match potential apprentices with employers, with over 40 employers and support organisations expected to attend both the Newry and Craigavon events. College staff will also be present discussing course modules, entry requirements and assessments.
Also returning to the event this year are student ambassadors from various programmes of study, giving a first-hand account of what it is like being an apprentice and sharing their incredible journeys and giving the low-down on the reality of studying whilst being an apprentice. Employers, support organisations, lecturing staff and student ambassadors alike will be answering questions from attendees.
Now in its 7th year the Big Apprenticeship Event, delivered in partnership with Armagh City Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council and the ABC Labour Market Partnership, this event provides opportunities to young people and adult returners alike to develop skills and gain relevant experience with recruiting employers.
Apprenticeships and higher level apprenticeships are flexible career pathways providing the chance to earn a salary while pursuing qualifications. With course fees funded by the Department for the Economy, now has never been a better time to start an apprenticeship or higher level apprenticeship at Southern Regional College.
Apprenticeships are offered at level 2 and 3 at Southern Regional College in over 30 areas ranging from business, children’s care, construction, engineering, hairdressing & barbering, hospitality & food manufacturing to motor vehicles.
Higher Level Apprenticeships provide participants with recognised foundation and honour degrees, referred to as level 5 and 6 qualifications in 20 subject areas. This ranges from accounting, business, finance and marketing, computing, construction, engineering, science, sports & exercise and tourism, hospitality & events management.
The College has successfully run Higher Level Apprenticeship programmes of study for 10 years, providing over 1,200 people with jobs since the inception of the programme. This year could be attendees’ opportunity to add a degree and a new source of employment to their accomplishments.
Lee Campbell, Principal & CEO of Southern Regional College commented:
“We are delighted to once again host The Big Apprenticeship Event in our local communities. The event provides attendees the unique opportunity to start conversations and directly engage with a wide and varied range of employers.
“Attendees will have the opportunity to gather information on the various programmes of study and gain an understanding of the benefits of studying an apprenticeship. Apprenticeships offer value by combining hands on vocational training, equipping individuals with the skills and experience currently in demand by employers.
“Whether you are a school leaver, a career changer, or someone seeking professional development, this event promises to deliver a wealth of knowledge and inspiration to help you shape your future.”
Deputy Lord Mayor of Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon, Councillor Kyle Savage added:
“ABC Council is delighted to support the return of the Big Apprenticeship event on Thursday 6th February in Craigavon Civic & Conference Centre. Apprenticeships and higher level Apprenticeships have the opportunity to transform the lives of individuals, families and communities, connecting local people with local career pathways in forward-thinking local businesses, sparking partnerships that drive innovation and strengthen our economy.
“Apprenticeships and higher level Apprenticeships are not just a win for individuals who have the opportunity to earn while they learn, but they are also a win for local business and our Borough as a whole as we work collectively to nurture a pipeline of skilled individuals to strengthen the local economy both now and into the future.”
With many career opportunities available, attendees are encouraged to make their way to their closest Big Apprenticeship Event. Free tickets are now available to book using the registration link https://src-big-apprenticeship-event-2025.eventbrite.co.uk
Source: Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University – Peter the Great St Petersburg Polytechnic University –
On January 27, the Day of the Complete Liberation of Leningrad from the Siege, the Polytechnic University held the event “Polytechnic. Siege. Leningrad”. The leaders, employees and students of SPbPU, as well as graduates and veterans of the university, gathered at the Monument to the Fallen Polytechnicians to remember those who defended our city, who gave their lives for the victory in the Great Patriotic War.
The residents of besieged Leningrad demonstrated unprecedented fortitude. Despite the fact that they suffered enormous hardships, these people stood firm. Our task is to perform our actions based on the gratitude we feel for the generation that defended the city. I am sure that it is the unity of spirit that will help us overcome any difficulties and cope with any tasks, – the first vice-rector of SPbPU Vitaly Sergeev opened the memorial event.
The event participants remembered the heroes who fought bravely at the front and steadfastly endured the hardships of life in the besieged city. 300 students and teachers of the Polytechnic Institute fought in the 3rd Frunze Division of the Leningrad People’s Militia Army. They were part of one of the companies of the Vyborg Regiment. In August 1941, the militia prevented the creation of a second blockade ring in the Olonetsky direction in Karelia. The institute continued scientific work aimed at solving wartime problems.
During the Great Patriotic War, the Polytechnic University helped the city and the country. And now, during the special military operation, the university provides assistance to various units, including mine. Polytechnicians provide camouflage nets, high-cross-country vehicles, special devices, and help civilians, said SVO participant Kirill Chernykh. He presented letters of gratitude to the SPbPU workforce for their assistance and to the volunteers who weave camouflage nets.
Milana Yukhnevich, Chairperson of the Military History Club “Our Polytechnic”, spoke on behalf of the younger generation. Students of the Natural Science Lyceum Lev Tyukov and Rodion Kurskiyev, as well as third-year college student Daria Brovkina, recited poems.
The siege took more than a million lives, the Great Patriotic War took millions of lives, but time, of course, took even more lives. Unfortunately, there are no more veterans left who came to our memorial events just a few years ago. We must carry the baton of memory, preserve it and gather every year so as not to forget the terrible years of the siege and the war. So that, as today, we honor the memory of those who did not live to see this moment, – shared the leading specialist of the SPbPU History Museum Artem Solovyov.
The rally ended with a minute of silence in memory of all those who died during the blockade and the laying of flowers at the Monument to the Fallen Polytechnicians.
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.
The ‘black mailbox’ along Highway 375 near Rachel, Nev., a traditional spot for UFO hunters to meet and search the skies near Area 51.AP Photo/John Locher
Uncommon Courses is an occasional series from The Conversation U.S. highlighting unconventional approaches to teaching.
Title of course:
“Investigating the Paranormal”
What prompted the idea for the course?
My training and professional work have been in Mesoamerican archaeology, but I’ve had a lifelong fascination with paranormal concepts. In fact, I considered studying the UFO community for my doctoral research in cultural anthropology.
I eventually fused these two interests in my book “Spooky Archaeology: Myth and the Science of the Past,” which examines why archaeology shows up so much in ideas about the mysterious and weird. Most people are familiar with pop culture characters like Indiana Jones seeking magical artifacts. Perhaps less immediately obvious is just how common archaeological topics are in paranormal and conspiracy culture.
The popularity of paranormal ideas – from television shows and thousands of podcasts to UFOs on the front page of The New York Times and in government investigations – made it clear that a course on paranormal culture would be an excellent way for students to get a taste of social science research.
What does the course explore?
The material begins with premodern ideas of magic, myth and metaphysics. The narrative that “Western” societies tell of the development of the modern world is that the Enlightenment cast off supernatural thinking in favor of science. The historical reality, however, is not so simple.
As science based on observation of material evidence emerged in the 17th through 19th centuries, so did a paranormal worldview: theories about a nonmaterial or hidden reality beyond the mundane, from monsters to psychic powers. Some of these ideas were tied to older religious notions of the sacred or strange but not divine phenomena. Others were new – particularly those suggesting the hidden existence of prehistoric extinct creatures or lost cities.
In either case, the key element was that proponents of these ideas often tried to support their existence with the kind of evidence used in science, though their “proofs” fell short of scientific standards. In other words, the paranormal is in conflict with the knowledge and worldview of modernity but also attempts to use the concepts of modernity to oppose it.
The class examines how this tension produced 20th century “-ologies” like parapsychology, which examines evidence for consciousness beyond matter, and cryptozoology, which searches the ends of the Earth for creatures tied to the mythic past. We also learn about UFOlogy, whose proponents have collected alleged contacts with technology and beings from beyond this world ever since the Cold War, as great earthly powers filled the skies with secretive hi-tech aircraft and spaceships.
As the class concludes, we examine how the “-ologies” declined after the Cold War, alongside the cultural capital of science, whose height of public respect was in the mid-20th century. Since then, proving the existence of paranormal things to institutional scientists has become less important in paranormal communities than promoting them to a broader public.
Why is this course relevant now?
Beyond public interest in paranormal topics, the paranormal is entwined with sociocultural forces that have dramatically increased the role of conspiracy rhetoric in the United States and elsewhere. At their core, both types of belief claim to have figured out some kind of supposedly hidden knowledge.
Furthermore, the conspiracy theories that are now commonplace in American political discourse are more rooted in paranormal ideas than in previous decades. Conspiracy theories about the JFK assassination or even 9/11 were still largely within the materialist realm. People argued that “the truth” had been covered up, but their arguments did not rely on metaphysical ideas. Today, major conspiracy theories involve secret cabals, mystical symbols and code words, demonic forces and extraterrestrial entities.
What’s a critical lesson from the course?
Evidence must be interrogated on its own, regardless of whether it fits your perspective. I find time and again that students have a hard time approaching evidence without bias, whether that bias is conscious or not: “knowing” that something must be true, or must be absurd.
One person apparently makes a death bed confession of faking a famous Loch Ness Monster photo, pleasing skeptics. Another claims to have seen a Bigfoot at close range, pleasing believers. Without further evidence, both are stories: no more, no less.
The issue isn’t to draw an equivalence between the bigger concepts. Not all narratives are equally well-founded. But students learn how to collect evidence, rather than simply rely on their gut sense of what is plausible or not.
What will the course prepare students to do?
This course is meant to help students discern useful and reliable information about claims and events, separating them from irrelevant or inaccurate narratives or sources. The goal is not just “critical thinking” aimed at combating disinformation, though that is part of what they should learn. Students practice evaluating evidence but also develop an approach for analyzing and understanding phenomena behind it: how factors like history, culture and institutions of authority, such as science and government, shape what people trust and what they believe.
Jeb Card 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.
More than 6 million Syrians have fled the country since 2011, when an uprising against the regime of Bashar Assad transformed into a 13-year civil war. Most ended up in neighboring countries such as Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, while a sizable minority wound up in Europe. But the overthrow of the Assad regime in late 2024 by opposition forces led by the Islamist group Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has seemingly opened a window for their return, and tens of thousands of former refugees have since made the decision to go back to their homeland.
How many and who decides to go back, and the circumstances under which they reintegrate into Syrian society, will have enormous implications for both Syria and the countries they resettled in. It also provides an opportunity for migration scholarslike ourselves to better understand what happens when refugees finally return home.
Previous research has shown that Syrian refugees who are trying to decide whether to return are motivated more by conditions in Syria than by policy decisions where they’ve resettled. But individual experiences also play an important role. Counterintuitively, refugees who have been exposed to violence during the Syrian civil war are actually more tolerant of and better at assessing the risk of returning to Syria, research has shown.
But such research was conducted while Assad was still in power, and it has only been several weeks since Assad fell. As a result, it’s unclear how many Syrians will decide to go back. After all, the current government is transitional, and the country is not fully unified.
The risk of return
In the month after Assad’s fall, about 125,000 Syrians headed home, primarily from Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. But for the majority of those yet to return, important questions and considerations remain.
First and foremost, what will governance look like under the transitional government? So far, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham’s rule under Ahmed al-Sharaa has suggested the group will embrace inclusivity toward Syria’s diverse array of ethnic and religious minorities. Even so, some observers worry about the group’s prior connections to militant Islamist groups, including al-Qaida.
Syrians debating whether to return home must also confront the economic devastation wrought by years of war, government mismanagement and corruption, and international sanctions placed on the Assad regime.
Sanctions blocking the entry of medications and equipment, along with Assad’s bombing of infrastructure throughout the war, have crippled the country’s medical system.
In 2024, 16.7 million Syrians – more than half the country’s population – were in need of essential humanitarian assistance, even as very little was available. In early 2025, the U.S. announced that it was extending a partial, six-month reprieve of sanctions to allow humanitarian groups to provide basic services such as water, sanitation and electricity.
But rebuilding the country’s infrastructure will take much longer, and Syrian refugees will have to weigh whether they are better off remaining in their host countries. This is especially true for those who have worked to build new lives over a long period in exile from Syria.
The caretaker Syrian government will also have to address the issue of property restitution. Many individuals may want to return home only if they indeed have a home to return to. And the policy of forced property transfers and the settlement by Alawite and minority groups allied to the Assad regime in former Sunni areas vacated during the war complicates the issue.
Continued welcome in Europe?
Since the start of the civil war, approximately 1.3 million Syrians have sought protection in Europe, the majority of them arriving in 2015 and 2016 and settling in countries such as Germany and Sweden. As of December 2023, 780,000 individuals still held refugee status and subsidiary protection – an additional form of international protection – with the remainder having received either long-term residency or citizenship.
Subsidiary protection was granted to those who didn’t meet the stringent requirements for refugee status under the Geneva Conventions – which requires a well-founded fear of persecution based on race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group – but “would face a real risk of suffering serious harm” if returned to their countries of origin.
Recognition rates for Syrians have remained consistently high between 2015 and 2023, but the breakdown between subsidiary protection and refugee status has fluctuated over the years, with 81% receiving refugee status in 2015 versus 68% receiving subsidiary protection in 2023.
For Syrians in the EU who hold refugee status or subsidiary protection, as well as for those with pending asylum claims, the future is very uncertain. In accordance with the Geneva Conventions, EU law allows governments to revoke, end or refuse to renew their status if the reason to offer protection has ceased, which many countries believe is the case after Assad’s fall.
Since then, at least 12 European countries have suspended asylum applications of Syrian nationals. Some nations, such as Austria, have threatened to implement a program of “orderly return and deportation.”
Conditions in Turkey and Lebanon
A much larger number of Syrians obtained protection in neighboring countries, namely Turkey (2.9 million), Lebanon (755,000) and Jordan (611,000), though estimates of unregistered Syrians are much higher. In Turkey, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees, Syrians are afforded only temporary protection status.
In theory, this status allows them access to work, health care and education. But in practice, Syrian refugees in Turkey have not always been able to enjoy these rights. Coupled with anti-immigrant sentiments worsened by the 2023 earthquake and presidential election, life has remained difficult for many.
And while Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has publicly stated that Syrians should return home according to their own timeline, his previous scapegoating of the refugee population indicates that he may ultimately like to see them returned – especially as many in Turkey now believe Syrian refugees have no reason to stay in the country.
Syrians in Lebanon, which hosts the largest number of Syrian refugees per capita, face even greater economic and legal challenges. The country is not a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, and its stringent domestic asylum law has granted residency to only 17% of the more than a million Syrians who live in the country.
Lebanon has been pressuring Syrian refugees to leave the country for years through policies of marginalization and forced deportation, which have intensified in recent months with a government scheme to deport Syrians not registered with the United Nations. As of 2023, 84% of Syrian families were living in extreme poverty. Their vulnerability was exacerbated by the recent conflict between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon, which led 425,000 Syrians to escape war once again and return to Syria even though conditions at the time were not safe.
Testing the water
Offering go-and-see visits – whereby one member of a family is allowed to return to a home country to evaluate the situation and subsequently permitted to reenter the host country without losing their legal status – is the norm in many refugee situations. The policy is being used at present for Ukrainians in Europe and was used in the past for Bosnian and South Sudanese refugees.
The same policy could serve Syrian refugees now – indeed, Turkey recently implemented such a plan. But above all, we believe returns to Syria should be voluntary, not forced. Getting the conditions right for returning refugees will have enormous implications for rebuilding the country and keeping the peace – or not – in the years to come.
The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In December 2024, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton sued a New York doctor for prescribing abortion-inducing medications to a woman in Collin County, Texas, alleging that the shipment violated Texas’ near-total ban on abortion.
Two months earlier, Paxton’s office had sued to block a federal rule protecting women’s out-of-state medical records from criminal investigation. And in 2022, it sued the Biden administration over federal guidelines requiring doctors to perform abortions in emergency situations.
Paxton’s lawsuits – alongside the state’s restrictive abortion policies – raise troubling questions about individual privacy and women’s bodily autonomy in Texas, where I live and teach. And they’re indicative of a broader problem. As my research on democracy and human rights shows, the state government is becoming increasingly antidemocratic.
Scholars examine a number of factors to determine the health of a democracy. Elections must be free and fair. There should be freedom of expression and belief, multiple competitive political parties and minimal corruption. A democratic government must also respect individual freedom.
On many of these metrics, I believe Texas falls short.
Are Texas elections free and fair?
Texas has some of the most restrictive voting laws in the United States, including strict voter ID laws, stringent limits on mail-in and absentee ballots and no online voter registration.
Republicans, who passed each of these policies, claim their concern is a democratic one – election integrity. Yet, when Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick offered a US$25,000 reward to anyone who could prove voter fraud in the 2020 election, it led to just one arrest.
The Texas Legislature nonetheless pledged to pass an even more restrictive voting bill in 2021, referencing “purity of the ballot box,” an old Jim Crow phrase. Democratic lawmakers ended up fleeing the state to paralyze the state assembly and keep the most egregious parts of the bill from passing.
Healthy democracies also have robust competition between multiple parties so that voters have real choices at the polls.
Yet since its current constitution was written in 1876, Texas has effectively been a one-party state governed by conservatives. No Democrat has won statewide office since 1994 – the longest Democrats have been locked out of statewide office in any state.
Money in politics
Texas puts no limits on individual campaign contributions to the governor, one of just 12 U.S. states that lacks this common anti-corruption measure.
This has allowed Texas’ current governor, Greg Abbott, who has been in office since 2015, to raise vast sums of money. In the 2022 Texas gubernatorial race – the most expensive in the state’s history at $212 million – Abbott outspent his Democratic opponent by almost $50 million. In 2018, he had 90 times more cash on hand than his Democratic opponent.
Texas’ lack of effective campaign finance regulations has given big donors access to power in the form of gubernatorial appointments.
An in-depth investigation by The Texas Tribune in 2022 revealed that 27 of the 41 members of the governor’s COVID-19 task force were campaign donors who had collectively paid $6 million toward the governor’s reelection. Many were business owners who had a vested interest in reopening the state.
Freedom of expression
Texas is also at the center of a national struggle over academic freedom, a key component of free expression.
The Texas Senate is considering expanding this legislation to prohibit “DEI curriculum and course content.”
The mere threat appears to be squelching freedom of thought and intellectual exploration in Texas universities already. The University of North Texas in November started editing course titles and syllabi to remove identity-based topics.
On Jan. 14, Abbott threatened to fire the president of Texas A&M University – a part of my university system – if faculty attended an academic conference showcasing the work of Black, Latino and Indigenous scholars.
Human rights at the border
Abbott’s campaign to control the U.S.-Mexico border has raised concerns among human rightsgroups about civil rights in the state.
In March of 2021, Abbott declared a state of emergency in counties on the Texas border, allowing him to deploy the Texas National Guard there. The initiative, Operation Lone Star, was supposed to stop migrants from crossing the border outside official government checkpoints.
Since border enforcement is a federal authority, however, the troops have mostly enforced state laws on trespassing or drugs and weapons possession. Guardsmen have also participated in busing migrants to Democratic-run cities such as New York and Chicago and built razor-wire barriers in the Rio Grande.
The result is an $11 billion policing program that has largely targeted Latino American citizens – not immigrants. Fully 96% of those arrested on trespassing charges are Latino, and 75% of those facing court proceedings for that and other crimes as a result of Operation Lone Star are U.S. citizens.
Gov. Greg Abbott, left, and Donald Trump greet Texas National Guard troops in Edinburg, Texas, on Nov. 19, 2023. Michael Gonzalez/Getty Images
Women’s freedoms
Finally, women’s right to bodily autonomy is under threat in Texas, which has one of the country’s most restrictive abortion laws.
At least three women have died as a result of doctors being afraid to treat their miscarriages. Overall, maternal mortality rates have increased by 56% since the ban was imposed in 2021. Scary statistics haven’t stopped the state’s plans to tighten its ban.
The 2025 Texas legislative session began with Republican legislators having prefiled several bills aimed at ending abortion by mail services, including one that would reclassify common abortion pills as controlled substances like Valium or Ambien. Doctors warn that this reclassification could also make it harder for them to disperse these medications quickly in life-threatening emergencies.
The question of whether a government is democratic is often not black or white. It should be viewed on a sliding scale.
Freedom House, a nonpartisan international democracy watchdog, ranks countries on a 100-point scale based on the factors I mentioned earlier, among others, and labels countries as “free,” “partly-free” and “not free.”
The freest country in 2024, Finland, had a score of 100. The U.S. has been sliding down the rankings, receiving a score of 83 in 2024 – down from 94 in 2010. It’s still solidly in the “free” category, but U.S. democracy looks less like Germany’s and more like Romania’s. The antidemocratic policy changes made in Texas and a handful of other states contribute to this slide.
Freedom House doesn’t rank states, but if it did, Texas would likely still rate as a “free” democracy. There is space for dissent, opposition and free speech. Democratic politicians have occasional political victories.
But Texas is decidedly less democratic than the U.S. at large. Democracy here is not lost, but I fear Texas is in danger of becoming only “partly-free.”
Katie Scofield 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.
The idea of a humanlike artificial intelligence assistant that you can speak with has been alive in many people’s imaginations since the release of “Her,” Spike Jonze’s 2013 film about a man who falls in love with a Siri-like AI named Samantha. Over the course of the film, the protagonist grapples with the ways in which Samantha, real as she may seem, is not and never will be human.
Twelve years on, this is no longer the stuff of science fiction. Generative AI tools like ChatGPT and digital assistants like Apple’s Siri and Amazon’s Alexa help people get driving directions, make grocery lists, and plenty else. But just like Samantha, automatic speech recognition systems still cannot do everything that a human listener can.
You have probably had the frustrating experience of calling your bank or utility company and needing to repeat yourself so that the digital customer service bot on the other line can understand you. Maybe you’ve dictated a note on your phone, only to spend time editing garbled words.
Unlike you or me, automatic speech recognition systems are not what researchers call “sympathetic listeners.” Instead of trying to understand you by taking in other useful clues like intonation or facial gestures, they simply give up. Or they take a probabilistic guess, a move that can sometimes result in an error.
As companies and public agencies increasingly adopt automatic speech recognition tools in order to cut costs, people have little choice but to interact with them. But the more that these systems come into use in critical fields, ranging from emergency first responders and health care to education and lawenforcement, the more likely there will be grave consequences when they fail to recognize what people say.
Imagine sometime in the near future you’ve been hurt in a car crash. You dial 911 to call for help, but instead of being connected to a human dispatcher, you get a bot that’s designed to weed out nonemergency calls. It takes you several rounds to be understood, wasting time and raising your anxiety level at the worst moment.
What causes this kind of error to occur? Some of the inequalities that result from these systems are baked into the reams of linguistic data that developers use to build large language models. Developers train artificial intelligence systems to understand and mimic human language by feeding them vast quantities of text and audio files containing real human speech. But whose speech are they feeding them?
If a system scores high accuracy rates when speaking with affluent white Americans in their mid-30s, it is reasonable to guess that it was trained using plenty of audio recordings of people who fit this profile.
With rigorous data collection from a diverse range of sources, AI developers could reduce these errors. But to build AI systems that can understand the infinite variations in human speech arising from things like gender, age, race, first vs. second language, socioeconomic status, ability and plenty else, requires significant resources and time.
‘Proper’ English
For people who do not speak English – which is to say, most people around the world – the challenges are even greater. Most of the world’s largest generative AI systems were built in English, and they work far better in English than in any other language. On paper, AI has lots of civic potential for translation and increasing people’s access to information in different languages, but for now, most languages have a smaller digital footprint, making it difficult for them to power large language models.
Even within languages well-served by large language models, like English and Spanish, your experience varies depending on which dialect of the language you speak.
Right now, most speech recognition systems and generative AI chatbots reflect the linguistic biases of the datasets they are trained on. They echo prescriptive, sometimes prejudiced notions of “correctness” in speech.
In fact, AI has been proved to “flatten” linguistic diversity. There are now AI startup companies that offer to erase the accents of their users, drawing on the assumption that their primary clientele would be customer service providers with call centers in foreign countries like India or the Philippines. The offering perpetuates the notion that some accents are less valid than others.
Human connection
AI will presumably get better at processing language, accounting for variables like accents, code-switching and the like. In the U.S., public services are obligated under federal law to guarantee equitable access to services regardless of what language a person speaks. But it is not clear whether that alone will be enough incentive for the tech industry to move toward eliminating linguistic inequities.
Many people might prefer to talk to a real person when asking questions about a bill or medical issue, or at least to have the ability to opt out of interacting with automated systems when seeking key services. That is not to say that miscommunication never happens in interpersonal communication, but when you speak to a real person, they are primed to be a sympathetic listener.
With AI, at least for now, it either works or it doesn’t. If the system can process what you say, you are good to go. If it cannot, the onus is on you to make yourself understood.
Roberto Rey Agudo 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.
It came as a surprise to nobody that one of Donald Trump’s first acts on his return to the White House was to sign an executive order withdrawing the US from the Paris agreement on climate change.
Almost 200 other countries will remain part of the deal designed to stem global warming. So how will they fare without the participation of one of the biggest polluters on the planet?
The exit of the US encapsulates a tricky issue when it comes to international efforts to tackle climate change. Any effort to decrease the use of fossil fuels is individual, while any benefits are universal.
And since 1997, the main approach to tackle climate change multilaterally has been through UN-backed summits known as “Cops” (Conference of the Parties) where countries gather and promise each other to cut their emissions.
Richer countries, which polluted more in the past and created most of the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere, have also committed to helping poorer countries develop economically while emitting less, to the tune of US$300 billion (£244 billion) a year by 2035.
But while plenty of effort goes in to organising the largest possible coalition of countries, in the end, everything is based on good faith and promises. There is no mechanism by which countries which fail to live up to agreements are punished.
So when national politics or budgetary constraints come into play, climate commitments can be left by the wayside. A project to tax pollution may be cancelled or campaigners may succeed in blocking plans.
Yet there are benefits to be had from leading by example and cutting emissions without any guarantee that others will do the same. This is partly because humans have a tendency towards what’s known as “conditional cooperation”. People who fail to cooperate when they have to do it at the same time as others are much more likely to join in if they observe previous cooperation.
For this reason, research I recently published with colleagues on game theory (the mathematical study of strategic interactions), suggests that the best thing for advanced economies to do is keep on cutting their own emissions.
Because without efforts from rich countries to pursue a path towards mitigating global warming, there is no hope the others will follow. In that case, even a small wealthy country (like the UK) matters in demonstrating an unambiguous commitment to tackling climate change.
Carbon cooperation
Beyond encouraging further cooperation, a strong climate policy in the form of carbon taxes is also the most powerful way to punish those who do not take part in the global effort.
Both the US (under Biden) and the EU have developed their own versions of a tool called a “carbon border adjustment mechanism” which means exporters from countries that do not tax emissions (or tax them less less heavily) need to pay the domestic carbon tax instead.
Consider for instance a Chinese company exporting a container to the UK. If Chinese manufacturers have already paid a carbon tax worth £100 to the Chinese government for the product in the container, but the UK’s carbon tax would have been £200, the border tax is the difference between the two, £100.
But if the Chinese government increases its domestic carbon tax to the UK level or above, the tax from the border adjustment mechanism drops to zero.
This approach has influencedmany countries to start their own carbon tax, because it is better to get tax receipts at home than to send them elsewhere. But again, it helps to lead by example. To influence others with border taxes, you need to implement your own system first.
But there is also some good news, which suggests that efforts are heading in the right direction. The latest data for example, shows that the EU is not far away from its 2030 target. Greenhouse gas emissions are already 37% below what they were in 1990 level. In the UK, the figure is 42%.
Looking back at the scenarios that led to the first UN climate summit in Kyoto, not everything is bright. The world is unlikely to avoid global temperatures raising to more than 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
So maybe we shouldn’t rely too much on future summits to make the next environmental breakthrough. The path forward could be more likely to come from technical solutions like carbon taxes and border adjustment mechanisms. And perhaps the best way to convince the rest of the world to cut their emissions is not to give them lectures and conferences – but to lead by example.
Renaud Foucart 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.
Exercise can still be a benefit if you’re trying to lose weight or get fit.Green Elk/ Shutterstock
It’s generally accepted that exercise is a key element of losing weight. But this long-held view has been called into question in recent years – with no shortage of articles and podcasts claiming it’s a myth that exercise increases your metabolism and helps you burn calories after you work out.
The central tenet of these reports is that the amount of calories we burn each day is somehow constrained. This hypothesis was first proposed in 2012 by the evolutionary anthropologist Herman Pontzer. He posited that as you increase your daily energy expenditure (calories burned) through physical activity, your body will find ways to cut back on energy expended on other biological processes – such as your resting metabolism. This leaves your overall daily energy expenditure unchanged.
This theory has since been popularised in Pontzer’s 2021 book Burn, in which he theorises that “we burn calories within a very narrow range: nearly 3,000 calories per day, no matter our activity level”.
Building on this, Pontzer suggests that, “The bottom line is that your daily (physical) activity levels have almost no bearing on the number of calories that you burn each day.”
But before you pack away your running shoes, let’s look at what the research shows us. The most rigorous and robust evidence available on the topic actually shows that exercise does increase energy expenditure – though perhaps not as much as we might expect.
Exercise and energy expenditure
The evidence Pontzer used to support his hypothesis came from observational studies that compared energy expenditure in different populations around the world. In an observational study, researchers only take measurements and make comparisons between groups without actually introducing any changes.
The most eye-catching of the studies Pontzer used to support his hypothesis was research on the Hadza tribe – one of the last remaining hunter-gatherer groups in Africa. Hunter-gatherers are assumed to be highly active in order to survive. But the study observed that the Hadza expended no more energy than the average Westerner did each day.
We reviewed the constrained energy expenditure hypothesis in 2023. We concluded that Pontzer’s theory raises some interesting questions. However, it’s generally not very convincing due to flaws in the nature of the evidence.
Indeed, Pontzer’s own observational data shows that daily energy expenditure can vary by more than 1,000 calories per day in a group of older people. This directly contradicts his suggestion that it’s fixed at 3,000 calories a day for everyone.
The effects of exercise on calorie burn may be more modest than we might hope, however. Dean Drobot/ Shutterstock
When we look at data from randomised controlled trials, we can clearly see that exercise does have an effect on energy expenditure.
Randomised controlled trials allow researchers to establish cause and effect from a specific treatment or intervention. They allow groups of people to be fairly compared with just one variable manipulated at a time.
Trials show that a structured, supervised exercise programme done up to five times a week for six and ten months increases daily energy expenditure. These effects were shown in both young and middle-aged men and women.
This research clearly shows that physical activity does increase how many calories you burn each day.
Modest increase
It’s important to note that these trials do report, however, that the increases in daily energy expenditure were not always as big as expected. Put simply, burning 600 calories in the gym will not necessarily increase your daily energy expenditure by the same amount.
However, a more-modest-than-expected increase in energy expenditure is a far cry from bold statements that exercise does not increase daily energy expenditure at all. The exact number is difficult to estimate though, as it varies a lot between people.
As we discuss in our review, there are many possible reasons why exercise does not increase energy expenditure by as much as would be expected. Some factors might include physical activity substitution (when your new workout substitutes for physical activity you would normally have done at that time – so you might only end up burning a few calories more than you normally would have) and behavioural compensation (doing less activity later in the day after a morning workout).
This also highlights a common misunderstanding about the magnitude of exercise’s effects. Exercise can feel hard – so people might reasonably expect a large return on their investment. But five hours of exercise a week is only about 4% of our typical waking time. So this will only go so far in shifting the dial upwards in terms of how many calories we burn through physical activity.
Part of the misunderstanding about changes in energy expenditure and potential weight loss through exercise is perhaps related to unrealistic expectations about how many calories we burn when working out.
So, despite what you might have heard or read, the strongest evidence from robust trials clearly demonstrates that exercise can increase daily energy expenditure. Though this might not be as much as you expect or hope.
Dylan Thompson receives funding from BBSRC, NIHR, and Heart Research UK. He has previously had funding from MRC, BHF, and Unilever. He is a Fellow of The Physiological Society and the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences.
Javier Gonzalez receives funding from BSRC, MRC, British Heart Foundation, Clasado Biosciences, Lucozade Ribena Suntory, ARLA Foods Ingredients, Cosun Nutrition Center, Innocent Drinks and the Fruit Juice Science Centre; is a (non-exec) scientific advisory board member to ZOE; and has completed paid consultancy for 6d Sports Nutrition, Science in Sport, The Dairy Council, PepsiCo, Violicom Medical, Tour Racing Ltd., and SVGC. For a full list of disclosures see https://gonzalezjt1.wordpress.com/2024/03/.
.jpg){kind=link}
