News Feeds

Oltre a provocare gravi problemi sanitari, la catastrofe di Černobyl’ contribuì alla nascita di movimenti ambientalisti e alla delegittimazione dei regimi nei paesi socialisti. Quarant’anni dopo l’incidente, la Bulgaria resta il paese più segnato dal disastro, l’unico del blocco socialista a non adottare alcuna misura di protezione, Sofia pagò un prezzo altissimo che mise a nudo il cinismo del regime comunista.

All’1:23 del 26 aprile 1986, il nocciolo del reattore numero quattro della centrale nucleare di Černobyl’ – nei pressi del confine tra le repubbliche sovietiche di Ucraina e Bielorussia – si fuse ed esplose, distruggendo parte dell’impianto. Enormi quantità di sostanze radioattive furono liberate nell’atmosfera, e oltre 200mila persone dovettero essere evacuate dalle aree circostanti. Trasportata dal vento, la nube radioattiva contaminò vaste zone d’Europa, con le ricadute più pesanti in Ucraina, Bielorussia e Russia. Nelle popolazioni esposte si registrarono aumenti di malattie tiroidee e tumori; altri effetti sanitari a lungo termine restano difficili da quantificare.

Il silenzio delle autorità bulgare

“Mi sono interessato alle conseguenze dell’incidente di Černobyl’ in Bulgaria per una questione personale. All’inizio di maggio 1986 avevo quindici anni ed ero studente di liceo a Sofia. Subito dopo le piogge radioattive, la mia classe venne mandata a lavorare nei campi. Ogni mattina un autobus ci portava a raccogliere spinaci ed erba cipollina. Quattro miei compagni sono poi morti di cancro”, racconta Dimitar Vatsov. 

Vatsov insegna alla New Bulgarian University di Sofia, e sostiene che “la Bulgaria fu l’unico paese del blocco socialista a non adottare misure dopo il disastro. Per questo, sebbene un rapporto Onu la classifichi all’ottavo posto tra gli stati più colpiti dalle radiazioni, la Bulgaria registra il più alto tasso di tumori alla tiroide tra i bambini al di fuori dell’ex Urss”.

La nube radioattiva raggiunse i Balcani già il 1° maggio, ma fino al 7 maggio le autorità bulgare non fecero alcun annuncio. Nelle successive comunicazioni ufficiali si sostenne che la contaminazione ambientale era minima e non richiedeva misure speciali.

“Per fare un confronto, Ceaușescu avvertì i romeni del rischio di contaminazione già il 2 maggio. Lo stesso accadde in Jugoslavia, dove alle donne incinte e ai bambini fu chiesto di restare in casa e furono raccomandate precauzioni di base, come lavare il cibo fresco. In Bulgaria, invece, si verificò un blackout informativo totale”, commenta Vatsov.

Nel 1986 il fisico nucleare Georgi Kascev lavorava alla centrale di Kozloduj, nel nord-ovest della Bulgaria, tuttora l’unico impianto nucleare del paese. Ricorda bene quel giorno: “L’unico comunicato che ricevemmo diceva che c’era stato un incendio a Černobyl’, ma era stato spento”. Grazie a un’antenna installata al nono piano del suo palazzo, però, Kascev riceveva la televisione jugoslava: “Le notizie suggerivano che l’incidente era molto più grave. Si vedevano immagini del reattore distrutto e mappe della nube radioattiva, e si diceva che la Jugoslavia aveva inviato aerei per evacuare i propri studenti da Kiev”. Mentre il silenzio ufficiale continuava, in privato gli ingegneri invitavano i parenti a prendere precauzioni di base, spesso senza essere creduti.

I documenti d’archivio oggi accessibili mostrano che il governo bulgaro monitorava in realtà con attenzione l’evoluzione del disastro e la contaminazione in corso in Europa e nel paese. “L’unica spiegazione plausibile [del silenzio] è che le autorità bulgare temevano che rivelare la reale portata della contaminazione avrebbe causato panico e possibili disordini politici. Oltre a questo, posso solo parlare di una forma di debolezza morale delle élite al potere, che mostrarono disprezzo per il resto della popolazione”, spiega Vatsov.

Nel 1986 l’attivista ambientale Petko Kascev stava svolgendo il servizio militare obbligatorio. Ricorda che l’esercito reagì con rapidità: “All’improvviso smettemmo di mangiare cibo fresco, in mensa ci servivano solo scatolette. Le attività all’aperto furono cancellate e ci ordinarono di misurare i livelli di radiazione attorno alla base, ma non ci spiegarono mai cosa stesse succedendo”.

Liliana Prodanova era invece una scienziata che lavorava presso l’Istituto di fisica dello stato solido: “Mio marito era prorettore dell’Università tecnica di Sofia. Anch’io ero fisica, quindi capivamo molto bene le implicazioni della contaminazione. Prendemmo precauzioni in silenzio, come lavare il cibo. Rimuovemmo anche il terreno contaminato attorno alla nostra casa di campagna. Quell’anno non piantammo nulla”.

Gli scienziati e l’attivismo ambientale

Secondo Dimitar Vatsov, “prima dell’incidente di Černobyl’ non c’erano veri dissidenti in Bulgaria. Ma la consapevolezza di essere stati ingannati dalle autorità e di essere stati esposti a gravi rischi sanitari ha plasmato l’impegno politico di un’intera generazione, soprattutto all’interno della comunità scientifica”.

In particolare, nel 1989 nacque Ecoglasnost, un movimento civico per la tutela dell’ambiente in Bulgaria. Organizzò petizioni e manifestazioni, tra cui un raduno a Sofia che è considerato una delle prime mobilitazioni civiche aperte contro il regime comunista. Il movimento ampliò presto le proprie richieste alle libertà civili e alle riforme democratiche e giocò poi un ruolo nella transizione.

Il coinvolgimento della comunità scientifica nelle lotte ambientali fu uno dei tratti distintivi degli ultimi anni del regime bulgaro. Si era già manifestato nella città di Ruse, dove l’inquinamento provocato da un impianto chimico aveva scatenato proteste diffuse e aveva portato alla nascita di un comitato per la protezione dell’ambiente, la prima organizzazione informale tollerata sotto il comunismo. Anche in altri Paesi del blocco sovietico, come l’Ungheria, l’impegno degli scienziati contro l’inquinamento e le devastazioni della natura contribuì a rendere la critica ambientale una forma legittima – seppur attentamente delimitata – di partecipazione pubblica nel tardo socialismo.

Reazioni in Polonia, Ungheria e Cecoslovacchia

In Polonia la catastrofe di Černobyl’ fece da catalizzatore per la mobilitazione politica e contribuì alla nascita di un movimento antinucleare di massa, in particolare contro il progetto della centrale di Żarnowiec, che avrebbe dovuto diventare nel 1990 il primo impianto nucleare del paese. A partire dal 1986 gruppi ecologisti locali e nazionali organizzarono manifestazioni, campagne di informazione, blocchi stradali e persino scioperi della fame, coinvolgendo ampi settori della società e figure pubbliche di primo piano come Lech Wałęsa, leader di Solidarność. Le autorità si trovarono costrette a indire un referendum, in cui oltre l’86 per cento dei votanti si espresse contro il progetto della nuova centrale, che nel 1990 fu effettivamente interrotto.

Come rileva lo studioso Kacper Szulecki nel libro The Chernobyl Effect (“L’effetto Černobyl’”), le lotte ambientaliste degli anni Ottanta riflettevano trasformazioni generazionali e culturali più profonde. La gestione sovietica dell’incidente di Černobyl’ delegittimò in modo definitivo il già fragile controllo di Mosca sulla Polonia, galvanizzando l’opposizione.

In Ungheria Černobyl’ invece non diede origine a un movimento antinucleare di massa, né mise in discussione il programma nucleare del paese. Mentre la comunicazione ufficiale riguardo all’incidente nucleare restava limitata e rassicurante, scienziati e professionisti della sanità iniziarono a registrare gli effetti della contaminazione e a scambiarsi informazioni in modo informale.

Questo scarto tra la consapevolezza degli esperti e le comunicazioni delle autorità accelerò l’erosione della legittimità del regime. Le tematiche ambientali divennero un canale per sollevare temi più ampi di responsabilità e trasparenza, e così entro la fine degli anni Ottanta emersero reti e iniziative ambientaliste che avrebbero poi intersecato la transizione alla democrazia.

Anche in Cecoslovacchia la catastrofe di Černobyl’ influenzò i movimenti ecologisti locali, che sarebbero diventati attori importanti nella rivoluzione del 1989. Poiché quei movimenti erano in larga parte concentrati su temi come l’impatto sanitario dell’inquinamento industriale, la contaminazione dell’acqua o i danni al paesaggio causati dall’attività mineraria, il regime li considerava relativamente innocui rispetto ad altri dissidenti. Dopo Černobyl’, però, quelle che prima erano preoccupazioni ecologiche locali si trasformarono in sfiducia sistemica.

Il cinismo della nomenklatura

La gestione delle conseguenze di Černobyl’ in Bulgaria mise in luce disuguaglianze profonde nell’accesso alle informazioni e alla protezione sanitaria. Secondo Dimitar Vatsov, “la fascia più alta della nomenklatura non fu mai in pericolo, perché furono adottate misure speciali. Il cibo veniva importato dall’estero e testato, e i suoi membri venivano riforniti con acqua minerale da falde profonde. L’esercito applicò misure meno rigorose, ma comunque tali da ridurre l’esposizione. Il resto della popolazione fu tenuto nella totale ignoranza”.

Un simbolo di questo cinismo fu la decisione di mantenere le tradizionali parate del 1° maggio anche nel 1986. A Sofia molti bambini marciarono sotto una pioggia radioattiva e in tutto il paese si svolsero numerosi eventi sportivi di propaganda, tra cui le cosiddette “maratone della salute”. Le brigate giovanili, composte da ragazzi tra i 15 e i 25 anni, erano obbligate a svolgere lavori fisici in campagna o nei cantieri almeno due volte l’anno: si stima che circa 365mila giovani siano stati esposti alle radiazioni in questo modo.

Anche in Polonia le autorità decisero di mantenere le celebrazioni del 1° maggio. Giornali e media di Stato invitarono i cittadini a partecipare, insistendo sull’assenza di pericoli per la salute pubblica. D’altronde, il primo riferimento ufficiale all’incidente di Černobyl’ era comparso solo tra il 29 e il 30 aprile, limitandosi ad affermare: “C’è stato un incidente nella centrale nucleare in Ucraina. Le vittime sono state assistite. Tutto è sotto controllo”. Allo stesso tempo, però, il governo polacco distribuì in silenzio milioni di dosi di iodio protettivo e limitò la vendita del latte, segno che i rischi di contaminazione erano ben noti.

Dieci anni dopo, un’indagine medica rivelò che circa il 22 per cento dei giovani polacchi soffriva di disturbi alla tiroide, con una percentuale vicina al 40 per cento nelle regioni nord-orientali.

Anche in Ungheria le autorità si mossero con cautela, privilegiando la tutela della calma pubblica e l’osservanza delle celebrazioni del 1° maggio. Non furono emessi comunicati pubblici, i media ufficiali ridimensionarono la portata dell’incidente, e le celebrazioni si svolsero come previsto. Dietro le quinte gli scienziati registravano valori di radioattività elevati e rilevavano l’arrivo di piogge radioattive, ma le misure protettive rimasero limitate e disomogenee. La Cecoslovacchia seguì inizialmente lo stesso schema.

Il nucleare in Bulgaria dopo il 1989

La gestione catastrofica di Černobyl’ mise a nudo l’indecenza del regime comunista. Nel dicembre 1991, dopo che il regime era caduto, la Corte suprema di Sofia condannò l’ex ministro della Sanità Ljubomir Scindarov e l’ex vice primo ministro Grigor Stoičkov per negligenza criminale, per aver ingannato l’opinione pubblica. Furono gli unici alti funzionari del regime a essere processati e condannati a pene detentive.

Benché l’incidente di Černobyl’ abbia avuto un serio impatto sulla società bulgara, non produsse un movimento anti nucleare su larga scala. La centrale di Kozloduj, ristrutturata e ancora operativa, è oggi percepita come una fonte di orgoglio nazionale. L’attivista ambientale Petko Kovačev, vicino all’Ong Za Zemiata e alle reti antinucleari, sostiene che il sostegno popolare al nucleare in Bulgaria è trainato dalle preoccupazioni per l’indipendenza energetica e per il basso costo dell’elettricità, più che da valutazioni scientifiche o etiche.

In questo contesto, sta procedendo il progetto per costruire una nuova centrale nucleare a Belene, approvato anche da un referendum nazionale. In aggiunta, sono previsti due nuovi reattori a Kozloduj. Entrata in funzione nel 1970, la centrale oggi opera solo con i due reattori più recenti; i più vecchi sono stati abbandonati sotto la pressione dell’Unione europea, che ne fece una condizione per l’adesione della Bulgaria. 

Un tempo descritta come la centrale più pericolosa del mondo, Kozloduj oggi rispetta tutti i requisiti di sicurezza fissati dall’Aiea, anche se gli attivisti denunciano una mancanza di trasparenza sulla governance e sugli incidenti che coinvolgono l’impianto.

Questo articolo fa parte del progetto collaborativo PULSE ed è stato pubblicato nell’ambito dei Thematic Networks. Hanno contribuito al progetto Andrea Braschayko, Martin Vrba e Daniel Harper.

Watch this CELDF live-streamed conversation from May 7th 2026, on colonization and nationalist U.S. propaganda with Anne Keala Kelly and Dina Gilio-Whitaker.

The post “What Revolution? Systemic Racism, Sexism, and Genocide from America’s Beginning” appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

The post Petition: Migrants are the solution first appeared on Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

The post Petition: Migrants are the solution appeared first on Migrant Workers Alliance for Change.

Dollar for dollar, investing in renewable energy provides greater benefits to society than technology to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, according to a new analysis.

Most previous studies of direct air capture (DAC) have looked at whether it removes more carbon dioxide than it produces, or whether it costs society less to remove a ton of carbon from the atmosphere than it does to leave it there—in effect comparing carbon capture with doing nothing.

“Many analyses ask ‘is direct air capture net-negative?’ and leave it there, without acknowledging that there is an opportunity cost to investing in direct air capture,” says study team member Yannai Kashtan, a researcher at PSE Healthy Energy, an Oakland, CA-based independent research institute.

Instead, Kashtan and his colleagues set a higher bar for DAC, comparing its return on investment to that of other climate-friendly technologies, namely renewable energy development.

“I was surprised how much the answer [to] ‘is DAC worth it?’ changes when you change your metric,” Kashtan says.

The researchers modeled the health and climate benefits of investing $100 million in direct air capture versus investing the same amount in utility-scale solar or onshore wind in 22 regions across the United States through 2050.

The public health impact of DAC is often overlooked in studies of the technology. But if the electricity to power DAC comes even partially from a fossil-based grid, it results in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and small particulate matter pollution—while renewables do not.

The researchers modeled four scenarios for the development of DAC technology and performance, analyzing each of these in the context of eight different hypothetical future grid scenarios developed by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

 

.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl , .IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {height: auto;position: relative;}.IRPP_ruby , .IRPP_ruby:hover , .IRPP_ruby:visited , .IRPP_ruby:active {border:0!important;}.IRPP_ruby .clearfix:after {content: "";display: table;clear: both;}.IRPP_ruby {display: block;transition: background-color 250ms;webkit-transition: background-color 250ms;width: 100%;opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: #eaeaea;}.IRPP_ruby:active , .IRPP_ruby:hover {opacity: 1;transition: opacity 250ms;webkit-transition: opacity 250ms;background-color: inherit;}.IRPP_ruby .postImageUrl {background-position: center;background-size: cover;float: left;margin: 0;padding: 0;width: 31.59%;position: absolute;top: 0;bottom: 0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text-area {float: right;width: 65.65%;padding:0;margin:0;}.IRPP_ruby .centered-text {display: table;height: 130px;left: 0;top: 0;padding:0;margin:0;padding-top: 20px;padding-bottom: 20px;}.IRPP_ruby .IRPP_ruby-content {display: table-cell;margin: 0;padding: 0 74px 0 0px;position: relative;vertical-align: middle;width: 100%;}.IRPP_ruby .ctaText {border-bottom: 0 solid #fff;color: #0099cc;font-size: 14px;font-weight: bold;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .postTitle {color: #000000;font-size: 16px;font-weight: 600;letter-spacing: normal;margin: 0;padding: 0;font-family:'Arial';}.IRPP_ruby .ctaButton {background: url(https://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/wp-content/plugins/intelly-related-posts-pro/assets/images/next-arrow.png)no-repeat;background-color: #afb4b6;background-position: center;display: inline-block;height: 100%;width: 54px;margin-left: 10px;position: absolute;bottom:0;right: 0;top: 0;}.IRPP_ruby:after {content: "";display: block;clear: both;}Recommended Reading:New study compares growing corn for energy to solar production. It’s no contest.

 

The results were stark. “Solar and wind beat direct air capture now and all the way through 2050, even if direct air capture gets substantially cheaper and more energy-efficient,” says Kashtan.

If today’s performance of DAC holds—the technology currently requires about 5,500 kilowatt hours of electricity and costs $1,000 to remove one ton of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere—it would have a net negative impact on society through 2050 due to greenhouse gas emissions and harmful air pollution, the researchers found.

Even if DAC energy use falls by more than two-thirds to 1,500 kilowatt hours and its cost by half to $500 per ton of carbon dioxide removed, the benefits of renewables are several-fold greater than those of DAC.

Only in the most optimistic scenario for DAC development—in which these figures fall to 800 kilowatt hours and $100 per ton of carbon dioxide removed—does the technology edge out renewables nationwide. Even then, solar and wind remain the better investment in some regions, such as across the Midwest.

“To be clear, direct air capture can do something solar and wind cannot: reduce atmospheric CO2 concentrations, undoing past damage,” Kashtan says. But until carbon emissions are virtually zeroed out, DAC is highly unlikely to be cost-effective compared to investing in renewables. Kashtan compares the situation to a common-sense principle: “fix your broken faucet before you start mopping the floor.”

A future analysis could try to find the “tipping point” where the grid is sufficiently clean that DAC offers greater bang for the buck, says Kashtan.

Source: Kashtan Y. et al. “Direct air capture has substantial health and climate opportunity costs.” Communications Sustainability 2026.

Image: © Anthropocene Magazine.

By: OUREYA RAISSA

From April 18 to 26, 2026, I participated in the Zero Waste Academy: Community Zero Waste Program Implementation Course, hosted by GAIA Asia-Pacific and the Mother Earth Foundation in Manila, the vibrant capital of the Philippines. The event brought together people committed to building a world beyond throwaway culture. 

For nine intensive days, activists, experts, practitioners, and young leaders from around the world came together to learn, exchange ideas, and develop practical approaches for a fair and sustainable transition to zero waste. I felt deeply honoured to be part of this experience. 

Exploring the global challenges to achieve  zero waste 

The Zero Waste Academy was far more than a typical conference. It was a safe learning space rooted in the realities of local communities that are too often left out of mainstream discussions. Conversations were open and honest, critical thinking was encouraged, and the mix of participants from Asia and Africa created a powerful exchange of perspectives. It was a rare environment where ideas were tested, assumptions challenged, and learning happened both in the sessions and in conversations with fellow participants. For me, it was a transformative experience. 

Over the course of the week, several key issues were explored: 

False solutions under scrutiny: the case of waste-to-energy 

One of the sessions focused on false solutions, especially Waste-to-Energy (WtE), which burns waste to produce energy. Although some industry and institutional actors present it as a climate solution, the session clearly showed its limits. 

Using evidence and data, speakers explained that waste incineration releases greenhouse gases and toxic pollutants, destroys recyclable materials, and diverts investment away from truly circular systems. Rather than solving the waste crisis, Waste-to-Energy reinforces the same cycle of overproduction and disposal that zero-waste principles seek to end. This is a lesson I will carry into my future advocacy. 

A just transition: leaving no one behind 

Another major theme was the idea of a just transition. I was especially moved by the recognition given to waste pickers and by the acknowledgement of their strength and resilience. These workers, mostly women, collect, sort, and sell materials every day, making an essential contribution to the recycling system. 

Organic waste: an overlooked opportunity 

Organic waste accounts for more than half of household waste in much of the Global South, yet it is still often dumped or burned, producing significant methane emissions. The Academy dedicated several sessions to this issue, especially community composting solutions.  

For African stakeholders, these approaches are particularly relevant: they are low-cost, adapted to local realities, create jobs, reduce emissions, and improve both soil fertility and food security. 

Reuse and its benefits: reclaiming control of our resources 

Reuse was also a major topic of discussion. In response to the growing volume of single-use products, many local initiatives are already adopting deposit-return systems and reusable packaging as practical alternatives. What struck me most was that these solutions do not depend on advanced technology. They depend primarily on cultural change and community mobilisation—qualities that Africa already has in abundance. 

MRFs: seeing zero waste in practice 

One of the week’s highlights was the visit to Material Recovery Facilities (MRFs) in several barangays in Manila. These community-based sorting and recycling centres, often modest in scale, show what zero waste can look like in practice. They recover materials, return them to the local economy, and create decent jobs within neighbourhoods. 

Seeing these facilities in operation convinced me even more that zero waste is not just a theory for wealthy countries. Communities with limited resources in the Global South are already making it work. It may not be perfect, but it is real, practical, and effective. 

What I am bringing back to Lomé 

I am returning to Lomé with more than memories—I am returning with a plan. 

What I saw in Manila strengthened my determination to help advance a Zero Waste Plan for Lomé. The plan would be practical, community-driven, and rooted in the realities of our neighbourhoods. It would focus on creating local MRF centres, recovering organic waste, supporting informal recycling workers, and involving young people as agents of change. 

This effort cannot be built alone. It will require young people, community actors, municipal authorities, and everyone who believes, as I do, that Lomé can become a leading zero-waste city in Francophone Africa. Zero waste is possible. It does not need to be perfect. It simply needs to begin. 

The government cannot address waste alone. As civil society organisations, we also have a responsibility to help build a zero-waste future. – Raïssa Oureya 

BY: OUREYA RAISSA, NGO Jeunes Verts, Togo,  GAIA Africa Member 

The post From Lomé to Manila: My Journey at the Zero Waste Academy Philippines  first appeared on GAIA.

A study of hundreds of armed conflicts around the world finds that severe drought raises the risk of violent clashes. The study is the latest addition to a growing body of evidence showing that climate shocks spark conflict. 

Read more on E360 →

Register for direct action training and catch up with Max Wilbert's work to educate and organize people to protect the remaining old-growth forests in Lane County, Oregon in CELDF’s monthly newsletter, Common Sense, Collective Action for Right-Relationship!

The post “Common Sense” Newsletter – May 2026: Physical Mobilization, Register Today! appeared first on CELDF - Community Rights Pioneers - Protecting Nature and Communities.

Tema Mesir selalu berhasil mencuri perhatian karena memiliki identitas visual yang sangat kuat. Elemen seperti piramida, Sphinx, Firaun, hingga hieroglif menciptakan atmosfer misterius yang mudah dikenali.

Pengembang game memanfaatkan kekayaan visual ini untuk membangun pengalaman bermain yang imersif. Mereka menghadirkan animasi yang detail, latar musik bernuansa eksotis, serta simbol-simbol khas yang membuat pemain merasa seolah memasuki dunia sejarah kuno.

Unsur Misteri yang Meningkatkan Rasa Penasaran

Salah satu kekuatan utama tema Mesir adalah unsur misteri yang melekat pada sejarahnya. Banyak cerita tentang harta karun tersembunyi, makam kuno, dan legenda Firaun yang belum sepenuhnya terungkap.

Dalam industri hiburan digital, elemen misteri ini dimanfaatkan untuk menciptakan pengalaman bermain yang penuh kejutan. Pemain cenderung lebih tertarik pada game yang menawarkan sensasi eksplorasi dan penemuan, bukan sekadar mekanisme permainan biasa.

Kombinasi Budaya dan Mitologi yang Kaya

Peradaban Mesir Kuno memiliki mitologi yang sangat kaya, seperti kisah Dewa Ra, Anubis, dan Osiris. Pengembang game sering mengadaptasi cerita-cerita ini menjadi fitur dalam permainan, seperti simbol khusus atau bonus interaktif.

Kombinasi antara budaya dan mitologi ini menciptakan kedalaman narasi yang membuat permainan terasa lebih hidup. Hal ini meningkatkan keterlibatan pemain karena mereka tidak hanya bermain, tetapi juga “menjelajahi cerita”.

Desain Gameplay yang Variatif dan Adaptif

Selain aspek visual dan cerita, pengembang juga terus meningkatkan kualitas gameplay. Game bertema Mesir biasanya memiliki fitur-fitur seperti free spin, multiplier, hingga mini-game berbasis petualangan.

Inovasi ini membuat permainan tidak terasa monoton. Pemain mendapatkan pengalaman yang dinamis karena setiap putaran dapat memberikan hasil dan kejutan yang berbeda.

Faktor Psikologis dalam Daya Tarik Tema

Dari sudut pandang psikologi pengguna, tema Mesir memicu rasa penasaran dan ekspektasi akan “keberuntungan besar” yang tersembunyi. Simbol harta karun dan artefak kuno secara tidak langsung menciptakan persepsi peluang besar di benak pemain.

Selain itu, warna emas dan desain visual megah sering diasosiasikan dengan kemewahan dan kemenangan, sehingga memperkuat daya tarik emosional.

Perspektif dalam Industri Game Digital

game bertema Mesir menunjukkan bagaimana industri hiburan digital menggabungkan:

• menghadirkan gameplay imersif yang kaya visual
• pengembangan desain game berbasis riset budaya dan psikologi pemain
• ema Mesir sudah menjadi standar populer di industri slot global
• penyedia game besar terus menjaga kualitas dan konsistensi produk

Hal ini menunjukkan bahwa popularitas tema Mesir bukan hanya tren sementara, melainkan hasil dari strategi industri yang matang.

Kesimpulan

Game slot bertema Mesir tetap menarik bagi pemain karena mampu menggabungkan visual yang kuat, cerita mitologi yang kaya, serta pengalaman bermain yang imersif. Industri hiburan digital terus memanfaatkan tema ini karena terbukti efektif dalam meningkatkan keterlibatan pengguna.

Dengan inovasi yang terus berkembang, tema Mesir diprediksi akan tetap menjadi salah satu ikon utama dalam dunia permainan online di masa mendatang.

At least fifty countries have yet to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) climate plan to the United Nations, even though the latest set of plans was due in 2025 – and among them, around half have failed to provide information on why they have not met the deadline.

More than a year past an initial deadline of February 2025, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) met this March and said 55 countries had yet to communicate an NDC to the UN climate body. According to the UN’s registry, two have since submitted their plans.

A key requirement of the landmark 2015 Paris Agreement is that governments publish a more ambitious NDC every five years, setting targets to reduce their planet-heating emissions and outlining their policies to adapt to climate change, in order to meet the accord’s goals on limiting global warming and protecting people from its effects.

The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in 2025.

After India’s recent submission, the countries yet to publish their new NDCs are mostly poorer and smaller nations, with few emissions. The biggest emitters in the group are Egypt, Vietnam, Argentina and the Philippines. The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement, although the US submitted a 2035 NDC under the Biden administration before Donald Trump pulled the US out of the UN climate accords.

Some nations have argued that they cannot put together an NDC – which requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy – because of exceptional circumstances. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC committee, seen by Climate Home News, says that the country’s civil war has led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.

No information from some nations

But others have failed to communicate with the PAICC, which is tasked with encouraging governments to respect their commitments under the Paris Agreement.

In a report on its March 27 meeting, the PAICC board said it “noted with concern” that 28 countries had not provided information about either their NDCs or their biennial transparency reports on the climate action they are taking, or both. This was “despite several reminders”, it said.

Despite a push from some board members, the committee did not agree at this meeting to name these 28 countries. But it may do so at a meeting in September.

• May 7, 2026 Aviation’s Green Dream Oil crisis could boost struggling sustainable aviation fuel industry As the price of oil-based jet fuel shoots up, biofuel or hydrogen-based alternatives look more appealing Read more
• May 7, 2026 Comment ICJ follow-up resolution is a test of climate leadership at the UN If states back the resolution by consensus, it would send a powerful message of commitment to climate action and the rule of law, despite pushback by some big emitters Read more

One source who has seen the list of countries told Climate Home News it was a “mixed crowd” of developing nations, including least developed countries, small island developing states, emerging economies and at least one government with a representative on the PAICC board.

The PAICC decided to send individual letters to these governments requesting that they engage with the committee and “reminding them that it shall take appropriate measures with a view to facilitating implementation and promoting compliance” with the Paris Agreement.

Non-punitive system

The PAICC’s rules of procedure state that it should be “non-adversarial and non-punitive” and the strongest measure it can take is to issue a formal public finding naming a government that has breached the Paris Agreement rules – something it has yet to do. In 2023, it opted for a softer response in a report, noting that the Vatican had not filed an NDC and that Iceland had not told the UN how much climate finance it planned to provide.

Joanna Depledge, a historian of the UN climate process and research fellow at the University of Cambridge, said that “any measures stronger than naming and shaming would have been unacceptable” to some governments when they were negotiating the Paris Agreement.

She added that “naming and shaming in the international arena is not trivial” because governments do not like to be exposed as non-compliant. “But if the PAICC cannot even name, then that is a serious problem,” she warned.

Avoiding Kyoto’s mistakes?

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge, said the architects of the Paris Agreement made it less enforceable so as to try and prevent countries leaving or staying out of the agreement as happened with its predecessor, the Kyoto Protocol.

While the Paris Agreement asks all governments to set their own emissions-reduction targets, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol set specific targets for developed countries.

When in 2011 it became clear that Canada was not going to meet those targets, it quit the agreement rather than face formal non-compliance proceedings and a multibillion-dollar obligation to buy carbon credits to cover the shortfall, Rao said.

Japan and Russia also declined to endorse some of their emissions reduction targets and the US never ratified the Kyoto agreement. “Enforcement proceedings became politically toxic,” exposing “the limits of punitive compliance regimes”, Rao said.

The idea of the Paris Agreement’s less stringent compliance system is to engage with governments and keep them within the system rather than threaten them with sanctions and potentially push them out, he added.

Rao said this was “the right trade-off” because governments comply when they feel they have chosen to sign up to the rules rather than having them imposed. He noted that back in April 2025, 171 governments had yet to submit their NDCs and this figure is now down to just over 50.

“We’ve got countries that are at least reporting NDCs,” he said, adding that PAICC is “working as it was designed to”. “It is issuing findings of fact and non-compliance, it’s initiating discussions with parties and, as a result of those discussions, the non-compliance figures are coming down every time.”

This article was amended after publication, on May 13, to clarify that the PAICC has yet to issue a formal public finding naming countries that do not comply with the Paris Agreement.

The post Paris Agreement committee snubbed over missing NDC climate plans appeared first on Climate Home News.

Headline News:

• “Introducing Ford Energy” • Ford Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Ford Motor Company, will provide US-assembled battery systems for utilities, data centers, and large customers in the US. With a century of manufacturing expertise, Ford Energy plans to deploy at least 20 GWh annually, with first deliveries planned for late 2027. [CleanTechnica]

Ford Energy (Ford image)

• “The Race To Unlock ‘Superhot’ Geothermal Energy Is Heating Up” • The IEA highlighted superhot geothermal in its “State of Energy Innovation” report, calling it “clean, firm power” capable of helping support the transition away from fossil fuels. While a geothermal project is breaking ground in Oregon, it is already the source of 30% of Iceland’s electricity. [Euronews]
• “Asia Braces For A Second Wave Of Energy Shocks From The Iran War” • When the war started, governments scrambled to adapt to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz. They made difficult trade-offs: saving power at the risk of slowing businesses, saving gas at the risk of fertilizer production. But such measures were based on the war ending quickly. [ABC News]
• “SMRs Aren’t Losing On Technology. They’re Losing On Economics” • Small Modular Reactors are still unlikely to drive the energy transition because renewables, batteries, and grid flexibility attract far more investment, scale faster, and generate quicker returns. Wind, solar, storage, and transmission upgrades are already delivering on investments. [OilPrice.com]
• “Trump Is Floating A Gas Tax Holiday Amid Rising Fuel Costs. What Does That Mean?” • As the nationwide price of gasoline soars, President Trump told reporters he’d like to suspend the national gas tax temporarily. Though it would help keep costs down, estimates are that that suspending the tax would cost the fund billions over a period of months. [ABC News]

For more news, please visit geoharvey – Daily News about Energy and Climate Change.

On April 28, 2026, Prime Minister Mark Carney presented the Federal government’s spring economic update. The announcement that garnered the most attention was the “Canada...

The post The Canada Strong Fund is a farce first appeared on Spring.

24 June | London

In partnership with MSCI, this roundtable will bring together experts from insurance, pension funds, and investment management firms for a discussion focusing on how to better integrate climate science into investment practices, prompted by the launch of Carbon Tracker’s latest report, Recalibrating Climate Risk. 

Following an introduction by expert speakers, we’ll be discussing the methods asset owners are using to assess their exposure to climate risks and identify opportunities in the transition. Most importantly, we want to explore the barriers that are hindering the re-allocation of capital towards low-carbon sectors. 

Meet the speakers

Active participation is encouraged; we’ll be circulating discussion points in advance of the event. Join us to share your insights and hear from other asset owners about how what role climate scenario analysis is playing in informing investment strategies, what policy solutions are needed to drive investment in low-carbon sectors, and other key issues facing progressive asset owners. 

The post LCAW 2026: Integrating Climate Risk into Investment Decisions and Risk Management: Roundtable for Investors appeared first on Carbon Tracker Initiative.

What if the stories we live by could change? In India, Raviraj Shetty explores how narrative, care, and imagination can help communities heal, reclaim dignity, and find new ways forward.

One month into the US and Israel’s war on Iran, at least 60 countries have taken emergency measures in response to the subsequent global energy crisis, according to analysis by Carbon Brief.

Countries attending a first-of-its-kind summit have walked away with plans to develop national roadmaps away from fossil fuels, along with new tools to address harmful subsidies and carbon-intensive trade.

The cruise ship departed Ushuaia, Argentina, in April with plans to ferry 147 passengers and crew members to some of the most remote places on earth, including Antarctica. But the ship, named the MV Hondius, had its voyage cut short by a rare virus that has killed three and infected several others. 

Hantaviruses are an ancient family of rodent-borne pathogens that likely caused disease in humans long before they first appeared in medical records in the 1950s. The viruses infect people via rodent waste — often through the inhalation of dust containing trace amounts of the excreta. Andes hantavirus, the strain that gripped the MV Hondius on its polar cruise, is one of a few hantaviruses known to cause hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, a rare but often deadly illness.

The Andes strain is also the only known hantavirus that can be transmitted human-to-human — a characteristic turning a rare rodent-borne infection into a multinational emergency, just a few years after the world was caught flat-footed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The good news is that the Andes hantavirus, while uniquely deadly, is likely nowhere nearly as transmissible as COVID-19. Nevertheless, the outbreak is illuminating the complexity of responding to infectious disease outbreaks as international cooperation on public health issues has become fractured and contentious — all while global pandemics are only becoming more likely overall. A month before the first patients onboard the MV Hondius became symptomatic, Argentina officially completed the process of withdrawing from the World Health Organization, joining the U.S. in leaving a global health alliance that exists in large part to coordinate responses to these very kinds of cross-border disease outbreaks. 

The emergency also points to another growing challenge for global public health: Climate change is altering the rainfall, vegetation, and habitat conditions that influence rodent populations — changes that experts say boost the odds that the pathogens these animals carry will spill over into human populations.

While the hantavirus’s one-to-six-week incubation period means the outbreak could have originated in any of the passengers’ home countries, a possible culprit is the ship’s stop for a birding expedition near Ushuaia, which is home to a landfill that attracts rodents looking for food. Argentina’s health authorities have already documented a sharp rise in hantavirus this season: 101 infections have been recorded since June 2025, about twice as many as there were in the same period a year earlier.

The country’s health ministry hasn’t yet determined what’s behind the surge, but research suggests that climate change may play a role. Argentina and neighboring countries in South America endured years of severe drought between 2021 and 2024, including Argentina’s worst dry spell in more than 60 years in 2023, followed by extreme rainfall last year. Weather extremes exacerbated by global warming change how rodents behave, according to Kirk Douglas, a senior scientist who studies hantaviruses and climate change at the University of the West Indies, Cave Hill, in Barbados.

Prolonged drought sends rats and mice into populated areas in search of food, which can put people at higher risk of contracting the virus. Sudden rainfall following drought causes trees and shrubs to produce a windfall of nuts and seeds, which tend to benefit rodents and boost their numbers — all the while increasing the risk of transmission from animal to human.

That doesn’t mean there’s a one-to-one relationship between global temperature rise and rodent-driven risk, however, and climate change is hardly the only force at play. A complex web of natural and human-made landscape changes can increase or decrease contact between humans and rodents. Increased temperatures and humidity, for example, don’t seem to influence the disease ecology of hantavirus in the same way that drought and precipitation do.

“Hantavirus is sensitive to the changes climate change will bring,” Douglas emphasized. “It’s all dependent on what the prevailing climate impact is.”

That complexity makes hantavirus risk difficult to predict — and easy to overlook. In the United States, hantavirus has been rare since federal surveillance began in 1993. There were fewer than 1,000 total confirmed cases up to 2023, the latest year that data is available. About 35 percent of those cases, almost all of which occurred west of the Mississippi River, resulted in death. 

As in South America, the dynamics of hantavirus in the U.S. may be shifting. The places most at risk, federal scientists reported in a study published last year, are dry landscapes where homes are spread out, many kinds of rodents live nearby, and communities may have fewer resources to prevent or respond to disease — conditions that describe broad swaths of the American West.

This story was originally published by Grist with the headline How climate change could help hantavirus find more hosts on May 12, 2026.

Built on the assumption that price is the best measure of value, modern economics has never adequately grasped non-transactional exchange – care relationships and reproductive work above all. Declining birth rates and ageing societies are now laying bare the limits of a framework that feminist thinkers have long critiqued. An interview with economist Emma Holten.

This article is part of the Green European Journal’s upcoming print edition on demographic futures, out in early June. Subscribe now and get it delivered straight to your door.

Green European Journal: The history of modern political theory is marked by a major omission – of bodies, their needs, and the necessity of caring for them. How did this omission come about?  

Emma Holten: Enlightenment thinking was very much about liberating the individual – from hierarchy, from the ties of religion and superstition, from the bounds of class. Thinkers like Thomas Hobbes, for example, were very progressive in their belief that the individual has value in and of itself. That conviction became the building block of modern political theory, and it has been hugely important for feminism, too. However, it overlooked that individuals are connected not only in oppressive systems but also in positive relationships. Human beings exist only in the context of other human beings. But that interdependence disappeared.  

This omission was most striking in the context of birth and family relationships. The whole story of what it takes to give birth and raise an individual completely disappeared, and we started making political theory about well-educated adults, as if they sprang up like mushrooms. 

How did this original sin become so entrenched in modern economics? 

Economics, too, had a noble ambition: to provide a clear description of the political system and to be able to quantify it. In the 1870s, this ambition culminated in the marginalist revolution, which was probably the most influential shift in the history of economics. Marginalism is based on the idea that you can use market prices to establish value. According to this theory, the market-clearing price is the perfect balance between supply and demand, between how much one wants to be paid for a product or service and how much someone else is willing to pay for it.  

Many of us grow up thinking that economics is like physics or chemistry […] We don’t question it because it would feel like questioning gravity.

The obvious corollary is that if something doesn’t have a price, it doesn’t have value. Economics loses the ability to speak about things that don’t have a price, such as time spent with friends or in the home. The only way to measure the value of time spent at home caring for others or being cared for by others is to calculate how much you would make if you used that time in the market instead.  

However, I don’t think price is a good measure of value in the market either. I spend a lot of time talking to nurses, caregivers for elderly people, and social workers, and when I tell them that economics measures their value by their salary, they are either shocked or start laughing. When you receive care, you don’t necessarily know what the value of that interaction is going to be; it only becomes visible in the long term. And if this interaction happens in the public sector, then the market is all the more unable to grasp its value. Economic methods find it much easier to understand the value of a car than the value of care, both paid and unpaid.  

 Why is this way of thinking about value so difficult to dispel?  

Many of us grow up thinking that economics is like physics or chemistry. That it has always been the same, and we’ve always looked at value the same way. And this is a huge part of economics’ power. We don’t question it, because it would feel like questioning gravity. American economist Paul Samuelson famously said that he didn’t care who held political office as long as he got to write economics textbooks. Economics conditions the way we think about politics.  

The rise of Thatcherism, of neoliberalism – the idea that the market comes before the state, and that the state’s responsibility is to take care of the market, not the people – has reinforced this influence. We let economists decide how much we should work, how much time parents should be able to spend with their children, what the optimal way to provide childcare is, or how to take care of nature. But these are fundamentally political questions. Their depoliticisation has exacerbated the dynamic whereby things that economics can value tend to be overvalued, while those it cannot value become completely valueless. 

Dominant theories may be unable to account for the value of care in the economy, yet they assume a steady and abundant supply of care to sustain the economic system. How do you make sense of this paradox?  

This is probably the central paradox in how modern economics deals with care. It has the idea that people are rational agents, act in their own self-interest, and are oriented towards the market. And so the provision of care, which largely falls outside the market, remains a blind spot. Economic theories tend to assume an endless supply of care, without a clear theory of how it is sustained.  

Based on their own reasoning, women would never have children because it is completely irrational from a market perspective. Yet when birth rates decline, suddenly shock ensues. I sometimes wonder whether economists are angrier at women when they have children or when they don’t. If they do have children and need to work part-time, that’s expensive and doesn’t create enough value. But if they don’t have children, that suddenly becomes a huge issue for the economy.  

When you study economics, the first thing you learn is the production function. How does a product come to be? In that function, there’s a variable called “L”. That’s labour power. But there is no acknowledgement of where it comes from; it’s just there. And I think that tells you everything you need to know about the poverty of the theories. 

 I sometimes wonder whether economists are angrier at women when they have children or when they don’t. 

Feminist thinkers have challenged the approach that treats care as entirely outside the economic equation, but they haven’t always agreed on how best to make the case for it.  

Feminist theorists, particularly Italian feminists like Silvia Federici, have been instrumental in showing that the undervaluing of care is a central part of capitalism. This applies to paid and unpaid care, to the public and the private sector alike.  

The big question was: to price or not to price? Should we speak the devil’s language? Some feminist economists, especially in the early days of the field, argued that we should price unpaid care so we can include it in GDP and measure it. This was based on the reasoning that we can’t change the system, and so we need to use its language and its rules in our favour.  

We’ve seen a similar logic at play in the environmental movement, where putting a price on a tree or a marsh seems to be the best way to protect it. But pricing ignores the relationships; it isolates and splits things up. And when you talk about nature, you cannot isolate and split. The same goes for care. The value of a mother, just like that of a tree, is not visible at the time of the exchange; it is long-term, and it is reciprocal: mother and child are changing one another. You cannot say that one is giving something to another, as if it were a simple transaction.  

 The home, in particular, has been a subject of controversy within feminist thought. Is it a prison or a shelter, a site of oppression and exploitation or one of liberation? 

It is both. Historically, the home has been a site of extreme violence against women, and we can understand why so much of feminist thought was focused on getting women out of the home and getting them to make their own money. The dominant type of feminism, middle-class feminism, places a strong emphasis on achieving workplace equality between women and men. You can see this in EU strategies for gender equality, for example. That’s what takes up all the space. But many women, especially lower-class or migrant women who face exploitation, are actually fighting to get into the home, to have enough money to see their own children, to have time to rest. This is the double vision we need when we deal with care. The fight goes both ways. And for many people, home is also a place of liberation. 

Meanwhile, we haven’t made a big enough effort to get men into the home. Sometimes, we have fallen into the trap of idealising men’s lives and framing them as free, equating paid work with freedom. But paid labour isn’t necessarily freedom. There are many men who are exploited or work in terrible conditions. Where’s the policy to liberate them?  

Could the resurgence of “traditional” gender roles – as promoted in the “manosphere” and the “tradwife” online movements – be partly understood as a reaction to these failures rather than simply a backlash against women’s emancipation?  

When it comes to care, many of the distinctions between right-wing and left-wing positions tend to collapse. Sometimes I see overlaps in places I didn’t expect. “Tradwives” and other socially conservative people often ask for the same things that progressive people ask for: more community, more time with children, less market dominance in our lives, more focus on love and social relationships, and a reaction against individualism. When I hear a conservative woman say that life is more than work, that what matters are the people we love, I find myself nodding. Then she might add that the man’s role is to dominate, and that’s where she loses me.  

But we should not underestimate the potential to speak about these issues across differences. When I speak to nurses in hospitals, they suddenly realise they find common ground on this, even with people they usually disagree with politically. The devaluation of care is the core of both right- and left-wing anger right now.  

 Does the devaluation of care help explain Europe’s consistently low birth rates over the last few decades?  

If I were to speak to a politician who cares about economic growth and wants women to have more children, I’d tell them to start by offering better childcare and longer parental leave. I was brought up in the 1990s and 2000s, thinking that we had gender equality, and women would live lives that were completely like men’s. Many of us were more educated than most men and made more money than many men. But when they had children, many in my generation were shocked to find out how much gender still mattered.  

But I don’t think it’s just a matter of affordability. Birth rates are declining worldwide, regardless of the cost of living situation. This can be a good thing from a feminist perspective, especially if very young women are waiting longer to have children. But it also has to do with the types of societies we have created, where having children can be quite lonely and make it very difficult to spend time on anything else, including work and hobbies.  

Do pro-birth policies focusing narrowly on economic incentives miss the point?  

Economic theory and policymaking lack a theory of culture, but economics and culture go hand in hand. What we value economically tends to spill over into what we value culturally, and vice versa. The decision to have or not to have children is influenced by both cultural change and economic considerations. Yet when economists speak about demographics, they are at the limit of their theoretical capabilities because culture is simply not something they’re used to dealing with. In their market theory, there is no place for family choices. In a way, you could say that economics is supremely feminist in that rational market agents have no body and no gender. For many economists, I’m a consumer in the same way that a man is, at least until I become pregnant.  

You could say that economics is supremely feminist in that rational market agents have no body and no gender

There are, of course, exceptions. Alice Evans, for example, has done a lot of empirical work, interviewing women around the world about their choices to have or not have children. She found that cultural factors, such as social media use, can have a major impact on reproductive choices because they give access to different types of women’s lives and different female cultures, showing that options other than having a family also exist. She calls this phenomenon “cultural leapfrogging”.

The Left seems more reluctant to talk about demographic crisis or decline. Is there a way of reframing the issue in a more progressive way rather than surrendering it to right-wing narratives and cultural panic?  

Demographic decline is an umbrella term for many things, some of them good and others concerning. We should be extremely concrete in how we talk about decline and what we are worried about. My biggest worry is that, if the state retreats, the ever-expanding group of elderly people will have to be cared for by their daughters, as is already the case all over Europe.  

But there’s also an opportunity to think creatively about how we adapt to the new demographic situation. We cannot leave these big decisions to the market – the state needs to play a big role, too. All over Europe, we’re already seeing major recruitment issues in hospitals because pay is so low. From a green perspective, more jobs in care can be good news because it is a very sustainable type of work, and one that is extremely useful to society.  

Maybe the best way is to understand what we are going through as a care crisis, not a demographic one. It’s a new situation, and we need to adapt.  

Pro-birth policies tend to focus on heterosexual couples or, at best, the nuclear family model with two parents raising children. Is it time we question this norm?  

The family organisation of two parents raising children is actually quite unique in human history. It is the configuration that takes the least time away from the market because it is very steady and small; it requires little organising.  

If you ask any feminist economist what her main policy goal is, she will probably choose a shorter working day, which means more time in the home. Of course, there can be downsides, and we see it in countries where family care has a bigger cultural role: women tend to make less money and be less independent, which in turn creates a patriarchal family structure. However, there’s also the upside that families are more connected and have closer relationships, so we need to strike the right balance.  

This isn’t just about raising children. In Scandinavia and other parts of northern Europe, we tend to just hide elderly people away. When someone cannot work anymore or is no longer self-sufficient, we don’t really want to see them; we don’t want them in the home. When I speak with Muslim feminists who have migrated to Europe, they tell me they find this to be extremely inhumane; they have a much more integrated relationship with elderly people in day-to-day life. 

In the new demographic reality, opening up the home means not only more care for those who need it, but also more help with raising children – and this doesn’t mean the state shouldn’t play its role in providing care. But we have closed off the home too much, and I think we see it in the crisis of loneliness that many adults are facing.  

 

Angela Chukunzira, Tyler Finken and Finn Jetses highlight multinational resistance to AI’s social and ecological impact

The post Behind the ‘intelligent’ chatbot appeared first on Red Pepper.

'All politics is theatre' Channel Comment brendan 12th May 2026 Teaser Media

The emergence of a strong El Niño weather pattern this year in a world that is warming as a result of human-caused climate change could fuel “unprecedented” weather extremes, climate scientists have warned.

Meteorologists expect El Niño – the natural climate phenomenon characterised by unusually warm sea-surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean – to develop as early as this month. Some forecasters say that this time around the event could become particularly powerful.

Scientists say the combination of El Niño and rising global temperatures could push 2026 to either the warmest or second-warmest year on record. A previous El Niño helped drive average global temperatures in 2024 to a record 1.55C above preindustrial levels.

Researchers warn that a strong El Niño risks supercharging extreme weather conditions, contributing to more severe fires and droughts in some regions and storms and floods in others.

El Niño meets global warming

Friederike Otto, professor in climate science at Imperial College London, said El Niño itself is “not the reason to freak out” but rather the fact that it is now happening on an increasingly warmer baseline.

“El Niño is a natural phenomenon that comes and goes,” she told journalists this week. “What makes it so dramatic is not the event itself and whether it’s a ‘Super El Niño’ or not, but that it is happening in a dramatically changing climate.”

“The records will still be broken because of human-induced climate change and the continued burning of fossil fuels,” Otto added.

The World Meteorological Organization will issue its next update on the prospects for an El Niño in late May, which it says will provide more robust guidance for decision-making on how to protect people and nature from associated impacts.

• May 8, 2026 Justice EU warns on solar geoengineering but research debate grinds on For the first time, EU foreign ministers express concern that solar radiation modification poses “significant risks”, a stance welcomed by those both for and against more research Read more
• May 8, 2026 News Indigenous groups warn Amazon oil expansion tests fossil fuel phase-out coalition South American nations like Ecuador, Peru and Brazil have led oil expansions in the Amazon rainforest, one of the most biodiverse regions in the planet Read more

Even before the likely arrival of the El Niño pattern, 2026 has already been an “extraordinary” year for weather extremes, scientists at the World Weather Attribution (WWA) research group said.

Sea surface temperatures neared all-time highs in April, while Arctic sea ice reached its lowest level for a second-year running. In March, the United States saw a record-breaking heatwave that would have been “virtually impossible” without climate change, according to WWA analysis.

Dramatic wildfire risk

Across the globe, the wildfire season got off to a dramatic start. Record-breaking fires in Western Africa and the Sahel, as well as big outbreaks in India, Southeast Asia and parts of China, contributed to the world recording its largest burned area ever for the January-April period, according to Theodore Keeping, a WWA researcher.

He noted that the emergence of a powerful El Niño event could have a major effect on supercharging wildfires by increasing the likelihood of seeing “severe” hot and dry conditions in Australia, the US and Canada, as well as the Amazon rainforest.

“The likelihood of harmful extreme fires potentially could be the highest we have seen in recent history, if a strong El Niño does develop,” Keeping added.

The post Scientists warn El Niño could intensify climate extremes in 2026 appeared first on Climate Home News.