The US president, Donald Trump, says that Israel has agreed to terms for a 60-day ceasefire in Gaza. If that sounds familiar, it is.
The idea of a two-month truce has been discussed since the collapse of the last shortlived ceasefire in March. A similar proposal was floated in May, but Hamas viewed it as an enabling mechanism for Israel to continue the war after a brief pause, rather than reaching a permanent peace deal.
As the devastation in Gaza worsens by the day, will this time be any different?
The proposal, put forward by Qatari mediators, reportedly involves Hamas releasing ten living hostages and the bodies of 18 deceased hostages over the 60-day period, in exchange for the release of a number of Palestinian prisoners.
Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox.Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK’s latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences.
The remaining 22 hostages would be released if a long-term deal is reached. The 60-day ceasefire period would also involve negotiations for a permanent end to hostilities and a roadmap for post-war governance in Gaza.
But the plan is similar to the eight-week, three-phase ceasefire from January to March of this year, which collapsed after the first phase of hostage exchanges. Since then peace talks have hit a recurrent impasse.
For Hamas, a long-term ceasefire means the permanent end to the war and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. Israel, meanwhile, wants to see the complete removal of Hamas from power, the dismantling and disarming of its military wing and the exile of remaining senior Hamas leaders.
But despite the persistent challenges, there are several reasons that this attempt for a ceasefire might be different. First and foremost is the recent so-called “12-day war” between Israel and Iran, which Israel has trumpeted as a major success for degrading Iran’s nuclear capabilities (although the reality is more nuanced).
The perceived win gives Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, political maneuverability to pursue a ceasefire over the objections of far-right hardliners in his coalition who have threatened to bring down the government in previous rounds.
The Iran-Israel war, in which the US controversially carried out strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, also revived Trump’s interest in the Middle East. Trump entered office just as the phased Gaza ceasefire deal was being agreed. But Trump put little diplomatic pressure on Israel to engage in serious talks to get from the first phase of the agreement to phase two, allowing the war to resume in March.
Now however, after assisting Israel militarily in Iran, Trump has significant leverage he can use with Netanyahu. He will have the chance to use it (if he chooses) when Netanyahu visits Washington next week.
Both men also view Iran’s weakened position as an opportunity for expanding the Abraham accords. This was the set of agreements normalising relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Sudan and Morocco, which Trump brokered at the end of his first term.
Netanyahu has long eyed a US-backed deal with Saudi Arabia, and a smaller-scale declaration with Syria is reportedly now under discussion as well. But those deals can’t move forward while the war in Gaza is going.
Additional obstacles
However, the recurrent obstacles to a deal remain – and it’s unclear if the proposed terms will include guarantees to prevent Israel resuming the war after the 60-day period.
New issues have also arisen since the last round of talks that could create further challenges. Hamas is demanding a return to traditional humanitarian aid distribution in Gaza – or at least the replacement of the controversial US and Israeli-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
The GHF’s four distribution sites, located in militarised zones, replaced over 400 previously operating aid points, and more than 400 people have been killed while seeking aid near the sites, since May 26. More than 170 international non-governmental organisations and charities have called for the GHF to be shut down.
Israel’s military control over Gaza has also become further entrenched since the last ceasefire. More than 80% is thought to be covered by evacuation orders – and new orders for north Gaza and Gaza City were issued on June 29 and July 2 respectively.
Israeli officials have described the renewed operations as military pressure on Hamas to accept a ceasefire. But Netanyahu has also spoken openly about long-term military occupation of Gaza.
He recently stated that Israel would remain in “full security control of Gaza” even after the war. Even if a temporary ceasefire is agreed, the road ahead is strewn with difficulties in moving towards a long-lasting ceasefire or reaching an acceptable “day-after” agreement.
Still, the current moment offers an opportunity for a breakthrough. Trump has a renewed interest in getting to a ceasefire and Netanyahu has a rare political window to enter an agreement and get hostages home. Hamas, meanwhile, has been weakened, not only by Israel’s relentless military pounding, but by increasing disillusionment from the people of Gaza, who are desperate for an end to the war.
There is no shortage of reasons to end the war in Gaza. The only question is if Israel and Hamas have the will to do so.
Julie M. Norman 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.
Le groupe LVMH a participé à l’acquisition par le musée d’Orsay du tableau la Partie de bateau de Gustave Caillebotte. Loin d’être anodine, cette démarche pose la question de l’influence potentielle du mécène sur le musée. Une problématique d’autant plus brûlante que cet argent provient en fait à 90 % des poches du contribuable…
En janvier 2023, le musée d’Orsay a acquis la Partie de bateau, un tableau de Gustave Caillebotte (1848-1894) datant de 1877, reconnu comme une pièce majeure de l’impressionnisme pour son traitement audacieux et dynamique, combiné à l’insouciance de son sujet.
« La Partie » a longtemps été perçue comme mineure dans l’histoire de la peinture, à l’instar du reste de l’œuvre de Caillebotte. L’artiste était passé de mode avant son décès, notamment en raison des sujets traités, tels que le travail manuel ou le monde de l’oisiveté.
Gustave Caillebotte, « Les Raboteurs de parquet », 1875. RMN-Grand Palais (musée d’Orsay)/Hervé Lewandowski, CC BY-NC
Ses toiles intéressent désormais musées et collectionneurs fortunés. Très fortunés même, avec des prix qui affolent les institutions. En 2021 le Getty Museum à Los Angeles a acheté le Jeune homme à sa fenêtre pour 53 millions de dollars, pulvérisant le précédent record du peintre établi à 22 millions de dollars pour le Chemin montant lors d’une vente aux enchères chez Christie’s en 2019.
Le tarif de la Partie de bateau est plus raisonnable : 43 millions d’euros. À sa mise en vente, le ministère de la Culture prend la décision de le classer comme trésor national, reconnaissant son caractère exceptionnel. Mais il ne débloque pas un budget à même de pouvoir l’acheter. Il lui interdit cependant de quitter le territoire pendant 30 mois. Ce classement démarre un compte à rebours pour garder la toile en France.
Évidemment, le prix dépasse le budget d’acquisition du Musée d’Orsay. Et pas qu’un peu, puisque ce dernier tourne autour de 3 millions d’euros par an. Pour ne pas voir le chef-d’œuvre s’échapper à nouveau dans une collection privée, comme il le fut depuis le décès de la dernière descendante du peintre, un appel à mécénat est lancé avec une belle carotte : un abattement fiscal de 90 % de son coût.
Le groupe Louis-Vuitton Moët-Hennessy (LVMH) – dont Bernard Arnault est l’actionnaire principal – est déjà mécène du musée d’Orsay, et répond rapidement à l’appel. Fidèle à son habitude, cette acquisition ne se fait pas dans la discrétion, le groupe produit un communiqué de presse au ton inspiré que reprend en partie une dépêche AFP. C’est cette dernière que l’on retrouve dans la presse, avec une absence totale de mention envers le cadeau fait par l’État à LVMH.
Qu’un groupe privé utilise l’achat d’un tableau issu d’une collection publique à des fins de communication interroge en soi. Mais le problème est ailleurs : c’est en réalité le contribuable qui paie l’opération de communication de LVMH (à hauteur de 90 %, en raison des avantages fiscaux accordés au mécénat). Pour l’entreprise, le coût est minime et l’opération assoit son image de « bienfaiteur culturel », tout en ouvrant potentiellement la porte à une influence diffuse du groupe privé au sein du musée – un don génère souvent une dette implicite.
La Fondation Louis Vuitton, « cadeau à la France » ?
L’achat du tableau de Caillebote est le type d’initiative qui est dans les habitudes du groupe LVMH. S’agit-il de dons désintéressés ? Il est possible de s’interroger, du fait du montant de la déduction fiscale et de la régularité avec laquelle surviennent des affaires concernant le faible taux d’imposition de Bernard Arnault (14 %) ; tout en étant assez peu reprises dans la presse. Certainsmettent en doute la générosité du mécénat menée par le mastodonte aux 80 milliards d’euros de chiffre d’affaires, pratique décrite comme l’une des nombreuses stratégies d’optimisation fiscale agressive du groupe.
Ainsi, en 2014, lors de la construction de la Fondation Louis Vuitton, grâce à la loi Aillagon de 2003 relative au mécénat, LVMH avait pu éviter 60 % du coût de sa construction en l’évacuant de ses impôts, soit 518 millions d’euros de ristourne. Cette année-là, le coût de la Fondation, « cadeau à la France », selon Bernard Arnault, coûta à lui seul 8 % de la totalité de la niche fiscale, le plus important montant de toutes les niches fiscales réunies, obligeant pour la première fois l’Assemblée nationale à imposer des limites à cette loi.
Si en 2019, suite à l’incendie de Notre-Dame de Paris, LVMH a déclaré ne pas faire fonctionner ce mécanisme, ce n’est pas par bonté d’âme. Simplement, les plafonds de la firme étaient largement atteints.
Par ailleurs, ce don est le fruit d’une course à l’échalote avec l’éternel rival, Kering, deuxième groupe mondial dans le secteur du luxe, fondé par François Pinault, qui l’a devancé dans la course au prestige de la restauration de la cathédrale.
Pris à son propre piège, LVMH n’a pu que doubler la mise, sans oublier de communiquer abondamment sur l’opération. Il s’est attiré nombre de critiques qui sont allées jusqu’à faire sortir Bernard Arnault de son habituelle réserve : pendant une réunion devant les actionnaires, celui-ci s’est « défendu » en expliquant, face caméra, que dans certains pays, on serait félicité et non critiqué pour un tel acte de générosité.
Du lundi au vendredi + le dimanche, recevez gratuitement les analyses et décryptages de nos experts pour un autre regard sur l’actualité. Abonnez-vous dès aujourd’hui !
Le tableau en tournée dans les musées de France
Pour fêter son arrivée dans les collections publiques, telle une star du rock, la Partie de bateau est partie en tournée. Il est exposé tour à tour dans divers musées (une pratique peu commune) afin de le présenter au plus de public possible : d’abord le Musée des Beaux-arts de Lyon, puis celui de Marseille et enfin celui de Nantes. Une étrange idée, dont les donneurs d’ordre sont inconnus, apparaît pour marquer le coup : faire transiter le tableau de ville en ville, d’étape en étape, par bateau, lui faire parcourir les canaux et les fleuves du pays. Après tout, voilà une balade en bateau, quoi de mieux que de la balader en bateau ?
Cela ne se fait jamais. Pour de simples questions de temps, de coûts et de sécurité, les tableaux transitent toujours dans leurs caisses, accompagnés de leurs convoyeurs, par camion et avion afin de ne pas passer trop de temps dans les transports, situation à risque. L’idée de faire traverser plusieurs fois le pays à une toile exceptionnelle chèrement payée, par un moyen de transport lent (il aurait fallu plusieurs semaines) et possiblement submersible, pose la question du capital risque vis-à-vis de la métaphore plate : balade en bateau/se déplace en bateau.
Encore plus curieux, ladite caisse devait, dans le cadre de cette tournée, revêtir un motif particulier – un détail qui éclaire les logiques à l’œuvre dans les coulisses du mécénat.
À partir d’une certaine valeur d’assurance, une œuvre d’art se stocke et se déplace dans une caisse en bois qui la protège. Étanches, isolées, vernies : il en existe pour tous les usages, sur mesures ou en location. En général, assez peu de fantaisies sur leurs apparences, bien au contraire : elles se doivent de rester discrètes, voire anonymes. Certains musées, de ceux qui prêtent beaucoup d’œuvres, font peindre ces caisses de nuances spécifiques, afin de les repérer dans les réserves surchargées.
Toile de maître dans malle de luxe
Pour la balade en bateau que devait effectuer la Partie de bateau, la caisse se devait d’être spécifique pour protéger cette star des cimaises dans sa dangereuse tournée aquatique. Louis Vuitton aurait proposé de faire voyager la toile dans une de ces célèbres malles hors de prix, s’assurant au passage une publicité prestigieuse, en plus de l’opération de communication lourde déjà permise par l’acquisition de l’œuvre.
Si cette fois, les conservateurs du musée ont joué la vitesse et fait partir le tableau en caisse, ce n’était pas là un coup d’essai. En 2018, la laitière de Johannes Vermeer est partie du Rijksmuseum pour rejoindre le Ueno Royal Museum de Tokyo dans une malle siglée.
La malle de tous les superlatifs se devait de transporter dans son périple une œuvre qui n’appartient pas au malletier, mais nous aurions presque pu l’oublier. Ce n’est sans doute pas une coïncidence de la part du groupe de luxe, qui ne se prive jamais de mélanger la réclame au mécénat, brouillant volontairement les frontières en frôlant les limites de la loi, mais pas celles du ridicule.
Tanguy Gatay ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.
View of the United Nations logo at a 2022 conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images)
While the U.S. military’s strikes on Iran on June 21, 2025, are believed to have damaged the country’s critical nuclear infrastructure, no evidence has yet emerged showing the program to have been completely destroyed. In fact, an early U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency assessment surmised that the attack merely delayed Iran’s possible path to a nuclear weapon by less than six months. Further, Rafael Mariano Grossi, director of the United Nations’ International Atomic Energy Agency, stated that Iran may have moved its supply of enriched uranium ahead of the strikes, and assessed that Tehran could resume uranium enrichment “in a matter of months.”
As a scholar of nuclear nonproliferation, my research indicates that military strikes, such as the U.S. one against Iran, tend not to work. Diplomacy — involving broad and resolute international efforts — offers a more strategically effective way to preempt a country from obtaining a nuclear arsenal.
Yet neither military operation reliably or completely terminated the targeted program. Many experts of nuclear strategy believe that while the Israeli strike destroyed the Osirak complex, it likely accelerated Iraq’s fledgling nuclear program, increasing Saddam Hussein’s commitment to pursue a nuclear weapon.
In a similar vein, while Israeli airstrikes destroyed Syria’s nascent nuclear facility, evidence soon emerged that the country, under its former leader, Bashar Assad, may have continued its nuclear activities elsewhere.
Based on my appraisal of similar cases, the record shows that diplomacy has been a more consistently reliable strategy than military force for getting a targeted country to denuclearize.
The tactics involved in nuclear diplomacy include bilateral and multilateral engagement efforts and economic tools ranging from comprehensive sanctions to transformative aid and trade incentives. Travel and cultural sanctions – including bans on participating in international sporting and other events – can also contribute to the effectiveness of denuclearization diplomacy.
The high point of denuclearization diplomacy came in 1970, when the majority of the world signed the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The treaty obliged nonnuclear weapons states to refrain from pursuing them, and existing nuclear powers to share civilian nuclear power technology and work toward eventual nuclear weapons disarmament.
I’ve found that in a majority of cases since then – notably in Argentina, Brazil, Libya, South Africa, South Korea and Taiwan – diplomacy played a pivotal role in convincing nuclear-seeking nations to entirely and permanently relinquish their pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Case studies of nuclear diplomacy
In the cases of U.S. allies Argentina, Brazil, South Korea and Taiwan, the military option was off the table for Washington, which instead successfully used diplomatic pressure to compel these countries to discontinue their nuclear programs. This involved the imposition of significant economic and technological sanctions on Argentina and Brazil in the late-1970s, which substantially contributed to the denuclearization of South America. In the South Korea and Taiwan cases, the threat of economic sanctions was effectively coupled with the risk of losing U.S. military aid and security guarantees.
In the case of Iraq, the Hussein regime eventually did denuclearize in the 1990s, but not through a deal negotiated directly with the U.S. or the international community. Rather, Hussein’s decision was motivated by the damaging economic and technological costs of the U.N. sanctions and his desire to see them lifted after the first Gulf War.
In the 11 countries in which diplomacy was used to reverse nuclear proliferation, only in the cases of India and Pakistan did it fail to induce any nuclear reversal.
Consistent with the historical track record for diplomacy concerning other nuclear powers, Iran offers compelling evidence of what diplomacy can achieve in lieu of military force.
Diplomatic negotiations between the U.S, Iran and five leading powers yielded the landmark Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015. The so-called Iran deal involved multilateral diplomacy and a set of economic sanctions and incentives, and persuaded Iran to place stringent limits on its nuclear program for at least 10 years and ship tons of enriched uranium out of the country. A report from the International Atomic Energy Agency in 2016 confirmed that Iran had abided by the terms of the agreement. Consequently, the U.S., European Union and U.N. responded by lifting sanctions.
Representatives of the nations involved in signing the 2015 Iran nuclear deal pose for a group photo following talks in July 2015. AP Photo/Ronald Zak
Trump signaled quickly after the recent attack on Iran a willingness to engage in direct talks with Tehran. However, Iran may rebuff any agreement that effectively contains its nuclear program, opting instead for the intensified underground approach Iraq took after the 1981 Osirak attack.
Indeed, my research shows that combining military threats with diplomacy reduces the prospects of successfully reaching a disarmament agreement. Nations will be more reluctant to disarm when their negotiating counterpart adopts a threatening and combative posture, as it heightens their fear that disarmament will make it more vulnerable to future aggression from the opposing country.
A return to an Iran nuclear deal?
Successful denuclearization diplomacy with Iran will not be a panacea for Middle East stability; the U.S. will continue to harbor concerns about Iran’s military-related actions and relationships in the region.
It is, after all, unlikely that any U.S. administration could strike a deal with Tehran on nuclear policy that would simultaneously settle all outstanding issues and resolve decades of mutual acrimony.
But by signing and abiding to the terms of the JCPOA, Iran has demonstrated a willingness to cooperate on the nuclear issue in the past. Under the agreement, Iran accepted a highly limited and low-proliferation-risk nuclear program subject to intrusive inspections by the international community.
That arrangement was beneficial for regional stability and for buttressing the global norm against nuclear proliferation. A return to a JCPOA-type agreement would reinforce a diplomatic approach to relations with Iran and create an opening for progress with the country on other areas of concern.
Stephen Collins 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.
Ruth First, born 100 years ago, was a South African freedom fighter, journalist and scholar who worked against the racist system of apartheid during white minority rule. She was assassinated by apartheid forces in her office at the Eduardo Mondlane University in Mozambique in 1982.
Her ideas, work and legacy live on. Sociologists Saleem Badat and Vasu Reddy have edited a new book called Research and Activism: Ruth First & Activist Research. We asked them about her and their project.
Who was Ruth First?
Heloise Ruth First was born on 4 May 1925 in Johannesburg to Jewish parents who had migrated from eastern Europe to South Africa in the early 1900s. Her parents were founder members of the South African Communist Party.
She joined the Young Communist League and the Federation of Progressive Students and graduated from the University of the Witwatersrand in 1946 with a Bachelor of Arts degree.
At 21, First joined the left-wing South African newspaper The Guardian. When it was banned, the New Age took its place until it too was banned in 1962. She served as the newspaper’s Johannesburg editor for 17 years.
In 1963, First was arrested at the University of the Witwatersrand library and held in solitary confinement for 117 days, during which time she was ruthlessly interrogated. The following year she and her three children left South Africa for England on an exit permit, where they joined her partner, the activist and politician Joe Slovo. She would not set foot again in South Africa. Continuing with her activist research in England, she taught at Durham University and then joined Eduardo Mondlane University until hear death.
The mid-1940s to early 1960s were tumultuous years in South Africa. With the rise of formal apartheid in 1948, racial segregation was intensified.
First’s intrepid and penetrating journalistic research exposed her to the brutality of labour exploitation and control on the mines and the farms. It reinforced her understanding of South Africa in Marxist terms.
The will to fight is born out of the desire for freedom.
She was confident that:
The power of the people is greater than the power of any government.
First believed that ignorance is “the enemy of progress and justice” and that knowledge and education are “key to empowering individuals and challenging oppressive systems”. These words ring true in today’s global events driven by right-wing authoritarianism, US imperialism and acts of genocide.
On learning of her death, former South African President Nelson Mandela recalled:
I was in prison when Ruth First was assassinated, felt almost alone. Lost a sister in arms … It is no consolation to know that she lives beyond her grave.
What is activist research and how is it applied in the book?
As authors, we revisit Ruth First’s life, work and ideas and its relevance for the current context. We focus especially on the nature of her scholarship and how she navigated the tensions between her activism and her research – whether journalistic or for her books on South West Africa (today’s Namibia), Libya or western investment in apartheid. Other of her acclaimed books included The Barrel of a Gun: Political Power in Africa and the Coup d’etat and, during her Mozambican sojourn, Black Gold: The Mozambican Miner, Proletarian and Peasant.
In the process we invite renewed critical reflection about her life and work. Inspired by First’s contributions, the book considers how universities and scholars engage with institutions and social movements beyond the university.
For example, in the book a research group from Durham University in the UK considers how to balance objectivity (showing no bias) with more politically participatory research methods and how objectivity can be enhanced despite the difficulties faced by activist research.
Other scholars reflect on the work of the assassinated South African anti-apartheid activist scholar and lecturer Rick Turner; on climate change; and on the complexities of undertaking activist research in Marikana with a women’s organisation, Sikhala Sonke. Marikana was the site where South African police opened fire on and killed 34 striking mineworkers in 2012.
There is examination of a research partnership between University of Cape Town activist scholars and some Khoi-San communities, reflection on the challenges of legal practice and education, and critical analysis of the decolonisation challenges of the KwaZulu-Natal Society of the Arts.
How do you frame activist research in your book?
The book shows that there is a difference between engaged research, critical research and activist research.
Engaged research tries to connect knowledge produced by academics with institutions, movements and experts outside the university to collaboratively address issues and promote cooperation.
Critical research uses radical critical theory to critique oppression and injustice, to show the gap between what exists today and more just ways of living. However, it does not necessarily connect with political and social movements.
First’s research was not only engaged, but also critical in orientation and activist in nature. As activist research it challenged oppression and inequality.
It both critiqued the status quo in South Africa and elsewhere and tried to change it. It was linked with movements and connected to political activism that was anti-colonial, anti-imperialist, and committed to socialism.
First’s activist research did not confine itself to the academic arena but engaged with larger, wider and more diverse publics. It used this experience to critique dominant and often limited thinking at universities and promoted other ways of producing knowledge. The expertise developed was used to improve scholarship in various ways.
What do you want readers to take away?
There is much talk about the “engaged university” and engaged research. However, only certain connections and engagements seem to be valued.
Prior to democracy in 1994, South African researchers connected with social movements for change. Now this is seldom the case. Universities and scholars largely engage with those with money – the state, business, elites and donors.
This raises questions about the roles of researchers in South Africa, whose interests are prioritised and the place of critical and activist research in the engaged university.
How should Ruth First be remembered?
We must honour her for her intellectual and practical activism. What matters is not just her knowledge archive, but also her example as both an outstanding interpreter of the world and an activist scholar committed to changing society in the interests of the downtrodden, marginalised and voiceless.
First was a critical and independent thinker who refused to accept anything as settled and beyond questioning. But that intellect was committed to loyalty to the national liberation movement of which she was an invaluable cadre.
The views expressed in this piece do not reflect or represent the position of the university to which Badat and Reddy are affiliated.
Saleem Badat receives funding from the National Institute for Humanities and Social Sciences and the Andrew W Mellon Foundation. He is a board member of the International Consortium for Critical Theory Programs and Alameda.
Vasu Reddy currently receives no external funding. He serves on the board of the Human Sciences Research Council Press
Source: The Conversation – France in French (2) – By Guy Royal, Professeur de chimie, en délégation au sein du Laboratoire EDYTEM de l’université Savoie Mont Blanc, Université Grenoble Alpes (UGA)
Les PFAS constituent une très grande famille de molécules dont certaines sont maintenant reconnues comme polluants éternels. Si la réglementation actuelle impose de mesurer les concentrations de certains PFAS uniquement, le nombre de ces composés à analyser est encore bien limité et pourrait être bien plus large, à condition d’améliorer les méthodes de mesure existantes et d’en développer de nouvelles, notamment en concevant des capteurs portables.
Les substances per- et polyfluoroalkylées, plus connues sous l’acronyme PFAS (on prononce « pifasse ») constituent une famille de plus de 12 000 molécules synthétiques. Ces composés contiennent des liaisons chimiques très fortes entre des atomes de Carbone et de Fluor, ce qui leur confère des propriétés remarquables.
En particulier, les PFAS peuvent posséder des propriétés antiadhésives, anti-frottements et déperlantes, associées à des stabilités chimiques et thermiques exceptionnelles. Pour ces raisons, les PFAS sont utilisés depuis les années 1950 dans de très nombreux produits de l’industrie (plasturgie, résines, peintures, mousses anti-incendie…) et de grande consommation (cosmétiques, textiles, emballages alimentaires…).
Malheureusement, certains PFAS sont aujourd’hui reconnus comme toxiques et nocifs pour la santé humaine et l’environnement. Leur grande stabilité chimique les rend difficilement (bio) dégradables et certains d’entre eux sont maintenant qualifiés de « polluants éternels ».
Il est donc nécessaire de limiter l’utilisation des PFAS et de résoudre les problèmes environnementaux et sanitaires dont ils sont responsables. C’est ainsi que des actions sont actuellement menées à l’échelle mondiale pour réglementer l’utilisation des PFAS, comprendre leurs effets sur la santé et l’environnement, mais aussi pour les remplacer, parvenir à décontaminer efficacement les sites pollués et aussi assurer leur suivi et leur surveillance.
Dans ce contexte, un point clé consiste à pouvoir détecter et quantifier efficacement les PFAS, que ce soit notamment dans l’environnement, l’eau de consommation et les eaux de rejets ou encore dans les milieux biologiques (fluides, organes…).
Malheureusement, le nombre considérable des substances per- et polyfluoroalkylées, la grande diversité de leurs propriétés et les faibles limites de détection à atteindre rendent leur surveillance et leur analyse extrêmement compliquées !
Deux exemples de PFAS particulièrement surveillés (PFOA et PFOS) — parmi la dizaine de milliers de composés PFAS existants. Guy Royal, Fourni par l’auteur
Comment analyse-t-on les PFAS ?
Plusieurs méthodes d’analyse des PFAS existent actuellement, mais la majorité des mesures est réalisée à l’aide d’une technique répondant au doux nom de « chromatographie liquide couplée à la spectrométrie de masse en tandem » (LC-MS/MS). Celle-ci permet de différentier, d’identifier et de quantifier les différents PFAS présents dans l’échantillon initial.
Cette technique d’analyse associe le pouvoir de séparation de la chromatographie en phase liquide aux capacités d’analyse de la spectrométrie de masse, hautement sensible et sélective.
Principe de la chromatographie liquide couplée à la spectrométrie de masse en tandem (LC-MS/MS). Guy Royal, Fourni par l’auteur
Cette technique, très utilisée notamment dans le domaine pharmaceutique et par les laboratoires d’analyse et de recherche, est extrêmement sensible et performante puisqu’elle permet d’analyser simultanément un grand nombre de molécules contenues dans des échantillons complexes avec des limites de détection très basses.
Toutefois, son utilisation est coûteuse et délicate à mettre en œuvre, car elle requiert l’utilisation d’un matériel de pointe et d’utilisateurs experts.
Avec cette technique, on ne peut détecter que ce que l’on recherche
De plus, il est nécessaire d’utiliser une colonne chromatographique adaptée aux molécules à analyser. Il faut également étalonner l’appareil, c’est-à-dire utiliser préalablement des échantillons de PFAS dont la composition en molécules et leurs concentrations sont connues afin de les reconnaître et de les quantifier lors de l’analyse.
Ainsi, on ne peut donc détecter que ce que l’on recherche : c’est pour cela que l’on parle d’« analyse ciblée ». Seule une gamme limitée de PFAS est ainsi détectée (quelques dizaines sont généralement recherchées), ce qui peut avoir pour effet de sous-estimer le total des PFAS présents dans un échantillon.
De surcroît, dans le cas spécifique des PFAS, ceux-ci peuvent se retrouver dans des matrices extrêmement variées pouvant être de l’eau (potable, naturelle, industrielle et/ou de rejet…), des sols et des boues, mais aussi des milieux biologiques tels que le sang ou les organes. Il est ainsi souvent nécessaire de procéder à un prétraitement de l’échantillon afin de le rendre compatible avec l’analyse.
Cette étape supplémentaire allonge significativement le temps nécessaire pour obtenir des résultats et en augmente le coût de chaque analyse pouvant représenter plusieurs centaines d’Euros. On comprend dès lors toute la complexité que revêt ce type d’analyse !
Enfin, la mesure des PFAS par chromatographie est réalisée exclusivement en laboratoire. Les échantillons doivent donc être transportés, ce qui rallonge le temps entre le prélèvement et le résultat d’analyse.
Pourra-t-on bientôt détecter les PFAS rapidement et sur site ?
À ce jour, il n’existe pas de test simple permettant de détecter des PFAS de manière rapide et directement sur le site à analyser (rivière, eau de rejet…). Il n’est pas non plus possible de mesurer en continu et de suivre la concentration de PFAS dans le temps.
Pour répondre à cette problématique, des recherches sont en cours à l’échelle mondiale afin de développer des capteurs simples permettant une détection rapide et à faible coût. L’objectif est notamment d’obtenir, de manière rapide et aisée, un signal — généralement électrique ou optique — indiquant la présence de PFAS dans un échantillon.
C’est dans ce contexte que le laboratoire EDYTEM de l’Université Savoie Mont-Blanc et l’entreprise grenobloise GRAPHEAL (start-up en essaimage du CNRS issue des travaux de recherche réalisés au sein de l’Institut Néel de Grenoble) travaillent conjointement au développement d’un capteur électronique à base de graphène.
Le graphène, dont les découvreurs ont été nobélisés en 2010, est un film moléculaire de carbone cristallin à deux dimensions et de l’épaisseur d’un simple atome. Son empilement constitue le graphite, et il est doté de propriétés électriques exceptionnelles car les électrons, forcés de circuler sur la surface du film en raison de son épaisseur ultimement fine, interagissent fortement avec les éléments adsorbés sur le graphène.
Une photo des capteurs de molécules développés par Grapheal, avec une illustration de leur principe : la présence de molécules entre la source et le drain affecte le courant électrique qui circule dans le dispositif, ce que l’on peut mesurer. Grapheal, Fourni par l’auteur
Le principe du dispositif visé, de type transistor, repose sur la connexion d’un plan de graphène à deux électrodes, le matériau graphène étant recouvert d’un film moléculaire capable d’interagir sélectivement avec une ou plusieurs molécules de type PFAS présentes dans l’échantillon à doser. Cette interaction à l’échelle moléculaire entraîne une modification de la tension entre les deux électrodes. L’amplitude de cette modification étant liée à la concentration de molécules PFAS présentes dans l’échantillon, il est alors possible de quantifier ces dernières.
Le développement d’une telle technique représente un véritable défi scientifique car il s’agit de mesurer l’équivalent d’une goutte d’eau dans un volume équivalent à trois piscines olympiques ! Il est aussi nécessaire d’explorer un vaste panel de molécules PFAS et de conditions expérimentales puisque les PFAS peuvent être présents dans des échantillons très divers qui vont de l’eau potable aux eaux de rejets.
À ce jour, ces dispositifs permettent de détecter différents types de PFAS actuellement surveillés, dont des PFAS ayant des chaînes fluorées longues (plus de 5 atomes de carbone) et courtes. Notre seuil de détection atteint actuellement 40 nanogrammes par litre pour le PFOA, qui est un des PFAS les plus couramment rencontrés à l’état de traces dans l’environnement.
Des techniques de préparation permettant de concentrer les PFAS dans le prélèvement pourraient encore améliorer ce seuil.
En cas de succès, ces capteurs permettront de réaliser des tests rapides, peu coûteux et utilisables directement sur site. À l’image des autotests Covid qui sont complémentaires des analyses PCR, ces capteurs électroniques à base de graphène — tout comme d’autres dispositifs d’analyse rapide, tels que des capteurs reposant sur un changement de coloration — viendront en complément des méthodes chromatographiques. Ils permettront d’obtenir davantage de résultats préliminaires, facilitant ainsi une surveillance accrue et mieux adaptée aux enjeux actuels liés au PFAS.
Guy Royal, professeur à l’Université Grenoble Alpes, développe sa thématique de recherche dédiée aux PFAS au sein du laboratoire EDYTEM de l’Université Savoie Mont Blanc dans le cadre d’une délégation.
Micheline Draye a reçu des financements de l’ANR projet ANR-23-LCV2-0008-01.
La galaxie du Sculpteur est imagée en grand détail par l’instrument MUSE du VLT de l’Observatoire européen austral, au Chili.ESO/E. Congiu et al., CC BY
Une nouvelle étude a permis de couvrir presque totalement la galaxie du Sculpteur, à 11 millions d’années-lumière de la Terre, avec un niveau de détail inégalé, et dans de très nombreuses couleurs. Ces informations, libres d’accès, permettent d’avancer dans notre compréhension de la formation des étoiles.
Une collaboration internationale d’astronomes, dont je fais partie, vient de rendre publique une des plus grandes mosaïques multicouleur d’une galaxie emblématique de l’Univers proche, la galaxie spirale du Sculpteur, ou NGC 253.
En seulement quelques nuits d’observations, nous avons pu couvrir la quasi-totalité de la surface apparente de cette galaxie de 65 000 années-lumière de large, avec un niveau de détail inégalé, grâce à un instrument unique, MUSE, attaché au Very Large Telescope de l’Observatoire européen austral (ESO).
Ces images permettent de voir à la fois les petites et les grandes échelles de cette galaxie située à 11 millions d’années-lumière de la nôtre. En d’autres termes, on peut zoomer et dézoomer à l’envi, ce qui ouvre la porte à de nouvelles découvertes, et à une compréhension approfondie du processus de formation des étoiles.
Un des Graals de l’astrophysique moderne : comprendre la formation des étoiles
Voici ce que l’on sait déjà. Pour former des étoiles, du gaz interstellaire est comprimé et de petits grumeaux s’effondrent : des étoiles naissent, vivent, et certaines étoiles finissent leurs vies dans une explosion qui disperse de nouveaux atomes et molécules dans le milieu interstellaire environnant — ce qui procure une partie du matériel nécessaire à la prochaine génération d’étoiles.
La galaxie du Sculpteur vue par le VLT : les étoiles déjà présentes en gris, auxquelles se surimposent les pouponnières d’étoiles en rose. Source : ESO.
Ce que l’on comprend beaucoup moins bien, c’est de quelle façon les grandes structures du disque galactique comme les spirales, les filaments ou les barres évoluent dans le temps et promeuvent (ou inhibent) ce processus de formation d’étoiles.
Pour comprendre ces processus, il faut étudier de nombreuses échelles à la fois.
En premier lieu, des échelles spatiales : les grandes structures elles-mêmes (spirales, filaments, barres font plusieurs milliers d’années-lumière), les régions denses de gaz appelées « pouponnières d’étoiles » (qui ne font « que » quelques années-lumière)… et une vision globale et cohérente de la galaxie hôte (jusqu’à des dizaines de milliers d’années-lumière de rayon).
De plus, ces processus ont lieu sur des durées totalement différentes les unes des autres : les étoiles massives explosent au bout de quelques millions d’années, alors que les structures dynamiques comme les spirales évoluent sur des centaines de millions d’années.
De nombreuses études ont permis, dans les quinze dernières années, une cartographie de galaxies voisines à l’aide d’imageurs très performants au sol et dans l’espace.
Mais les différents acteurs de ces processus complexes (par exemple le gaz interstellaire, les étoiles jeunes ou vieilles, naines ou massives, la poussière) émettent de la lumière de manière spécifique. Certains par exemple n’émettent que certaines couleurs, d’autres un large domaine de longueur d’onde.
Ainsi, seule la spectroscopie — qui distingue les différentes couleurs de la lumière — permet d’extraire simultanément des informations telles que la composition des étoiles, l’abondance des différents atomes dans le gaz interstellaire, le mouvement du gaz et des étoiles, leur température, etc.
Tous les quinze jours, de grands noms, de nouvelles voix, des sujets inédits pour décrypter l’actualité scientifique et mieux comprendre le monde. Abonnez-vous gratuitement dès aujourd’hui !
L’avancée de l’ESO et de son instrument MUSE
C’est pourquoi cette étude dirigée par Enrico Congiu, un astronome de l’ESO, est si pertinente et excitante pour la communauté scientifique.
En rassemblant plus de 100 champs de vue, et quelques 9 millions de spectres obtenus avec le spectrographe MUSE au VLT, Enrico Congiu et son équipe, dont j’ai la chance de faire parti, ont pu sonder simultanément et pour la première fois l’ensemble de la galaxie mais aussi les différentes régions de formation stellaire individuellement dans leur environnement spécifique (dans les bras des spirales, au sein de la barre ou vers le centre), apportant des mesures robustes de leur composition et de leur dynamique.
La galaxie du Sculpteur vue dans différentes couleurs grâce au spectrographe MUSE : les éclats correspondent à des éléments chimiques abondants, comme l’hydrogène, qui émettent à des longueurs d’onde spécifiques. Source : ESO.
L’équipe d’astronomes en a profité pour découvrir plusieurs centaines de nébuleuses planétaires — vingt fois plus que ce qui était connu jusque-là. Ces données nous donnent simultanément des indications sur l’histoire de formation stellaire de la galaxie. Par exemple, elles vont permettre d’identifier et de caractériser en détail presque 2500 régions de formation stellaire, la plus grande base de données spectroscopiques pour une seule galaxie (article en préparation).
Mais c’est aussi une opportunité unique de tester la mesure de la distance à cette galaxie.
En effet, le nombre relatif de nébuleuses planétaires brillantes et moins brillantes au sein d’une même galaxie est un levier puissant pour déterminer la distance de cette galaxie. L’équipe internationale a ainsi montré que la méthode basée sur les nébuleuses planétaires était certainement entachée d’erreur si l’on ignore l’impact de l’extinction due à la poussière présente dans la galaxie.
Exploiter librement les données de MUSE pour démultiplier le potentiel de découverte
Ces magnifiques données calibrées et documentées de NGC 253 sont le fruit d’un travail important de la collaboration menée par Enrico Congiu, qui a décidé de les rendre publiques. Au-delà des études présentes et futures conduites par cette équipe, c’est donc la communauté astronomique mondiale (et n’importe quel astronome amateur !) qui peut aujourd’hui librement exploiter le cube de données spectroscopique MUSE.
Cet aspect « Science ouverte » est une composante primordiale de la science moderne, permettant à d’autres équipes de reproduire, tester et étendre le travail effectué, et d’appliquer de nouvelles approches, à la fois créatives et rigoureuses scientifiquement, pour sonder ce magnifique héritage de la science et de la technologie.
Eric Emsellem a reçu des financements de la Fondation Allemande pour la Recherche (DFG) pour par exemple l’emploi d’etudiants. Il travaille pour l’ESO (Observatoire Europeen Austral) et est en détachement de l’Observatoire de Lyon qui a mené la construction de l’instrument MUSE. Il fait parti de la collaboration internationale PHANGS et est un co-auteur de l’étude menée par Enrico Congiu.
The global ecosystem of climate finance is complex, constantly changing and sometimes hard to understand. But understanding it is critical to demanding a green transition that’s just and fair. That’s why The Conversation has collaborated with climate finance experts to create this user-friendly guide, in partnership with Vogue Business. With definitions and short videos, we’ll add to this glossary as new terms emerge.
Blue bonds
Blue bonds are debt instruments designed to finance ocean-related conservation, like protecting coral reefs or sustainable fishing. They’re modelled after green bonds but focus specifically on the health of marine ecosystems – this is a key pillar of climate stability.
By investing in blue bonds, governments and private investors can fund marine projects that deliver both environmental benefits and long-term financial returns. Seychelles issued the first blue bond in 2018. Now, more are emerging as ocean conservation becomes a greater priority for global sustainability efforts.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon border adjustment mechanism
Did you know that imported steel could soon face a carbon tax at the EU border? That’s because the carbon border adjustment mechanism is about to shake up the way we trade, produce and price carbon.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is a proposed EU policy to put a carbon price on imports like iron, cement, fertiliser, aluminium and electricity. If a product is made in a country with weaker climate policies, the importer must pay the difference between that country’s carbon price and the EU’s. The goal is to avoid “carbon leakage” – when companies relocate to avoid emissions rules and to ensure fair competition on climate action.
But this mechanism is more than just a tariff tool. It’s a bold attempt to reshape global trade. Countries exporting to the EU may be pushed to adopt greener manufacturing or face higher tariffs.
The carbon border adjustment mechanism is controversial: some call it climate protectionism, others argue it could incentivise low-carbon innovation worldwide and be vital for achieving climate justice. Many developing nations worry it could penalise them unfairly unless there’s climate finance to support greener transitions.
Carbon border adjustment mechanism is still evolving, but it’s already forcing companies, investors and governments to rethink emissions accounting, supply chains and competitiveness. It’s a carbon price with global consequences.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Carbon budget
The Paris agreement aims to limit global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by 2030. The carbon budget is the maximum amount of CO₂ emissions allowed, if we want a 67% chance of staying within this limit. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates that the remaining carbon budgets amount to 400 billion tonnes of CO₂ from 2020 onwards.
Think of the carbon budget as a climate allowance. Once it has been spent, the risk of extreme weather or sea level rise increases sharply. If emissions continue unchecked, the budget will be exhausted within years, risking severe climate consequences. The IPCC sets the global carbon budget based on climate science, and governments use this framework to set national emission targets, climate policies and pathways to net zero emissions.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Carbon credits
Carbon credits are like a permit that allow companies to release a certain amount of carbon into the air. One credit usually equals one tonne of CO₂. These credits are issued by the local government or another authorised body and can be bought and sold. Think of it like a budget allowance for pollution. It encourages cuts in carbon emissions each year to stay within those global climate targets.
The aim is to put a price on carbon to encourage cuts in emissions. If a company reduces its emissions and has leftover credits, it can sell them to another company that is going over its limit. But there are issues. Some argue that carbon credit schemes allow polluters to pay their way out of real change, and not all credits are from trustworthy projects. Although carbon credits can play a role in addressing the climate crisis, they are not a solution on their own.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon credits explained.
Carbon offsetting
Carbon offsetting is a way for people or organisations to make up for the carbon emissions they are responsible for. For example, if you contribute to emissions by flying, driving or making goods, you can help balance that out by supporting projects that reduce emissions elsewhere. This might include planting trees (which absorb carbon dioxide) or building wind farms to produce renewable energy.
The idea is that your support helps cancel out the damage you are doing. For example, if your flight creates one tonne of carbon dioxide, you pay to support a project that removes the same amount.
While this sounds like a win-win, carbon offsetting is not perfect. Some argue that it lets people feel better without really changing their behaviour, a phenomenon sometimes referred to as greenwashing.
Not all projects are effective or well managed. For instance, some tree planting initiatives might have taken place anyway, even without the offset funding, deeming your contribution inconsequential. Others might plant the non-native trees in areas where they are unlikely to reach their potential in terms of absorbing carbon emissions.
So, offsetting can help, but it is no magic fix. It works best alongside real efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and encourage low-carbon lifestyles or supply chains.
By Sankar Sivarajah, professor of circular economy, Kingston University London
Carbon offsetting explained.
Carbon tax
A carbon tax is designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by placing a direct price on CO₂ and other greenhouse gases.
A carbon tax is grounded in the concept of the social cost of carbon. This is an estimate of the economic damage caused by emitting one tonne of CO₂, including climate-related health, infrastructure and ecosystem impacts.
A carbon tax is typically levied per tonne of CO₂ emitted. The tax can be applied either upstream (on fossil fuel producers) or downstream (on consumers or power generators). This makes carbon-intensive activities more expensive, it incentivises nations, businesses and people to reduce their emissions, while untaxed renewable energy becomes more competitively priced and appealing.
Carbon tax was first introduced by Finland in 1990. Since then, more than 39 jurisdictions have implemented similar schemes. According to the World Bank, carbon pricing mechanisms (that’s both carbon taxes and emissions trading systems) now cover about 24% of global emissions. The remaining 76% are not priced, mainly due to limited coverage in both sectors and geographical areas, plus persistent fossil fuel subsidies. Expanding coverage would require extending carbon pricing to sectors like agriculture and transport, phasing out fossil fuel subsidies and strengthening international governance.
What is carbon tax?
Sweden has one of the world’s highest carbon tax rates and has cut emissions by 33% since 1990 while maintaining economic growth. The policy worked because Sweden started early, applied the tax across many industries and maintained clear, consistent communication that kept the public on board.
Canada introduced a national carbon tax in 2019. In Canada, most of the revenue from carbon taxes is returned directly to households through annual rebates, making the scheme revenue-neutral for most families. However, despite its economic logic, inflation and rising fuel prices led to public discontent – especially as many citizens were unaware they were receiving rebates.
Carbon taxes face challenges including political resistance, fairness concerns and low public awareness. Their success depends on clear communication and visible reinvestment of revenues into climate or social goals. A 2025 study that surveyed 40,000 people in 20 countries found that support for carbon taxes increases significantly when revenues are used for environmental infrastructure, rather than returned through tax rebates.
By Meilan Yan, associate professor and senior lecturer in financial economics, Loughborough University
Climate resilience
Floods, wildfires, heatwaves and rising seas are pushing our cities, towns and neighbourhoods to their limits. But there’s a powerful idea that’s helping cities fight back: climate resilience.
Resilience refers to the ability of a system, such as a city, a community or even an ecosystem – to anticipate, prepare for, respond to and recover from climate-related shocks and stresses.
Sometimes people say resilience is about bouncing back. But it’s not just about surviving the next storm. It’s about adapting, evolving and thriving in a changing world.
Resilience means building smarter and better. It means designing homes that stay cool during heatwaves. Roads that don’t wash away in floods. Power grids that don’t fail when the weather turns extreme.
It’s also about people. A truly resilient city protects its most vulnerable. It ensures that everyone – regardless of income, age or background – can weather the storm.
And resilience isn’t just reactive. It’s about using science, local knowledge and innovation to reduce a risk before disaster strikes. From restoring wetlands to cool cities and absorb floods, to creating early warning systems for heatwaves, climate resilience is about weaving strength into the very fabric of our cities.
By Paul O’Hare, senior lecturer in geography and development, Manchester Metropolitan University
The meaning of climate resilience.
Climate risk disclosure
Climate risk disclosure refers to how companies report the risks they face from climate change, such as flood damage, supply chain disruptions or regulatory costs. It includes both physical risks (like storms) and transition risks (like changing laws or consumer preferences).
Mandatory disclosures, such as those proposed by the UK and EU, aim to make climate-related risks transparent to investors. Done well, these reports can shape capital flows toward more sustainable business models. Done poorly, they become greenwashing tools.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Emissions trading scheme
An emissions trading scheme is the primary market-based approach for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in many countries, including Australia, Canada, China and Mexico.
Part of a government’s job is to decide how much of the economy’s carbon emissions it wants to avoid in order to fight climate change. It must put a cap on carbon emissions that economic production is not allowed to surpass. Preferably, the polluters (that’s the manufacturers, fossil fuel companies) should be the ones paying for the cost of climate mitigation.
Regulators could simply tell all the firms how much they are allowed to emit over the next ten years or so. But giving every firm the same allowance across the board is not cost efficient, because avoiding carbon emissions is much harder for some firms (such as steel producers) than others (such as tax consultants). Since governments cannot know each firm’s specific cost profile either, it can’t customise the allowances. Also, monitoring whether polluters actually abide by their assigned limits is extremely costly.
An emissions trading scheme cleverly solves this dilemma using the cap-and-trade mechanism. Instead of assigning each polluter a fixed quota and risking inefficiencies, the government issues a large number of tradable permits – each worth, say, a tonne of CO₂-equivalent (CO₂e) – that sum up to the cap. Firms that can cut greenhouse gas emissions relatively cheaply can then trade their surplus permits to those who find it harder – at a price that makes both better off.
By Mathias Weidinger, environmental economist, University of Oxford
Emissions trading schemes, explained by climate finance expert Mathias Weidinger.
Environmental, social and governance (ESG) investing
ESG investing stands for environmental, social and governance investing. In simple terms, these are a set of standards that investors use to screen a company’s potential investments.
ESG means choosing to invest in companies that are not only profitable but also responsible. Investors use ESG metrics to assess risks (such as climate liability, labour practices) and align portfolios with sustainability goals by looking at how a company affects our planet and treats its people and communities. While there isn’t one single global body governing ESG, various organisations, ratings agencies and governments all contribute to setting and evolving these metrics.
For example, investing in a company committed to renewable energy and fair labour practices might be considered “ESG aligned”. Supporters believe ESG helps identify risks and create long-term value. Critics argue it can be vague or used for greenwashing, where companies appear sustainable without real action. ESG works best when paired with transparency and clear data. A barrier is that standards vary, and it’s not always clear what counts as ESG.
Why do financial companies and institutions care? Issues like climate change and nature loss pose significant risks, affecting company values and the global economy.
However, gathering reliable ESG information can be difficult. Companies often self-report, and the data isn’t always standardised or up to date. Researchers – including my team at the University of Oxford – are using geospatial data, like satellite imagery and artificial intelligence, to develop global databases for high-impact industries, across all major sectors and geographies, and independently assess environmental and social risks and impacts.
For instance, we can analyse satellite images of a facility over time to monitor its emissions effect on nature and biodiversity, or assess deforestation linked to a company’s supply chain. This allows us to map supply chains, identify high-impact assets, and detect hidden risks and opportunities in key industries, providing an objective, real-time look at their environmental footprint.
The goal is for this to improve ESG ratings and provide clearer, more consistent insights for investors. This approach could help us overcome current data limitations to build a more sustainable financial future.
By Amani Maalouf, senior researcher in spatial finance, University of Oxford
Environmental, social and governance investing explained.
Financed emissions
Financed emissions are the greenhouse gas emissions linked to a bank’s or investor’s lending and investment portfolio, rather than their own operations. For example, a bank that funds a coal mine or invests in fossil fuels is indirectly responsible for the carbon those activities produce.
Measuring financed emissions helps reveal the real climate impact of financial institutions not just their office energy use. It’s a cornerstone of climate accountability in finance and is becoming essential under net zero pledges.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Green bonds
Green bonds are loans issued to fund environmentally beneficial projects, such as energy-efficient buildings or clean transportation. Investors choose them to support climate solutions while earning returns.
Green bonds are a major tool to finance the shift to a low-carbon economy by directing finance toward climate solutions. As climate costs rise, green bonds could help close the funding gap while ensuring transparency and accountability.
Green bonds are required to ensure funds are spent as promised. For instance, imagine a city wants to upgrade its public transportation by adding electric buses to reduce pollution. Instead of raising taxes or slashing other budgets, the city can issue green bonds to raise the necessary capital. Investors buy the bonds, the city gets the funding, and the environment benefits from cleaner air and fewer emissions.
The growing participation of government issuers has improved the transparency and reliability of these investments. The green bond market has grown rapidly in recent years. According to the Bank for International Settlements, the green bond market reached US$2.9 trillion (£2.1 trillion) in 2024 – nearly six times larger than in 2018. At the same time, annual issuance (the total value of green bonds issued in a year) hit US$700 billion, highlighting the increasing role of green finance in tackling climate change.
By Dongna Zhang, assistant professor in economics and finance, Northumbria University
Just transition
Just transition is the process of moving to a low-carbon society that is environmentally sustainable and socially inclusive. In a broad sense, a just transition means focusing on creating a more fair and equal society.
Just transition has existed as a concept since the 1970s. It was originally applied to the green energy transition, protecting workers in the fossil fuel industry as we move towards more sustainable alternatives.
These days, it has so many overlapping issues of justice hidden within it, so the concept is hard to define. Even at the level of UN climate negotiations, global leaders struggle to agree on what a just transition means.
The big battle is between developed countries, who want a very restrictive definition around jobs and skills, and developing countries, who are looking for a much more holistic approach that considers wider system change and includes considerations around human rights, Indigenous people and creating an overall fairer global society.
A just transition is essentially about imagining a future where we have moved beyond fossil fuels and society works better for everyone – but that can look very different in a European city compared to a rural setting in south-east Asia.
For example, in a British city it might mean fewer cars and better public transport. In a rural setting, it might mean new ways of growing crops that are more sustainable, and building homes that are heatwave resistant.
By Alix Dietzel, climate justice and climate policy expert, University of Bristol
The meaning of just transition.
Loss and damage
A global loss and damage fund was agreed by nations at the UN climate summit (Cop27) in 2022. This means that the rich countries of the world put money into a fund that the least developed countries can then call upon when they have a climate emergency.
At the moment, the loss and damage fund is made up of relatively small pots of money. Much more will be needed to provide relief to those who need it most now and in the future.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains loss and damage.
Mitigation v adaptation
Mitigation means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to slow climate change. Adaptation means adjusting to its effects, like building sea walls or growing heat-resistant crops. Both are essential: mitigation tackles the cause, while adaptation tackles the symptoms.
Globally, most funding goes to mitigation, but vulnerable communities often need adaptation support most. Balancing the two is a major challenge in climate policy, especially for developing countries facing immediate climate threats.
By Narmin Nahidi, assistant professor in finance at the University of Exeter
Nationally determined contributions
Nationally determined contributions (NDCs) are at the heart of the Paris agreement, the global effort to collectively combat climate change. NDCs are individual climate action plans created by each country. These targets and strategies outline how a country will reduce its greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to climate change.
Each nation sets its own goals based on its own circumstances and capabilities – there’s no standard NDC. These plans should be updated every five years and countries are encouraged to gradually increase their climate ambitions over time.
The aim is for NDCs to drive real action by guiding policies, attracting investment and inspiring innovation in clean technologies. But current NDCs fall short of the Paris agreement goals and many countries struggle to turn their plans into a reality. NDCs also vary widely in scope and detail so it’s hard to compare efforts across the board. Stronger international collaboration and greater accountability will be crucial.
By Doug Specht, reader in cultural geography and communication, University of Westminster
Fashion depends on water, soil and biodiversity – all natural capital. And forward-thinking designers are now asking: how do we create rather than deplete, how do we restore rather than extract?
Natural capital is the value assigned to the stock of forests, soils, oceans and even minerals such as lithium. It sustains every part of our economy. It’s the bees that pollinate our crops. It’s the wetlands that filter our water and it’s the trees that store carbon and cool our cities.
If we fail to value nature properly, we risk losing it. But if we succeed, we unlock a future that is not only sustainable but also truly regenerative.
My team at the University of Oxford is developing tools to integrate nature into national balance sheets, advising governments on biodiversity, and we’re helping industries from fashion to finance embed nature into their decision making.
Natural capital, explained by a climate finance expert.
By Mette Morsing, professor of business sustainability and director of the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford
Net zero
Reaching net zero means reducing the amount of additional greenhouse gas emissions that accumulate in the atmosphere to zero. This concept was popularised by the Paris agreement, a landmark deal that was agreed at the UN climate summit (Cop21) in 2015 to limit the impact of greenhouse gas emissions.
There are some emissions, from farming and aviation for example, that will be very difficult, if not impossible, to reach absolute zero. Hence, the “net”. This allows people, businesses and countries to find ways to suck greenhouse gas emissions out of the atmosphere, effectively cancelling out emissions while trying to reduce them. This can include reforestation, rewilding, direct air capture and carbon capture and storage. The goal is to reach net zero: the point at which no extra greenhouse gases accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere.
By Mark Maslin, professor of earth system science, UCL
Mark Maslin explains net zero.
For more expert explainer videos, visit The Conversation’s quick climate dictionary playlist here on YouTube.
Mark Maslin is Pro-Vice Provost of the UCL Climate Crisis Grand Challenge and Founding Director of the UCL Centre for Sustainable Aviation. He was co-director of the London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and is a member of the Climate Crisis Advisory Group. He is an advisor to Sheep Included Ltd, Lansons, NetZeroNow and has advised the UK Parliament. He has received grant funding from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, DFG, Royal Society, DIFD, BEIS, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Research England, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust, CIFF, Sprint2020, and British Council. He has received funding from the BBC, Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD, HP and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.
Amani Maalouf receives funding from IKEA Foundation and UK Research and Innovation (NE/V017756/1).
Narmin Nahidi is affiliated with several academic associations, including the Financial Management Association (FMA), British Accounting and Finance Association (BAFA), American Finance Association (AFA), and the Chartered Association of Business Schools (CMBE). These affiliations do not influence the content of this article.
Paul O’Hare receives funding from the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council (NERC). Award reference NE/V010174/1.
Alix Dietzel, Dongna Zhang, Doug Specht, Mathias Weidinger, Meilan Yan, and Sankar Sivarajah do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
There are more refugees in the world today than at any other point in history. The United Nations estimates that there are now more than 120 million people forcibly displaced from their homes. That is one in every 69 people on Earth. Some 73% of this population is hosted in lower or middle-income countries.
From the legacies of European colonialism to global inequality, drone warfare and climate instability, politicians have failed to address the causes driving this mass displacement. Instead, far-right parties exploit the crisis by inflaming cultures of hatred and hostility towards migrants, particularly in high-income western countries.
This is exacerbated by visual media, which makes refugees an easy target by denying them the means of telling their own stories on their own terms. Pictures of migrants on boats or climbing over border walls are everywhere in tabloid newspapers and on social media. But these images are rarely accompanied by any detailed account of the brutal experiences that force people into these situations.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Many different kinds of visual storytelling live under the umbrella of refugee comics. They include short strips and stories, such as A Perilous Journey (2016) with testimonies from people fleeing the civil war in Syria, and Cabramatta (2019), about growing up as a Vietnamese migrant in a Sydney suburb. They also include codex-bound graphic novels, such as The Best We Could Do by Thi Bui (2017), and interactive web-comics such as Exodus by Jasper Rietman (2018).
They include documentaries made by journalists about the specific experiences of individual refugees. They also include fiction by artists who combine elements of several refugee testimonies into representative stories. Additionally, there are both fictional and non-fictional artworks made by migrants and refugees themselves.
Refugee comics address different forced mass displacements over the 20th and 21st centuries. These include the 1948 Nakba in Palestine, the 1970s flight of refugees from Vietnam and the 2010s displacement of people from Syria and other countries across sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East.
These refugee comics challenge anti-migrant images in at least three ways. First, they often integrate the direct testimonies of refugees. This is enhanced by the combination of words and pictures that comprise the comics page, which allows refugees to frame the way we see and respond to images of displaced people.
For example, in The Unwanted by Joe Sacco (2012), familiar images of migrants crossing the Mediterranean on small boats are narrated by a refugee called Jon. Jon’s testimony turns our attention to the fears and desires that drive people to attempt dangerous sea crossings.
A second way comics challenge anti-migrant images is by allowing refugees to tell their stories without disclosing their identities. Because comics are drawn by hand and use abstract icons rather than photographs, refugees can tell their stories while also avoiding any unwanted scrutiny while also maintaining personal privacy. This reintroduces refugee agency into a visual culture that often seeks to reduce migrants to voiceless victims or security threats.
For example, in Escaping Wars and Waves: Encounters with Syrian Refugees (2018) German comics journalist Olivier Kugler dedicates two pages to a man he calls “The Afghan” because he didn’t want his name or identity revealed. Kugler presents this man’s testimony of failed attempts to get to the UK, but he never draws his face or refers to him by name.
The third way comics challenge anti-migrant images is by shifting our attention from refugees themselves to the hostile environments and border infrastructures that they are forced to travel through and inhabit. Refugee researchers describe this different way of seeing as a “places and spaces, not faces” approach.
For instance, in Undocumented: The Architecture of Migrant Detention (2017), Tings Chak walks her readers through migrant detention centres from the perspective of those who are being processed and detained.
Drawing displacement
This emphasis on place and space is built into the structure of our own book, Graphic Refuge. We begin by focusing on graphic stories about ocean crossings, particularly on the Mediterranean sea. We then turn to comics concerned with the experience of refugee camps, and we also ask how interactive online comics bring viewers into virtual refugee spaces in a variety of ways.
It is the obliteration of homes that forces people to become refugees in the first place. Later in the book, we explore how illustrated stories document the destruction of cityscapes across Syria and also in Gaza. Finally, we turn to graphic autobiographies by second-generation refugees, those who have grown up in places such as the US or Australia, but who must still negotiate the trauma of their parents’ displacement.
Where most previous studies of refugee comics have focused on trauma and empathy, in Graphic Refuge we take a different approach. We set out to show how refugee comics represent migrant agency and desire, and how we are all implicated in the histories and systems that have created the very idea of the modern refugee.
As critical refugee scholar Vinh Nguyen writes in our book’s foreword, while it is difficult to truly know what refugee lives are like, those of us who enjoy the privileges of citizenship can at least read these comics to better understand “what we – we who can sleep under warm covers at night – are capable of”.
This article features references to books that have been included for editorial reasons, and may contain links to bookshop.org. If you click on one of the links and go on to buy something from bookshop.org The Conversation UK may earn a commission.
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.
Stephen Spielberg’s original Jurassic Park film (1993) instilled awe and trepidation in his characters and audience alike. As his protagonists wrestled with the unintended consequences and ethical dilemmas of reanimating extinct apex predators, viewers marvelled at the novel use of CGI. At a keystroke it seemed to consign the hand-crafted stop-motion wonders of dinosaur films past to the archive.
Alongside pulse-pounding action set pieces delivered with trademark Spielberg panache, that first film flamboyantly inaugurated a new era in fantasy effects. And it solicited delight and wonder from its audience. On opening day in New York the dinosaurs’ first appearance prompted a spontaneous ovation: I was there and clapped too.
Thirty-two years, six Jurassic iterations and countless monstrous digital apparitions later, that initial wow factor is a distant memory. By Jurassic World: Rebirth (set nearly 35 years after the original film) dinosaurs are treated by their human prey as barely more than inconvenient obstacles. They’re dangerous, of course, but certainly not wondrous.
Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.
Palaeontologist Dr Henry Loomis’s (Jonathan Bailey) delight in coming face-to-face with his objects of study is a pale echo of the giddy euphoria that overtook Sam Neill and Laura Dern’s characters all those years ago.
In fact, early in the film we’re told that the public have since lost all interest in dinosaurs. Wildlife parks and museum displays are closing and the animals themselves have mostly died off outside their quarantined tropical habitat.
As this has information has little bearing for the plot, it’s hard not to sense some ironic commentary from screenwriter David Koepp (returning to the franchise for the first time since 1997) on the exhaustion of the Jurassic Park model. Always incipiently reflexive – as a blockbuster set in a theme park – by this stage in the game, the franchise machinery is inescapably visible.
Almost as ironic is a plot line promoting the open-source sharing of intellectual property for the benefit of the whole world rather than exploitative corporations. I doubt NBCUniversal-Comcast would agree.
The Jurassic World Rebirth trailer.
The Jurassic franchise
The Jurassic Park format is among the most unforgivingly rigid of any current film franchise.
Each instalment (bar to some extent the last, the convoluted 2022 Jurassic World: Dominion, whose characters and story the new release completely ignores) places humans in perilous proximity to genetically rejuvenated sauropods. And generally does so in a remote, photogenic tropical location with minimal contact with the outside world. (Will the franchise ever run out of uncharted Caribbean islands where demented bio-engineers have wreaked evolutionary havoc?)
The human characters in this new film are the usual pick-and-mix of daredevil adventurers, amoral corporate types and idealistic palaeontologists. And there are the mandatory school-age children too – important to keep the interest of younger viewers. The real stars of course, are the primeval leviathans who grow larger and more fearsome – though not more interesting – with each new episode of the franchise.
How this human-dino jeopardy comes about tends not to matter very much. Jurassic World: Rebirth produces one of the least interesting MacGuffins in movie history (meaning something that drives the plot and which the charcters care about but the audience does not). Blood drawn from each of the three largest dinosaur species in the aforesaid remote tropical island will produce a serum to cure human heart disease (dinosaur hearts are huge, you see, so … never mind).
This feeble contrivance suffices for sneery Big Pharma suit Martin (Rupert Friend) to hire freebooters Zora (Scarlett Johansson) and Duncan (Mahershala Ali) for his expedition. Along the way they encounter a marooned family (dad, two teens, one winsome but plucky grade-schooler) who subsequently have their own largely self-contained adventures before reuniting for the big climax.
Franchise filmmaking is generally an auteur-free zone. Welsh blockbuster specialist Gareth Edwards is no Spielberg (though he pays homage at several point, notably in a waterborne first act studded with Jaws references). But he handles the action with unremarkable competence.
In truth, Jurassic World: Rebirth suggests that the intellectual property so expensively vested in the franchise would benefit from some genetic modification.
Barry Langford 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.
South Africans want to shop more sustainably, according to research published in the journal Sustainable Development. But most can’t tell which products are environmentally friendly.
Some food manufacturers have introduced eco labels – a certification symbol placed on product packaging. This indicates the product meets specific environmental standards set by a third party organisation.
These labels are meant to signal to consumers that a product has been produced in a way that limits harm to the environment. But our recent study with 108 South African consumers showed low recognition of eco labels, widespread confusion, and a need for clearer guidance.
The results show that most South African shoppers are unfamiliar with these labels or unable to differentiate between real and fictional ones.
In the European Union eco labels like the EU Energy Label are easily understood and highly visible. They are also usually supported by government awareness campaigns. Other examples of labelling systems that work well include those of Germany and Japan.
These countries show that long term institutional support, mandatory labelling in key sectors, and consistent public messaging can greatly improve eco label recognition.
We concluded from our research that South Africa lacks that national visibility and public education, leaving even motivated consumers unsure of what labels to trust. Based on our findings we recommend steps businesses, government and nonprofits can take to ensure that eco labels are clear, visible and understood.
Eco labelling at its best
The EU Energy Label is used on appliances such as fridges, washing machines and light bulbs to indicate their energy efficiency on a scale from A (most efficient) to G (least efficient).
In countries like Germany and Japan, eco labels are government backed as well as being integrated into school curricula, public service announcements and shopping platforms.
Germany’s Blue Angel label, which states “protects the environment”, has been in use since the 1970s. It appears on over 12,000 products and services, including paper goods, cleaning products, paints and electronics, that meet strict environmental criteria. It is supported by ongoing public education campaigns.
In Japan the the Eco Mark appears on products with minimal environmental impact. It appears on items like stationery, detergents, packaging and appliances. Many retailers display explanations next to these products to help consumers understand the label.
South Africans struggle to identify eco labels
We conducted a structured online survey of 108 South African consumers. Participants were asked about their environmental awareness and their ability to recognise both real and fictional eco labels across ten images. According to the global directory of eco labels and environmental certification schemes, there are around 50 eco labels in South Africa.
The EU Energy Label was the most recognised (87%).
The Afrisco Certified Organic label, which is a legitimate South African label, was the least recognised, identified by just 22% of respondents.
Fictional labels were mistakenly identified as real by many participants, revealing widespread confusion.
Only 3 out of 10 labels were recognised by at least half the participants, suggesting a general lack of eco label awareness. These include the Energy Star Eco label; the EU Energy label and the Forest Stewardship council label.
Age and employment status were significantly related to environmental awareness. Older and employed individuals showed higher levels of awareness.
These findings suggest that consumers are not opposed to eco labels, they simply lack the knowledge and confidence to use them effectively.
Eco labels have the potential to build brand trust, drive green purchasing behaviour, and support national sustainability goals. But they only work if consumers recognise and trust them.
In South Africa, inconsistent use, small label size, and a lack of consumer education are holding eco labels back from achieving their purpose.
What businesses can do
Based on our findings, we recommend the following:
Use recognised and credible labels: Third-party certified labels are more trustworthy and reliable.
Improve label visibility: The most recognised label in our study was the EU Energy Label and was also the most prominent. Small, cluttered logos go unnoticed.
Educate your market: Explain what eco labels mean through packaging, marketing, and digital platforms.
Partner with government and NGOs: Awareness campaigns at national and community levels can help standardise eco label understanding.
Tailor communication efforts: Awareness efforts should consider age and employment demographics, as these affect levels of environmental engagement.
The way forward
South Africans are willing to support environmentally responsible products, but they need help identifying them.
Businesses, government and nonprofits all have a role to play in making eco labels clearer, more visible, and more trustworthy.
Eco labels must become more than symbols. They should be tools for transparency and trust, and a gateway to more sustainable shopping.
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.
