Source: The Conversation – UK – By Holly Tessler, Senior Lecturer, Music Industries; Programme Leader, MA Beatles, Heritage and Culture, University of Liverpool
The Cavern Club in Liverpool, the nightclub birthplace of the Beatles, promotes itself as “the place where it all began”. On May 11, Apple, the Beatles’ management company, announced its re-acquisition of 3 Savile Row, London, the building they might usefully conceive of as “the place where it all ended”.
In the Beatleverse, 3 Savile Row is perhaps most associated with the Beatles’ iconic yet bittersweet rooftop performance. Iconic because this improvised concert was first captured for posterity in their 1970 film (and album) Let It Be. It was then digitally zhuzhed up for Peter Jackson’s epic retelling, Get Back, in 2021. Bittersweet because that performance on a chilly January day in 1969 was the last time the world ever saw the magic of John, Paul, George and Ringo gigging together. Or in the words of the promotional trailer for Let It Be: “rehearsing, recording, rapping, relaxing, philosophising … creating.”
The Savile Row building was the Beatles’ third London office. They moved there after outgrowing 94 Baker Street, which had previously housed the Apple Boutique in 1967, and following a short-lived stay at 95 Wigmore Street in early 1968.
Purchased for a snip at £500,000 in June of that year, 3 Savile Row became general HQ for all things Beatles. It had a recording studio in the basement, offices for each of the Fab Four and, of course, an impromptu gig space on the roof. Beatles fans, immortalised in George Harrison’s song Apple Scruffs (1970), would gather round the front entrance, hoping for a glimpse, a quick chat or a hug from their favourite Beatle. Yet few would ever have the opportunity to cross that elusive threshold. Until now.
The Beatles perform Don’t Let Me Down during the famous Saville Row performance.
Apple’s new venture heralds seven floors of unseen material from Apple Corps extensive archives, rotating exhibitions, a fan store and the recreation of the original studio where Let it Be was recorded.
It will also give fans the opportunity to tread in the band’s footsteps as they relive the iconic rooftop concert on exactly the spot where it happened. In other words, it promises the rarest of Beatles finds: a genuinely new experience.
The Fab Four in the flesh
As we are so accustomed to seeing in Liverpool, Beatles fans the world over demonstrate a ceaseless fascination with the band’s origin story. In part, this is because no book, film or theatrical production can so tangibly communicate the extraordinary ordinariness of the Beatles’ lives as being there can do: seeing for yourself the sheer magnitude of the improbability of four young Liverpudlians’ journey from two up-two down terraced houses in south Liverpool to the 20th century’s most successful pop group.
In the same way as standing in the front room of the McCartney family home in Forthlin Road, at the gates of Strawberry Field or in the middle of the roundabout in Penny Lane, there is little doubt that clambering onto the roof of 3 Savile Row, gazing across the London skyline and standing in the very steps of John, Paul, George and Ringo will foster in Beatles people a kind of indescribable wonder: making the imagined real and the real imagined.
With the re-acquisition of 3 Savile Road back into the Beatles’ property portfolio, Apple has made a genius move. The museum will connect the flesh and blood, bricks and mortar world of the 1960s Beatles to the social media and big screen worlds of the post-60s Beatles. And theirs is undeniably a big story to tell. It took Peter Jackson nearly eight hours of documentary time. Sam Mendes requires four feature-length films. And coming soon to a rooftop near you: the chance to experience all the Beatle magic for yourself.
Holly Tessler 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.
Frontier AI-first cybersecurity platforms like OpenAI’s “Daybreak” and Anthropic’s newest Claude “Mythos” model are at the forefront of artificial intelligence but their advanced capabilities in offensive cybersecurity are a source of both fascination and concern.
Gguy/Shutterstock
In 1983, the film WarGames imagined a teenager who accidentally accessed a Pentagon computer system and triggered a simulation program, subsequently interpreted as the prelude to a nuclear war. The film made such an impression on Ronald Reagan that he asked his advisers whether such an intrusion into America’s most sensitive systems was possible. A week later, the answer came: “Mr. President, the problem is far worse than you think.”
Nuclear weapons policies are based on a series of bets, often far-reaching, on the future of nuclear deterrence. First, nuclear-armed countries gamble that the fear of retaliation will always be enough to prevent an adversary from striking first, and that they will always have the expertise and luck necessary to prevent accidental explosions. They bet that possessing nuclear weapons will remain a source of security rather than insecurity in decades to come.
However, as my colleagues Sterre van Buuren and Benoît Pelopidas and myself demonstrate, there are several plausible future scenarios in which possessing nuclear weapons will generate more real costs than potential benefits in a world that has warmed by several degrees. Maintaining a credible and safe arsenal will require budgetary choices at the expense of other urgent spending made necessary by the climate crisis.
But there is another, more implicit bet involved here: that nuclear arsenals, which are complex, highly digitalised technological systems, offer no cyber vulnerabilities that could be exploited by an actor seeking to disrupt their normal functioning.
The recent breakthrough of Anthropic’s latest AI model Claude Mythos reveals just how much the conditions of that bet could change in the long term.
Mythos and the future of cybersecurity
“Mythos” was launched on April 7 2026 by the public benefit corporation Anthropic – which markets the Claude series of large language models (LLMs). This model, which has not been commercially released but made available to a restricted working group composed of around a dozen major American tech giants (Google, Microsoft, Apple, NVIDIA, Amazon Web Services, etc.), reportedly achieves an unprecedented success rate in detecting vulnerabilities in computer systems.
Mythos reportedly succeeded in detecting “zero-day” vulnerabilities in various web browsers, software, and operating systems with an impressive success rate.
A “zero-day” vulnerability is a critical security flaw in an information system for which no protection yet exists, making attacks possible with effectively “zero days” available to respond. According to Anthropic, Mythos managed to develop methods for exploiting these vulnerabilities in record time – likely in less than a day – with a success rate of 72.4%.
Although this information comes from the company itself – which has every incentive to exaggerate its results – some public evidence has been provided.
Sylvestre Ledru, Mozilla’s engineering director responsible for the Firefox browser, stated that Mythos helped uncover an “absolutely staggering” number of vulnerabilities in their software. For example, a nearly twenty-seven-year-old security flaw which had survived numerous audits was discovered in an open-source operating system widely used by cybersecurity services, OpenBSD.
Even if Mythos does not fully live up to the announced performance levels, the development of LLMs since the early 2020s has shown how rapidly their capabilities improve. We are therefore facing an acceleration in the development of offensive capabilities and their diffusion to a broader range of actors. This means a potentially rising probability of successful cyberattacks, as well as an increase in their absolute number.
The vulnerability of nuclear arsenals
To understand the vulnerability of nuclear weapons to cyberattacks, one must remember that a “nuclear arsenal” means far more than a stockpile of warheads. The normal operation of modern nuclear arsenals depends on a vast configuration of technologies: nuclear warheads, the missiles capable of delivering them, communication technologies ensuring that orders are transmitted from the President to the operator responsible for launching the weapons, as well as early warning systems designed to monitor the skies for signs of a potential enemy nuclear strike. These elements must communicate with one another to ensure control over the weapons.
And there are more of those than one might think. As Herbert Lin, a Stanford University researcher and author of a study on cyber threats and nuclear weapons, notes, the “nuclear button” metaphor is oversimplified: once the president presses it, a whole series of “cyber-buttons” must also be pressed to trigger and manage nuclear operations – each representing another point where cyberattacks could interfere, for example by preventing critical information from arriving.
The President might not receive enough information – or any at all – to determine that an attack is underway. Or he might be unable to communicate launch orders to submarine forces. Worse still, the nightmare scenario imagined since the 1950s could occur: a false launch order could be transmitted to missile operators.
The scenarios do not even need to be that extreme: the order might be transmitted with delays, or not transmitted to all forces, resulting in weaker retaliation than intended. The retaliation itself might be blocked: in 2010, an American command center lost communication with around fifty nuclear missiles for nearly an hour. An adversary could exploit such weaknesses.
One can also imagine cyber operations targeting the weapons themselves – the hardware rather than the software of the arsenal. Of course, nuclear security actors are not simply waiting for attacks to happen. They continuously develop and test defensive capabilities. The problem is that the complexity of existing systems makes it impossible to state with certainty that no vulnerabilities exist.
“you could no longer make the statement that any of these micro-controlled systems [used to ensure the functioning of the detonation mechanism] were vulnerability-free.”
That does not mean vulnerabilities necessarily exist. But it does mean that no actor can know for certain whether they do. So, should we fear that nuclear arsenals could one day be “hacked”?
In truth, we do not know. Such scenarios are possible: no large, complex information system can be guaranteed with total certainty to be completely reliable. The evolution of cyberattack tools, and their potential diffusion among a wide range of state and non-state actors, makes this kind of future scenario potentially more likely and, in any case, plausible.
A new bet on the future
Mythos highlights a new dimension to the nuclear gamble, born from the development of new technologies and their integration into nuclear arsenals.
First, we are betting on the absence of vulnerabilities within these systems – even though it is impossible to measure that probability with certainty. It changes over time as systems are updated, replaced, and connected to others. If vulnerabilities nevertheless exist, we then bet that advances in offensive cyber capabilities will always be matched, and matched in time, by advances in defensive capabilities – even in the age of artificial intelligence. Once again, that probability cannot be determined, because defensive capability development is often reactive: it depends on our knowledge of offensive capabilities and existing vulnerabilities, both of which are inherently uncertain.
We are therefore betting that our defences against cyberattacks – and those of other nuclear-armed states – will be enough. Otherwise, we are betting that luck will remain on our side and that existing vulnerabilities will not be discovered – like the one that existed for 27 years in OpenBSD’s code. It is a gamble on luck because, in this scenario, what saves us is the adversary’s inability or unwillingness, over which we have no control, to develop effective capabilities.
The ability of existing control practices to fulfil their role has become more uncertain with the arrival of large AI models capable of detecting vulnerabilities and designing cyberattacks on a massive and automated scale. Choosing a security policy based on nuclear weapons therefore amounts to betting that, in the future just as in the past, luck will always remain on our side.
This work has been supported by the European Research Council Consolidator Grant no. 101043468, RITUAL DETERRENCE. Views and opinions expressed are, however, those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council.
Longtemps pensés uniquement à l’aune de leur fertilité, les sols sont aujourd’hui redécouverts pour leur statut de puits de carbone. Autrement dit, leur capacité à séquestrer le carbone en fait des contributeurs de premier plan à la lutte contre le changement climatique. Une étude sociologique menée auprès de scientifiques, politiques et acteurs publics territoriaux met en évidence cette redéfinition climatique des sols et ses conséquences concrètes.
Si le rôle climatique des forêts comme puits de carbone est connu depuis les années 1990, celui des sols l’est moins. Ces derniers contiennent pourtant trois fois plus de carbone et jouent un rôle clef dans son cycle global. Lors de la COP21 à Paris en 2015, le gouvernement français avait lancé l’initiative 4 pour 1000 afin d’encourager les agricultrices et agriculteurs à séquestrer du carbone dans les sols.
En augmentant les stocks de carbone des sols, la démarche visait à compenser les émissions fossiles tout en améliorant la qualité des sols. Mais la capacité des sols à séquestrer du carbone requiert l’adoption de pratiques agricoles spécifiques : implantation de couverts végétaux, réduction du labour, plantation de haies ou d’arbres, ou encore restitution à la terre des résidus de cultures comme les pailles. La préservation des zones humides, des forêts et des prairies, dont les sols sont particulièrement riches en carbone, contribue aussi à atténuer le changement climatique.
Comment ces diverses pratiques de séquestration du carbone modifient-elles les conceptions des sols ? L’équipe du projet ANR Posca a mené une vaste enquête sociologique pour répondre à cette question. À la clé, plus de 250 entretiens approfondis avec des scientifiques, des décideurs publics, des agents de collectivités territoriales et des acteurs agricoles.
Cette enquête montre que l’essor des pratiques de séquestration s’accompagne d’une redéfinition climatique des sols. Longtemps considérés principalement sous l’angle de la fertilité agricole, les sols sont désormais également vus comme des puits de carbone. Et cela, dans une large gamme de mondes sociaux : la recherche scientifique, mais également les politiques agricoles nationales et les territoires.
Les chercheurs ont notamment adapté leurs questions de recherche afin d’interroger les processus qui permettent de stabiliser le carbone dans les sols. Cela a permis de faire évoluer les modèles représentant ces mécanismes, dans le but de contribuer à améliorer les scénarios climatiques. Ils ont également créé de nouvelles infrastructures de surveillance des stocks de carbone dans les sols à l’échelle nationale, et noué de nouvelles collaborations avec les sciences du climat.
Les enjeux climatiques ont par ailleurs conduit les scientifiques des sols à produire de nouveaux travaux d’expertise, à la fois dans le cadre du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC) à l’échelle internationale, mais aussi à l’échelle nationale, pour estimer le potentiel de stockage du carbone dans les sols. Ces réorientations de leurs travaux permettent de fournir des éléments d’appui aux politiques publiques et aux développements économiques liés à la séquestration du carbone.
Les chercheuses et chercheurs ont ainsi transformé leurs agendas et pratiques de recherche pour produire des connaissances qu’ils estiment utiles à la lutte contre le changement climatique. Mais cela n’a pas été sans créer de nouvelles tensions au sein de cette discipline, notamment autour de la question de la non-permanence du carbone dans les sols.
Des crédits carbone pour les sols agricoles qui stockent
De nouvelles conceptions climatiques des sols sont également véhiculées par l’initiative du 4 pour 1000, depuis sa publication fin 2015 par le ministère de l’Agriculture. Cette initiative tire son nom du calcul selon lequel augmenter tous les ans d’environ 0,4 % le stock global de carbone contenu dans les sols permettrait de compenser l’augmentation annuelle des émissions de gaz à effet de serre.
Plus récemment, une étude coordonnée par Inrae a permis de préciser le potentiel de séquestration des sols nationaux. Celui-ci équivaut à environ 40 % des émissions de gaz à effet de serre du secteur agricole en France – soit 6,5 % du total des émissions nationales. Certes, c’est loin de pouvoir compenser l’ensemble des émissions nationales de gaz à effet de serre, mais cela reste une contribution bienvenue à l’effort d’atténuation, que le gouvernement souhaite encourager.
Cette promesse de séquestration est d’autant plus mise en avant aujourd’hui qu’elle permet de repositionner le secteur agricole comme solution au changement climatique, dans une période où celui-ci est fortement critiqué – quand bien même le secteur reste émetteur net de gaz à effet de serre.
Le gouvernement français a ainsi lancé son label bas carbone (LBC) fin 2018. Cadre de certification des réductions d’émissions et des pratiques séquestrantes, il vise, entre autres, à rétribuer les efforts des agriculteurs qui adoptent de nouvelles pratiques vertueuses. Il permet notamment d’attester du nombre de tonnes de carbone séquestrées, pour que les agriculteurs puissent vendre les crédits carbone correspondant à des entreprises ou des collectivités. Le principe est celui du marché carbone : ces acheteurs pourront, à leur tour, alléguer d’une contribution à l’effort d’atténuation du changement climatique.
Le label bas carbone contribue à véhiculer une vision des sols agricoles comme puits de carbone optimisables grâce aux changements de pratiques agricoles. Pour autant, son impact reste actuellement limité, car les projets qui en relèvent mobilisent finalement très peu la séquestration du carbone, mais plutôt des pratiques de réduction des émissions.
Des collectivités qui quantifient le carbone dans leurs sols
Depuis 2016, une nouvelle législation exige par ailleurs que les collectivités de plus de 20 000 habitants évaluent le potentiel de séquestration de carbone par les forêts et les sols. Elles doivent ainsi concevoir un plan climat air énergie territorial (PCAET) qui mesure, entre autres, la quantité de carbone contenu dans les sols et détaille des stratégies possibles pour augmenter ces stocks. La réglementation reste cependant muette sur les moyens et les outils utiles pour quantifier et gérer les stocks de carbone des sols.
Dans ce contexte, les collectivités territoriales mobilisent divers instruments de quantification du carbone des sols. Les analyses de terre étant longues et coûteuses à mettre en œuvre, ces outils reposent généralement sur des données et des modèles numériques qui prédisent l’évolution des stocks de carbone en fonction de différents scénarios de gestion.
L’Ademe a par exemple développé l’outil Aldo, qui permet aux fonctionnaires territoriaux et aux bureaux d’études d’obtenir aisément des valeurs de stocks de carbone.
Agro-Transfert, un organisme de recherche et développement agricole, a également créé l’outil Simeos-AMG. Initialement pensé pour aider les agriculteurs à conserver des sols fertiles et riches en matière organique, il est désormais mobilisé par les professionnels agricoles pour connaître l’impact carbone de leurs pratiques, ainsi que par certaines administrations territoriales pour concevoir leur plan climat air énergie territorial. Le carbone des sols devient ainsi un nouvel objet d’action publique dans les territoires.
Vers une redéfinition climatique des sols
Notre recherche a ainsi mis en lumière la façon dont les sols se trouvent redéfinis à l’aune des enjeux climatiques, que ce soit dans les mondes de la recherche scientifique, des politiques agricoles nationales ou des territoires. Nos résultats montrent que cette climatisation des sols se traduit d’ores et déjà concrètement par de nouvelles pratiques, des engagements et des instruments inédits qui se développent.
Les sols ne sont par ailleurs pas réduits au rôle de simples réservoirs de carbone à optimiser. L’enquête révèle que nombre d’acteurs, en particulier scientifiques, rappellent que ce carbone à séquestrer peut être relargué dans l’atmosphère, notamment si les pratiques agricoles de séquestration ne sont pas maintenues sur le long terme.
De ce fait, il est crucial d’inscrire ces changements dans le long terme. Et cela d’autant plus que ces pratiques sont aussi alignées avec des gains en termes de fertilité et de qualité des sols, les principales préoccupations dont ils faisaient jusqu’ici l’objet. La redéfinition climatique des sols relie ainsi les questions d’atténuation climatique avec les questions de maintien de la fertilité agricole et de conservation de la qualité des sols.
Céline Granjou a reçu des financements de l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche pour le projet ANR-20-CE26-0016
Antoine Doré a reçu des financements de l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche.
Hélène Guillemot a reçu des financements de l’ANR pour le projet POSCA.
Laure Manach a reçu des financements de l’Agence nationale de la recherche et de la Fondation TTI.5.
Léo Magnin a reçu des financements de Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) dans le cadre du projet POSCA.
Robin Leclerc a reçu des financements de l’ANR
Stéphanie Barral a reçu des financements de l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche.
As an energy economist, I have seen how suspending those taxes does reduce prices, but not as much as politicians – or drivers – might hope. Research on past gas tax holidays has found that consumers get about 79% of the reduction in gas taxes. That means oil companies and fuel retailers keep about one-fifth of the tax cut for themselves rather than passing that savings to the public.
Suspending the federal gas tax, which would require Congress to pass a law, wouldn’t help consumers much anyway. Even if oil companies passed on the whole savings to consumers, national average gas and diesel prices would drop only about 4%. The percentage reduction in high-cost states such as California would be even smaller.
Gas taxes are just one part of what drives gas prices. Overall, the price of a retail gallon of gas is the sum of four things: the cost of crude oil, refining, distribution and marketing, and taxes.
In nationwide figures from January 2026, crude oil accounted for about 51% of the pump price, refining roughly 20%, distribution and marketing about 11% and taxes about 18%. That mix shifts with conditions: When crude oil prices spike, that can drive more than 60% of the price; when the price drops, taxes and logistics are larger shares of the cost.
Crude oil is the biggest ingredient
Because the price of crude oil is the largest element, most of the price at the pump is derived from the global oil market.
Usually, big swings in crude prices come mainly from shifts in global demand and expectations – not from supply disruptions, according to widely cited research in 2009 by the economist Lutz Kilian.
Most drivers generally can’t quickly reduce how much they drive or how much gas they use when prices rise, so gasoline demand doesn’t change much in the short run. That means a jump in crude costs tends to result in people paying more rather than driving less.
Refining, regulations and the California puzzle
Refining turns crude into gasoline at industrial scale. The U.S. doesn’t have a single gasoline market, though. Roughly a quarter of U.S. gasoline is a cleaner-burning blend of petroleum-derived chemicals called “reformulated gasoline,” which is required in urban areas across 17 states and the District of Columbia to reduce smog.
California uses an even stricter formulation that few out-of-state refineries make. California is also geographically isolated: No pipelines bring gasoline in from other U.S. refining regions.
Energy economist and University of California, Berkeley, professor Severin Borenstein has called this the “mystery gasoline surcharge” and attributes it to the fact that there isn’t as much competition between refineries or gas stations in California as in other states. California’s own Division of Petroleum Market Oversight says the surcharge cost the state’s drivers about $59 billion from 2015 to 2024. It’s not exactly clear who is getting that money, but it could be gas stations themselves or refineries, through complex contracts with gas stations.
The distribution and marketing category covers the costs of everything involved in getting the gasoline from the refinery gate to your tank.
Gasoline moves by pipeline, ship, rail and truck to wholesale terminals, and then by local delivery truck to service stations.
At the retailer’s end, the key factors are station rent and labor, the cost to buy gasoline in bulk to be able to sell it, credit card fees of as much as 6 to 10 cents a gallon at current prices, and franchise fees paid to the national brand, such as Sunoco or ExxonMobil, for permission to put their branding on the gas station.
Most gas station operators net only a few cents per gallon on fuel itself – which is why many gas stations are really convenience stores with pumps out front. Borenstein and some of his collaborators have also documented that retail gas prices rise quickly when wholesale costs climb but fall slowly when wholesale costs drop.
The question of gas tax holidays
Gas tax holidays reduce funding for what the taxes are designed to pay for, typically roads and bridges. That pushes road and bridge upkeep costs onto future drivers and general taxpayers.
There is an additional problem, too: Taxes on gasoline are supposed to charge drivers for some of the costs their driving imposes on everyone else – carbon emissions, local air pollution, congestion and crashes. But Borenstein has found that U.S. fuel tax levels are already far below the true cost to society. Removing the tax on drivers effectively raises the costs for everyone else.
Suspending the Jones Act allows foreign-based oil tankers to sail between U.S. ports. AP Photo/Eric Gay
The Jones Act: A small number that adds up
The 1920 Jones Act is a federal law that requires cargo moving between U.S. ports to travel on vessels built and registered in the U.S., owned by U.S. citizens, and crewed primarily by U.S. citizens and permanent residents. Of the world’s 7,500 oil tankers, only 54 meet this requirement. Only 43 of these can transport refined fuels such as gasoline.
So, despite significant refining capacity on the Gulf Coast, some U.S. gasoline is exported overseas even as the Northeast imports fuel, in part reflecting the relatively high cost of moving fuel between U.S. ports.
The result of all these factors is that the price that drivers see at the pump mostly reflects the global price of crude, plus a stack of domestic costs, only some of which are inefficient.
Tax holidays give a partial, short-lived rebate. Jones Act waivers trim pennies, though permanent repeal may cause more fundamental changes, such as reduced rail and truck transport of all goods, which could lower costs, emissions and infrastructure damage associated with cargo transportation. Harmonizing fuel blends across states and seasons may lower prices somewhat, but likely at the expense of increased emissions.
Ultimately, the best protection against oil price shocks is a more efficient gas-burning vehicle, or one that doesn’t burn gasoline at all. In the meantime, the best I can offer as an economist is clarity about what that $4.50 actually buys.
Robert I. Harris 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.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Marycarmen Lara Villanueva, PhD Candidate, Department of Social Justice Education, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto
That is what a growing body of Black community leaders is arguing in response to a crisis that The Fifth Estate documentary Missing Black Boys brought into national view in January: Black boys as young as 14 are lured into gangs and sent to remote parts of the province to sell drugs.
Youth gang recruitment is not a matter of individual choice or criminality, but one shaped by inequality, institutional neglect and racialized perceptions. And punishment alone cannot solve it.
Indigenous youth from northern reserves, where some communities have declared a state of emergency, are also part of this troubling reality. The same conditions that leave Black boys vulnerable to recruitment into exploitative and violent economies leave Indigenous youth vulnerable too.
Anishinaabe journalist and author Tanya Talaga has described this as an insidious web of drug-related violence in which Indigenous and Black youth are disproportionately impacted.
Black leaders respond
In recent months, community leaders, educators and public workers have come together to ask what makes Black youth vulnerable to recruitment, and what kinds of structural interventions can prevent it?
Black boys are not just going missing. They are being drawn into exploitative economies and transnational and intercity webs of violence. Recruitment often begins on social media, where older youth lure boys with promises of fast money.
Recently, McCalla submitted a brief to Ontario Solicitor General Michael Kerzner outlining 15 recommendations to address the crisis of Black boys being groomed into drug trafficking networks. Like other Black leaders, she insists that boys recruited into criminal activity should be treated as victims of exploitation and human trafficking, not as criminal offenders.
This means being connected to victim services, trauma-informed care and culturally relevant support. In their advocacy, these leaders have pointed to education, media and lack of opportunities as some areas that need urgent attention.
Classrooms and courtrooms
Anti-Blackness in education is well-documented. The treatment of Black youth as adults when they make mistakes starts in school, often leading to disproportionate suspensions.
How is this racialized perception produced? For race scholars, the answer is complex.
My research suggests that visual cultures of everyday institutions, schools, media and digital platforms play a vital role and influence how children and youth are seen and how they come to see themselves.
Masculinity, money and risk
Images shape how we understand the world and our place within it. Cultural theorist Nicholas Mirzoeff, for example, explains that we live in a visual global environment where the connection between images and how we think of race has a long history.
Youth are immersed in visual cultural production circulating across digital platforms, from social media to music videos, influencing how they see themselves and how they want to be seen.
Bizz Loc, a Toronto rapper featured in The Fifth Estate documentary, is currently serving a 7.5-year sentence for his involvement with the Eglinton West Crips street gang. In music videos of his like “I’m Bacc Crodie,” imagery of youth flashing gang signs, mimicking gun gestures and referencing rivalries circulates a version of Black masculinity tied to risk, conflict and money.
Transfeminist philosopher and essayist Sayak Valencia’s concept of gore capitalism helps explain how, in contexts of inequality, violence can be turned into something that attracts attention and generates value.
In Bizz Loc’s case, masculinity is constructed through proximity to risk and money, offering young men a way to be seen and valued when other opportunities are limited. This visual language is part of a broader web that helps sustain violence through its aestheticization.
At the same time, as American sociologist and author Tricia Rose notes, hip-hop doesn’t just describe street life shaped by chronic Black joblessness, it also educates, critiques injustice and pushes for safer, more just communities.
Yet the versions that are most visible today often narrow these stories.
In the absence of these conditions for Black and Indigenous youth, other systems step in.
Or as Fred Moten and Stefano Harney, Black studies and critical theorists, put it, the target of abolition work is not prisons, but a society that makes prisons necessary. Rather than punishment, the abolitionist question is how do we build communities where fewer young people are vulnerable to recruitment before they encounter violence at all.
Marycarmen Lara Villanueva does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Richard Lachman, Director, Zone Learning & Professor, Digital Media, Toronto Metropolitan University
A billboard tries to sell you something. So does a used car salesman. But no matter how smooth the pitch, you’re quite aware of the profit motive, and you can walk away at any time.
What if that pitch is invisible, plays to your unique fears and vanities, and is delivered in a voice that sounds like a trusted friend? Generative AI has changed the equation of persuasion entirely: chatbots can now deliver a personalized, adaptive and targeted message, informed by the most intimate details of your life.
Large language models (LLMs) can hyper-target messages by drawing from your social media posts and photos. They can mine hundreds of previous chatbot conversations in which you asked for relationship advice, discussed your parenting fails and shared your health concerns and financial woes. They can also learn from each interaction, refining their manipulation in real time, targeting your unique and individual tastes, preferences and vulnerabilities.
This makes one feature especially troubling: Each conversation is private. It is not monitored, never audited and doesn’t happen in the public eye.
This isn’t advertising. It’s something we don’t have words for yet, and we’re living inside it.
Convincing arguments
In my book Digital Wisdom: Searching for Agency in the Age of AI, I explore how large language models introduce a new frontier in persuasion — one where AI systems can draw upon a huge amount of data about the world, language and you to tailor a highly personalized pitch.
Consider how this might work: You’re a nurse. Through your employer’s AI platform, you’ve shared your sleep problems, burnout and the financial stress of a recent divorce. Now the hospital is short-staffed and offering shifts at a reduced rate calculated by software they license.
You ask the AI chatbot whether you should take them. It knows you’re exhausted. It knows you’re behind on bills. It knows exactly which argument could convince you one way or the other. Who is it working for in that moment?
As companies like Meta and IBM explore how AI can hyper-personalize ads for specific audiences, the dividing line between tools that help users find what they genuinely want, and those that manipulate them against their interests, becomes increasingly important.
Friend or stranger?
Let’s look at another example. Imagine the following messages from your favourite AI chatbot or companion:
I noticed your sleep patterns haven’t been great lately, averaging only 5.4 hours, with lots of restless periods. That’s common when dealing with relationship stress. Your partner just went back to work and 76 per cent of couples experience strain during career transitions.
A new sleep medication has shown effectiveness for relationship-linked insomnia. Your insurance would cover it with just a $15 contribution. Would you like me to schedule a telehealth appointment for tomorrow at 2 p.m.? I see you have a break in your schedule.
This might feel great, like advice from a thoughtful friend who knows you well. It might also feel terrifying, as if a manipulative stranger has read your diary.
Given that people are increasingly turning to AI for medical or mental health advice, despite studies showing this advice to be problematic almost 50 per cent of the time, a manipulative stranger could cause real harm.
The danger here isn’t just the precision of the targeting. This content is also impossible to police. What you view can’t be tracked by watchdogs, since you’re the only person who ever sees it.
While governments don’t typically police the content of political ads, beyond transparency about their funding, we often rely on publicoutcry and the media to expose campaigns that spread falsehoods. If an AI personalizes every message for an individual, there is no trace left behind.
Reshaping our worldview
Perhaps most concerning is that these systems could gradually reshape our worldview over time.
Scholars have long argued that the algorithms used by social networking sites and search engines create filter bubbles, in which we are fed well-crafted text, video and audio content that either reinforces our worldview or exerts influence towards someone else’s.
Are AI chatbots like Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini and DeepSeek helping you think, or subtly shaping your thoughts? (Unsplash)
By controlling what information we see and how it’s presented, AI systems could slowly shift how we think about and interpret the world around us, and even change our understanding of reality itself.
This capability becomes particularly concerning when combined with emotional manipulation. Vendors suggest their AI systems can gauge a user’s emotional state through text analysis, voice patterns or facial expressions, and adjust their persuasive strategies accordingly.
Are you feeling vulnerable? Lonely? Angry? The system could modify its approach to exploit those emotional states. Even more troubling, it could deliberately cultivate certain emotional states to make its persuasion more effective.
Persuasion is not a side effect of technology — it’s often the point. Every interface, every notification, every design decision carries with it an intent to influence behaviour.
Sometimes that influence is welcome: reminders to take medication, encouragement to exercise or nudges to donate blood that reinforce values we already hold. But sometimes persuasion serves someone else’s agenda — nudging us to buy, to scroll, to work harder or to give up privacy.
The same persuasive techniques can empower or exploit, depending on who controls the system, what goals they pursue and whether they have meaningful consent.
Design matters. Whether in public health, the workplace or daily life. We must ask hard questions about intent, agency and power. Who benefits from a design? Who is being persuaded and do they know it?
The technologies we build should support reflective choice, not undermine it. As AI continues to shape how we think, feel and act, our ethical obligations grow sharper: to create systems that are transparent, that prioritize user dignity and that reinforce our capacity for independent judgment. We don’t just need innovation — we need wisdom.
Richard Lachman does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – Africa (2) – By Michele Ramsay, Director of the Sydney Brenner Institute for Molecular Bioscience, Professor in the Division of Human Genetics, University of the Witwatersrand
Throughout history, most of the world’s genomic research has relied on DNA data from people of European ancestry.
A genome is the full DNA code of about three billion (a thousand million) bases, including all the chromosomes. Each person has two genomes: one from their mother and the other from their father.
Well resourced environments favour European-based research generating hundreds of thousands of whole human genomes with associated health data. Yet modern humans, our species, evolved on the African continent. African populations therefore contain the deepest branches of human genetic history and the greatest genetic diversity on the planet. Yet the continent remains strikingly underrepresented in global genomic databases.
The African continent is populated by people from over 2,000 ethnolinguistic groups, yet genetic data exist for fewer than a hundred groups. This is akin to having a GPS map of a city with only 5% of the streets marked and the rest left blank.
This bias has profoundly shaped modern medicine, from disease prediction tools to ancestry testing. And it’s why researchers increasingly recognise that studying African genomes has the potential to reveal insights and health-related biological pathways never observed before.
As a team of researchers we were involved in identifying under-represented groups in nine African countries for human whole-genome sequencing. Our multidisciplinary team involved in the Assessing Genetic Diversity in Africa project (AGenDA) has worked out ethical ways to obtain, record and share genetic material and to add to global databases.
The AGenDA dataset alone is expected to uncover millions of previously unknown genetic variants and analyses are underway. These discoveries will inform research into diseases that affect populations in African and worldwide. They include diabetes, heart disease, cancer and neurological or mental health conditions.
This is only a first step. Capturing the full scope of African genomic diversity will require hundreds of thousands of genomes. The project aims to bridge some of the most obvious gaps rather than fully map the continent’s diversity.
But expanding African genomic data is not only important for Africa. It will strengthen global biomedical science.
What it takes
Modern genomic science relies on large databases of DNA sequences to understand disease risk, ancestry and human evolution. These databases underpin a wide range of scientific and medical tools. They are used in medical research, disease prediction, drug development, ancestry testing and increasingly in artificial intelligence models that analyse health data.
When a population is absent from a reference database, a library of whole genome sequences, science simply cannot detect it. Genetic algorithms work by comparing individuals to reference populations. In the absence of a specific reference population, the algorithms will assign the closest available match.
This problem becomes particularly visible in ancestry testing. This is a form of genetic testing often used to learn more about biological heritage. Because African reference data remain incomplete, people with African ancestry may receive vague or misleading results about their origins.
Without more African genomic data the assignment of specific ancestry may be incorrect. In addition, disease risk predictions would be misleading. For example it has been shown that standard doses for medications like warfarin (a blood thinner) or efavirenz (an HIV medication) could be ineffective or toxic for people who harbour specific variants that are more common in African populations.
Prior knowledge of the distribution of such variants in a population could be key to deciding the suitability of a drug for patients from that population.
Filling some of the gaps
The AGenDA project was designed to begin addressing some of the gaps in genome data and African representation. This project involved large multi-country scientific collaborations across the continent. It also required co-ordinating research across multiple ethics committees, regulatory frameworks and institutions. Scientists collaborated with research partners in Angola, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Kenya, Libya, Mauritius, Rwanda, Tunisia and Zimbabwe.
The aim was not simply to increase the number of African genomes in global databases. Instead, the team carefully selected populations to address major geographic and ethnolinguistic gaps in genomic data.
But generating large genomic databases requires careful community engagement and consent from participants to share their data. Biological samples for DNA extraction must be collected and the sequencing performed one base at a time.
We therefore built community engagement and culturally appropriate consent processes into the project from the beginning.
More than 1,000 whole genomes were sequenced from communities that had rarely been included in previous genetic studies. These included:
hunter-gatherer populations
Nilo-Saharan-speaking communities
Afro-Asiatic speakers
understudied Bantu-speaking populations
communities from north Africa and the Indian Ocean islands.
Selecting samples required careful consideration of what African diversity actually represents.
Genetic diversity does not map neatly onto modern national borders. Instead, researchers considered a range of additional factors. These included:
poorly represented geographic regions in genomic databases
major ancestral population histories
languages spoken and self-identified ethnic groups
recent patterns of migration.
In some cases, neighbouring communities may appear close due to geographic proximity but have distinct genetic histories that reflect population separations thousands of years ago.
African genomes contain more genetic variation than populations on any other continent. This diversity provides a powerful resource for scientific discovery. When researchers study more diverse populations they are better able to achieve a number of things.
Firstly, they can identify new genetic variants.
Secondl,y they can investigate evolutionary forces, like natural selection, that have shaped the genomes of people in different parts of the world.
And thirdly, they can pinpoint variants that influence health and disease.
More inclusive genomic datasets are also essential as genomics becomes integrated with artificial intelligence systems that analyse medical data and predict health outcomes. Future medical technologies could be biased to work best for whoever is represented in the data.
Ultimately, expanding African genomic representation will help ensure that the benefits of genomic medicine are shared more equitably. At the same time, it will improve the accuracy and depth of understanding in global genetic science.
Michele Ramsay is the South African Research Chair in Genomics and Bioinformatics of African populations. Funding for this work was from the National Institutes of Health (USA) and it was done in partnership with Illumina.
Ananyo Choudhury receives funding from the National Institutes of Health, USA, the South African Medical Research Council, and the Science for Africa Foundation
For months, US President Donald Trump has been fixated on Cuba. He’s issued threats and imposed additional sanctions on the island. The US military has conducted dozens of intelligence-gathering flights off the coast in recent weeks, suggesting a prelude to an invasion.
The Cuban government has indicated a readiness to negotiate with the Trump administration on some issues, such as migration, drug trafficking and investment openings for Cuban-Americans. But Cuba’s sovereignty is not negotiable.
After interviewing Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel last month, US journalist Kristen Welker seemed to catch on:
Nothing gets under [Cubans’] skin more than the notion that the United States can tell the Cuban government who should lead it or what it should be doing, how it should be governing, because that challenges the very idea of the sovereignty of the country.
This US obsession with controlling, influencing and coercing Cuba long predates Trump and even the Cold War. This is how President Theodore Roosevelt described the island in 1906:
I am so angry with that infernal little Cuban republic that I would like to wipe its people off the face of the earth. All we have wanted from them was that they would behave themselves and be prosperous and happy so that we would not have to interfere. And now, lo and behold, they have started an utterly unjustifiable and pointless revolution.
Understanding the current impasse between the two adversarial neighbours requires looking at this full arc of history. While the 1823 Monroe Doctrine sought to establish US predominance in the entire American continent, Cuba has always been a particular focus of Washington’s attention.
From the moment the 13 American colonies declared independence from Britain, Americans assumed Cuba would become part of the union. Successive US administrations sought to purchase, annex or otherwise control Cuba, claiming this was inevitable by virtue of the laws of gravity and geography. It was also seen as part of a self-proclaimed “civilising mission”.
When the Cubans eventually defeated their Spanish colonial masters in 1898, the United States stepped in and occupied the island to thwart its independence.
At the time, at least one third of Cubans were former slaves or of mixed race. The US governor of Cuba, Leonard Wood, argued they were not ready for self-government.
Illustration shows Uncle Sam talking to a young boy labelled ‘Cuba’ on a beach, from a 1901 publication. Library of Congress
Certainly, the US – especially the Southern former slave holders – didn’t want another Haiti in its neighbourhood. Haitian slaves had seized control of their island nation from the French in a violent rebellion in 1804, echoing the cries of the French revolution for liberty, fraternity and equality.
The US military occupation of Cuba ended in 1902 and Cuba formally declared independence – albeit with provisions. These allowed for future US intervention whenever Washington thought the Cuban people needed a guiding hand (which turned out to be fairly often).
In the decades that followed, US business interests deeply penetrated every sector of Cuba’s economy and had complete sway over Cuban governments.
On a cultural level, Cuba rapidly became “Americanised” through a new US-style education system. Travel to the island picked up, too. The popular Terry’s Guide to Cuba reassured US visitors in the 1920s they would feel right at home because “thousands [of Cubans] act, think, talk and look like Americans”.
Castro’s mission
All of this changed with the rise of Fidel Castro.
During the Cuban Revolution, Castro announced in April 1959 that the revolutionary government would be “Cubanising Cuba”. This might seem “paradoxical”, he explained, but Cubans “undervalued” everything Cuban. They had become “imbued with a type of complex of self-doubt” in the face of the overwhelming US influence on the island’s culture, politics and economy.
US journalist Elizabeth Sutherland similarly observed at the time that Cubans suffered from a “cultural inferiority complex typical of colonised peoples”.
For North Americans, however, Castro’s blunt statement seemed at best to reflect ingratitude, and at worst, an insult. As the US broadcaster Walter Cronkite recalled:
The rise of Fidel Castro in Cuba was a terrible shock to the American people. This brought communism practically to our shores. Cuba was a resort land for Americans […] we considered it part of the United States.
At the heart of Cuba’s revolutionary project has been an assertion of Cuba’s sovereignty, independence and national identity. The drive has been to create a new, united and socially just Cuban nation, as envisioned by its great national hero and poet, José Martí.
So, for Cubans it’s a matter of history. For North Americans, it’s a matter of self-image. They had “convinced themselves,” writes historian Louis A. Pérez, of the “beneficent purpose […] from which [the US] derived the moral authority to presume power over Cuba”.
When the Obama administration finally resumed relations with Cuba in 2014, it felt like a historic shift was taking place. The US might finally respect Cuban sovereignty and engage with Cuba on equal terms.
As President Barack Obama said at the time:
It does not serve America’s interests, or the Cuban people, to try to push Cuba toward collapse. […] We can never erase the history between us, but we believe that you should be empowered to live with dignity and self-determination.
Trump has now reverted to Washington’s traditional neo-colonialist view of Cuba, proclaiming he can do what he likes with the island. Perhaps it is time to try a new approach. As the spectacular debacle of the US-backed Bay of Pigs invasion showed 65 years ago, Cubans remain ready to defend their independence and their right to determine their own future.
Deborah Shnookal does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Source: The Conversation – in French – By Barthélémy Courmont, Directeur du master Histoire — Relations internationales, Institut catholique de Lille (ICL)
Le contexte de ce sommet bilatéral n’est guère favorable à Donald Trump : son opération en Iran s’enlise, la Cour suprême vient de lui infliger un camouflet sur sa politique de droits de douane et sa popularité est en berne à quelques mois d’élections de mi-mandat cruciales. De quoi, peut-être, l’inciter à initier avec son homologue chinois un de ces grands deals dont il a le secret ?
Retardée pour cause de guerre au Moyen-Orient, la visite officielle de Donald Trump à Pékin et sa rencontre avec son homologue chinois Xi Jinping se déroulent ces 14 et 15 mai.
Depuis le retour de Trump à la Maison-Blanche en janvier 2025, les deux hommes n’ont eu qu’une seule rencontre bilatérale, en marge du sommet de l’APEC à Busan en Corée du Sud, en octobre dernier. Les questions commerciales, chères au président américain, avaient alors été au cœur d’échanges crispés et témoignant de la compétition à grande échelle entre les deux pays, comme ce fut déjà le cas lors de la première administration Trump.
Cet enjeu reste crucial dans la relation Washington-Pékin ; mais s’ajoutent désormais d’autres sujets de discorde.
Washington sur plusieurs fronts
Le contexte a cependant considérablement changé au cours des derniers mois. Venezuela, Groenland, Iran : dans le domaine de la politique étrangère, Washington s’est engagé depuis le début de l’année dans un aventurisme qui inquiète Pékin, d’autant plus que la Chine semble directement visée, notamment à travers la guerre contre l’Iran, qui a un impact immédiat sur les exportations de pétrole de Téhéran, dont la RPC est le principal destinataire. D’ailleurs, toutes les crises dans lesquelles Washington s’est engagé depuis janvier sont justifiées par une volonté de porter atteinte à Pékin.
Dès lors, Xi Jinping devrait, ces 14 et 15 mai, manifester sa préoccupation face aux instabilités géopolitiques du moment, et inviter son homologue américain à privilégier la retenue et une approche multilatérale prônée par les Nations unies, jusqu’à se positionner lui-même comme une sorte de faiseur de paix — et profitant sur ce point de la vacance du leadership américain dans son rôle de « gendarme du monde ». C’est d’ailleurs dans cette logique que Pékin joue un rôle important dans la médiation que le Pakistan s’efforce de mettre en place sur le dossier iranien et que la RPC soutient avec force.
Par ailleurs, contrairement à la situation qui prévalait lors de la rencontre de Busan, la Chine est aujourd’hui en position de force dans la guerre commerciale qui l’oppose à Washington, la Cour suprême et un tribunal fédéral ayant récemment mis l’administration Trump en difficulté sur sa politique douanière. Tout cela se déroule dans un contexte politique marqué par l’impératif, pour Trump, de marquer des points en prévision des élections de mi-mandat de novembre prochain, qui s’annoncent très difficiles pour son camp.
Enfin, parmi les autres fronts sur lesquels Trump souhaite attaquer la Chine figurent les terres rares et les enjeux technologiques, alors que la RPC paraît sur le point de rattraper les États-Unis, notamment dans le domaine de l’intelligence artificielle. La compétition entre les deux pays est désormais multidimensionnelle et, en ouvrant plusieurs fronts simultanément, le président américain la rend incertaine.
La Chine face à l’Occident
Au-delà du règlement du conflit au Moyen-Orient, la Chine aime à se rêver comme une puissance d’équilibre, en mettant en avant son rejet de l’unilatéralisme et la nécessité de relancer un multilatéralisme incarné par les Nations unies. Derrière ce slogan, c’est le rattrapage de l’Occident qui est au cœur de la grande stratégie chinoise, et qui se traduit par un discours, partagé par Moscou et dans une certaine mesure New Delhi, affirmant le déclin de l’Occident.
Mais la Chine reste discrète, d’une part parce que c’est dans sa culture diplomatique (on se souvient notamment que Deng Xiaoping, leader du pays de 1978 à 1989 et encore très influent dans les années 1990, estimait que la RPC devait demeurer en retrait sur la scène internationale), et surtout parce qu’elle n’a aucun intérêt à s’exposer, laissant son principal rival, Washington, s’empêtrer dans des guerres sans fin qui ternissent un peu plus son image et sa crédibilité. Traduisant la pensée de Xi Jinping, le magazine The Economist fit ainsi sa une du 4 avril avec une photo représentant les deux hommes et ce titre moqueur : « N’interrompez jamais votre ennemi quand il fait une erreur. »
Ce discours sur le déclin de l’Occident s’adresse avant tout à la population chinoise, dans l’accompagnement du « rêve chinois » cher à Xi Jinping, afin de la conforter dans l’idée que le retour de la puissance chinoise est en marche, et que le régime en est le principal garant. C’est un enjeu important quand on sait que la montée en puissance de la RPC est confrontée à de nombreuses difficultés (ralentissement de la croissance, crise démographique, enjeux environnementaux, corruption…), et que les critiques, même timides et souvent réduites au silence, ne manquent pas.
Mais c’est aussi le Sud global que vise Pékin, dans une rhétorique qui invite à un remplacement progressif du leadership d’un Occident présenté comme décadent vers un « nouveau monde » incarné par les BRICS et ayant, au sommet, Pékin. Le multilatéralisme promu par la RPC pourrait ainsi être une phase transitoire vers un nouvel ordre mondial.
Il ne faut surtout pas, dans le monde occidental, sous-estimer la portée de ce discours, que la politique étrangère de Donald Trump et les multiples hésitations de l’Union européenne ne font que renforcer. On le voit notamment dans de nombreuses études qui font état d’un regain de confiance à l’égard de la Chine dans le Sud global, Pékin étant tout simplement vu comme plus responsable que l’Occident et moins susceptible que ce dernier de mettre en œuvre des « doubles standards » à l’égard des pays tiers.
Trump et l’obsession chinoise de Washington
Donald Trump a fait de la relation avec la Chine le principal enjeu de sa politique étrangère. Il s’inscrit en cela dans la continuité de ses prédécesseurs qui, républicains comme démocrates, ont tous manifesté une obsession chinoise depuis un quart de siècle. De « l’endigagement » de Bush Jr. au « pivot » d’Obama, en passant par le développement de partenariats avec les pays de la zone indopacifique, les guerres commerciales, l’insistance sur le piège de Thucydide ou les pressions sur la question des droits de l’homme, la méthode a parfois divergé, mais l’objectif reste le même : empêcher la Chine de devenir la première puissance mondiale.
Du Venezuela à l’Iran, on voit que la stratégie de l’actuel président américain consiste à viser indirectement Pékin et ses approvisionnements, en particulier en s’attaquant à ses partenaires, dans l’espoir de contraindre son rival à de nouveaux accords commerciaux. Mais cette stratégie ne fonctionne pas, et au-delà de belles promesses, Donald Trump rentrera de Pékin les mains vides s’il pense pouvoir contraindre le président chinois à de quelconques concessions, spécialement en ce moment où les États-Unis voient leur influence et leur crédibilité considérablement mises à mal.
Reste un scénario, qui semble plus que jamais envisageable en ce qu’il serait à l’avantage de Pékin et qu’il correspondrait à la stratégie du « deal » de Donald Trump : le grand marchandage (great bargain). Afin de conserver des acquis de plus en plus menacés en Asie-Pacifique, les États-Unis pourraient trouver un accord global avec la Chine sur une sorte de partage de la région. Longtemps jugé tabou à Washington, ce marchandage pourrait être considéré par le locataire de la Maison-Blanche comme un accord gagnant-gagnant. Problème : quelles seraient les lignes démarcation, de la péninsule coréenne à l’Asie du Sud-Est, en passant par Taïwan ?
Plus que jamais, les partenaires de Washington en Asie-Pacifique suivent avec attention et anxiété les positionnements d’un président américain qui a fait de l’imprévisibilité le marqueur de son mandat.
Ce texte a bénéficié du soutien de la Taiwan Fellowship 2026 du Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), République de Chine (Taïwan).
Longtemps pensés uniquement à l’aune de leur fertilité, les sols sont aujourd’hui redécouverts pour leur statut de puits de carbone. Autrement dit, leur capacité à séquestrer le carbone en fait des contributeurs de premier plan à la lutte contre le changement climatique. Une étude sociologique menée auprès de scientifiques, politiques et acteurs publics territoriaux met en évidence cette redéfinition climatique des sols et ses conséquences concrètes.
Si le rôle climatique des forêts comme puits de carbone est connu depuis les années 1990, celui des sols l’est moins. Ces derniers contiennent pourtant trois fois plus de carbone et jouent un rôle clef dans son cycle global. Lors de la COP21 à Paris en 2015, le gouvernement français avait lancé l’initiative 4 pour 1000 afin d’encourager les agricultrices et agriculteurs à séquestrer du carbone dans les sols.
En augmentant les stocks de carbone des sols, la démarche visait à compenser les émissions fossiles tout en améliorant la qualité des sols. Mais la capacité des sols à séquestrer du carbone requiert l’adoption de pratiques agricoles spécifiques : implantation de couverts végétaux, réduction du labour, plantation de haies ou d’arbres, ou encore restitution à la terre des résidus de cultures comme les pailles. La préservation des zones humides, des forêts et des prairies, dont les sols sont particulièrement riches en carbone, contribue aussi à atténuer le changement climatique.
Comment ces diverses pratiques de séquestration du carbone modifient-elles les conceptions des sols ? L’équipe du projet ANR Posca a mené une vaste enquête sociologique pour répondre à cette question. À la clé, plus de 250 entretiens approfondis avec des scientifiques, des décideurs publics, des agents de collectivités territoriales et des acteurs agricoles.
Cette enquête montre que l’essor des pratiques de séquestration s’accompagne d’une redéfinition climatique des sols. Longtemps considérés principalement sous l’angle de la fertilité agricole, les sols sont désormais également vus comme des puits de carbone. Et cela, dans une large gamme de mondes sociaux : la recherche scientifique, mais également les politiques agricoles nationales et les territoires.
Les chercheurs ont notamment adapté leurs questions de recherche afin d’interroger les processus qui permettent de stabiliser le carbone dans les sols. Cela a permis de faire évoluer les modèles représentant ces mécanismes, dans le but de contribuer à améliorer les scénarios climatiques. Ils ont également créé de nouvelles infrastructures de surveillance des stocks de carbone dans les sols à l’échelle nationale, et noué de nouvelles collaborations avec les sciences du climat.
Les enjeux climatiques ont par ailleurs conduit les scientifiques des sols à produire de nouveaux travaux d’expertise, à la fois dans le cadre du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC) à l’échelle internationale, mais aussi à l’échelle nationale, pour estimer le potentiel de stockage du carbone dans les sols. Ces réorientations de leurs travaux permettent de fournir des éléments d’appui aux politiques publiques et aux développements économiques liés à la séquestration du carbone.
Les chercheuses et chercheurs ont ainsi transformé leurs agendas et pratiques de recherche pour produire des connaissances qu’ils estiment utiles à la lutte contre le changement climatique. Mais cela n’a pas été sans créer de nouvelles tensions au sein de cette discipline, notamment autour de la question de l a non-permanence du carbone dans les sols.
Des crédits carbone pour les sols agricoles qui stockent
De nouvelles conceptions climatiques des sols sont également véhiculées par l’initiative du 4 pour 1000, depuis sa publication fin 2015 par le ministère de l’Agriculture. Cette initiative tire son nom du calcul selon lequel augmenter tous les ans d’environ 0,4 % le stock global de carbone contenu dans les sols permettrait de compenser l’augmentation annuelle des émissions de gaz à effet de serre.
Plus récemment, une étude coordonnée par Inrae a permis de préciser le potentiel de séquestration des sols nationaux. Celui-ci équivaut à environ 40 % des émissions de gaz à effet de serre du secteur agricole en France – soit 6,5 % du total des émissions nationales. Certes, c’est loin de pouvoir compenser l’ensemble des émissions nationales de gaz à effet de serre, mais cela reste une contribution bienvenue à l’effort d’atténuation, que le gouvernement souhaite encourager.
Cette promesse de séquestration est d’autant plus mise en avant aujourd’hui qu’elle permet de repositionner le secteur agricole comme solution au changement climatique, dans une période où celui-ci est fortement critiqué – quand bien même le secteur reste émetteur net de gaz à effet de serre.
Le gouvernement français a ainsi lancé son label bas carbone (LBC) fin 2018. Cadre de certification des réductions d’émissions et des pratiques séquestrantes, il vise, entre autres, à rétribuer les efforts des agriculteurs qui adoptent de nouvelles pratiques vertueuses. Il permet notamment d’attester du nombre de tonnes de carbone séquestrées, pour que les agriculteurs puissent vendre les crédits carbone correspondant à des entreprises ou des collectivités. Le principe est celui du marché carbone : ces acheteurs pourront, à leur tour, alléguer d’une contribution à l’effort d’atténuation du changement climatique.
Le label bas carbone contribue à véhiculer une vision des sols agricoles comme puits de carbone optimisables grâce aux changements de pratiques agricoles. Pour autant, son impact reste actuellement limité, car les projets qui en relèvent mobilisent finalement très peu la séquestration du carbone, mais plutôt des pratiques de réduction des émissions.
Des collectivités qui quantifient le carbone dans leurs sols
Depuis 2016, une nouvelle législation exige par ailleurs que les collectivités de plus de 20 000 habitants évaluent le potentiel de séquestration de carbone par les forêts et les sols. Elles doivent ainsi concevoir un plan climat air énergie territorial (PCAET) qui mesure, entre autres, la quantité de carbone contenu dans les sols et détaille des stratégies possibles pour augmenter ces stocks. La réglementation reste cependant muette sur les moyens et les outils utiles pour quantifier et gérer les stocks de carbone des sols.
Dans ce contexte, les collectivités territoriales mobilisent divers instruments de quantification du carbone des sols. Les analyses de terre étant longues et coûteuses à mettre en œuvre, ces outils reposent généralement sur des données et des modèles numériques qui prédisent l’évolution des stocks de carbone en fonction de différents scénarios de gestion.
L’Ademe a par exemple développé l’outil Aldo, qui permet aux fonctionnaires territoriaux et aux bureaux d’études d’obtenir aisément des valeurs de stocks de carbone.
Agro-Transfert, un organisme de recherche et développement agricole, a également créé l’outil Simeos-AMG. Initialement pensé pour aider les agriculteurs à conserver des sols fertiles et riches en matière organique, il est désormais mobilisé par les professionnels agricoles pour connaître l’impact carbone de leurs pratiques, ainsi que par certaines administrations territoriales pour concevoir leur plan climat air énergie territorial. Le carbone des sols devient ainsi un nouvel objet d’action publique dans les territoires.
Vers une redéfinition climatique des sols
Notre recherche a ainsi mis en lumière la façon dont les sols se trouvent redéfinis à l’aune des enjeux climatiques, que ce soit dans les mondes de la recherche scientifique, des politiques agricoles nationales ou des territoires. Nos résultats montrent que cette climatisation des sols se traduit d’ores et déjà concrètement par de nouvelles pratiques, des engagements et des instruments inédits qui se développent.
Les sols ne sont par ailleurs pas réduits au rôle de simples réservoirs de carbone à optimiser. L’enquête révèle que nombre d’acteurs, en particulier scientifiques, rappellent que ce carbone à séquestrer peut être relargué dans l’atmosphère, notamment si les pratiques agricoles de séquestration ne sont pas maintenues sur le long terme.
De ce fait, il est crucial d’inscrire ces changements dans le long terme. Et cela d’autant plus que ces pratiques sont aussi alignées avec des gains en termes de fertilité et de qualité des sols, les principales préoccupations dont ils faisaient jusqu’ici l’objet. La redéfinition climatique des sols relie ainsi les questions d’atténuation climatique avec les questions de maintien de la fertilité agricole et de conservation de la qualité des sols.
Céline Granjou a reçu des financements de l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche pour le projet ANR-20-CE26-0016
Antoine Doré a reçu des financements de l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche.
Hélène Guillemot a reçu des financements de l’ANR pour le projet POSCA.
Laure Manach a reçu des financements de l’Agence nationale de la recherche et de la Fondation TTI.5.
Léo Magnin a reçu des financements de Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) dans le cadre du projet POSCA.
Robin Leclerc a reçu des financements de l’ANR
Stéphanie Barral a reçu des financements de l’Agence Nationale de la Recherche.
