Why an armed group linked to al-Qaida is gaining ground in Mali

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tessa Devereaux, Assistant Professor in Politics, SOAS, University of London

Mali’s military regime is coming under increasing pressure from Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin (JNIM), an armed group linked to al-Qaida that now controls large swathes of territory across the Sahel region of western and north-central Africa. The group is blockading major highways in Mali and torching tanker lorries, with dwindling fuel supplies threatening to suffocate the country economically.

Expert observers have described JNIM as one of “Africa’s deadliest jihadist groups”, with the insurgency responsible for an estimated 64% of violent events in the Sahel area since 2017. It is rapidly expanding its territorial reach, and has launched a series of coordinated attacks across Mali in recent months.

The group has seized army infrastructure, carried out strikes on convoys of fuel tankers, and assaulted foreign-owned factories and mines. It has also kidnapped foreign nationals for ransom. Some experts anticipate that the group may soon start a full siege on the Malian capital, Bamako.

So what is behind JNIM’s success? On the surface, the explanations are clear. Mali’s government has struggled for decades to assert control over the northern and central regions of the country. Decades of neglect, corruption and state brutality have eroded public trust in state institutions, while human rights abuses perpetrated by the military have deepened these grievances.

A wave of military coups across the Sahel in recent years has been met with cautious optimism in some quarters, raising anticipation of a more effective counterinsurgency strategy against JNIM forces. Yet the group’s recent successes in Mali suggest a militarised approach has done little to increase the region’s stability.

A map showing JNIM's area of operations in western Mali.
Jama’a Nusrat ul-Islam wa al-Muslimin has been escalating its attacks in western Mali in recent months.
Critical Threats Project

Explaining JNIM’s success

JNIM has provided security and justice in a context where state efforts have failed. As an amalgamation of several preexisting armed groups, the group has deep local roots across the Sahel – encompassing people from the Tuareg, Arab, Fulani, Songhai and Bambara ethnic communities.

This has allowed it to intervene effectively in communal conflicts, from tackling banditry to solving disputes over resource access. With some parts of Mali having been governed exclusively by the group for 11 years, it is clear that JNIM is providing an attractive offer to much of the civilian population.

Research shows that JNIM also appeals to local populations in other, more unexpected, ways. One overlooked factor is the group’s emphasis on social mobility. Its leaders have criticised and attacked local elites for neglecting social welfare provisions and employment opportunities, while maintaining rigid social hierarchies.

This social justice message means the group appeals especially to formerly enslaved populations and marginalised pastoralists, some of whom have reported seeing recruitment as “an opportunity for social liberation”.

As a nomadic herder from central Mali’s Mopti region described in a 2016 interview with Leiden University researcher Boukary Sangaré: “The only feeling that animates us is that we can free ourselves from the yoke of the domination of our elites. We have long been subjected to all forms of exploitation by the administration in complicity with our elites … This is why many of us are in the bush with weapons.”

Rigid gender norms are another piece of the puzzle, with access to marriage being at the heart of the group’s appeal to disenfranchised youth. Marriage is a key social institution in Mali. Yet soaring bride prices – payments made to a bride’s family that are almost universal across Mali – mean marriage is largely out of reach for young men.

Islamist groups have offered practical solutions to this gendered grievance. In one survey from 2020, carried out by the NGO International Alert, 100% of women and 90% of men surveyed in the Mopti region said JNIM affiliates had improved access to marriage.

As one man described in an interview in 2022: “The jihadists have helped to reduce the celibacy of women. Now everyone finds someone … They reduce all the expenses of the ceremonies that prevented young people from getting married, so they get married more easily.”

Focus groups conducted in central Mali demonstrate similar findings. One respondent in the village of Siniré reported in 2020 that “high bride prices are now prohibited; they have to be reasonable … Nowadays you’re free to marry without money being demanded from you.”

These strategies have even boosted support for JNIM among women. Known for enforcing strict dress codes and curbs on freedom of movement, Islamist groups like JNIM are often assumed to be straightforwardly oppressive to women – yet evidence suggests the story is more complicated.

By appealing directly to them and capitalising on gender grievances in Mali, the group is able to undermine powerful local elites and establish social control over large areas of territory.

In the context of widespread gendered discrimination, Islamist courts are sometimes seen as more likely to rule in favour of women. In focus groups held in the central Malian villages of Sampara, Siniré and Torodi, one woman described how “if a girl is forced into marriage, she may now appeal to the armed extremists to uphold her right to consent”.

Other women see Islamist governance as a worthwhile trade-off, noting that the group offers protection from sexual violence. A survey conducted across Mali in 2019 identified physical protection as a primary motivation for Malian women to support Islamist groups.

In 2020, during an interview with International Alert, a female public figure in Mopti compared the jihadists favourably to other armed groups, as well as state actors. She explained: “The jihadists are responsible for less sexual abuse compared with the others … and any of their people who are found guilty of these kinds of acts are executed.”

The rapid recent expansion of JNIM across the Sahel, and the increasing threat it poses to the city of Bamako, make it clear the group should not be underestimated. Meanwhile, the scorched-earth campaign pursued by Mali’s military government has done little but exacerbate resentment.

JNIM has proved adept at navigating the social and political fault lines which the Malian state and international community have long ignored. Unless these root causes are addressed, the group is unlikely to be defeated.

The Conversation

Tessa Devereaux has received funding from the Harry Frank Guggenheim Foundation, United States Institute of Peace and the International Studies Association. She is an Assistant Professor in Politics at SOAS, University of London.

ref. Why an armed group linked to al-Qaida is gaining ground in Mali – https://theconversation.com/why-an-armed-group-linked-to-al-qaida-is-gaining-ground-in-mali-268787

Scary stories for kids: Monster House is a kid’s film for serious and budding horror buffs alike

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Jacobsen, Senior Lecturer in Film History in the School of Society and Environment, Queen Mary University of London

In Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho (1960), Marion Crane looks up at the house looming in the night sky behind the Bates Motel, its hybrid New England/Victorian style oddly out of place. We’re left with the odd, impossible feeling of a face made up of windows for eyes and a door for a mouth.

That uncanny sense of a building being unconsciously anthropomorphised became a well-used horror trope, from the New England clapboard home of The Amityville Horror (1979) and at scale in Kubrick’s The Shining (1980), the vast Overlook Hotel’s lit windows strongly suggesting a brooding, malevolent giant looking back at the camera.

Part of an early 2000s wave of horror-tinged animated family films, Monster House (2006) takes that eerie suspicion that houses are looking back at us and makes it brilliantly literal. The house really is looking back at DJ and Chowder, two pals who believe they see sinister goings-on across the street in the house of cranky, gap-toothed Mr Nebbercracker (Steve Buscemi).

As the film’s plot unfolds, we see the shutters of the top windows open and shut like eyelids, sharpened slats flip up and become teeth in the mouth of the front doors and the clapboard exterior creak and contort into frowns and sneers.




Read more:
Scary stories for kids: Gremlins and the terror of normal, even cute, things becoming horrific


From the opening shot that follows an orange autumn leaf as it floats to the ground, Monster House oozes Halloween atmosphere. Co-written by beloved American comedy creator Dan Harmon (Rick and Morty and Community), it’s a perfect film for horror aficionados and a brilliant first taste of the genre’s delights for the young novice.

In the first three minutes alone there are visual references to The Shining, Rear Window, Creature from the Black Lagoon, Psycho and others I likely missed. Behind its quirky horror-lite surface there is a surprisingly emotional story of a devoted husband and wife, and a charming depiction of childhood friendship.


This article is part of a series of expert recommendations of spooky stories – on screen and in print – for brave young souls. From the surprisingly dark depths of Watership Down to Tim Burton’s delightfully eerie kid-friendly films, there’s a whole haunted world out there just waiting for kids to explore. Dare to dive in here.


This film is ostensibly for a family audience but I don’t mind admitting it scares me. It carries a PG certificate and I might place the age range at 8+ for this film, not least because of the (apparent) onscreen death that occurs in the first ten minutes.

I regularly recommend it to seasoned grownup horror fans for how well it understands and executes the conventions of the genre. Watching it almost 20 years after its release, the CGI animation is clearly a bit clunky but the atmosphere remains deeply creepy.

The film is particularly brilliant in its execution of the “Lewton Bus” variety of fake-out jumpscares. These creative acts of trickery are named for a moment in the Val Lewton-produced 1942 film Cat People where the audience fears that Jane Randolph will be mauled by a growling off-screen feline only to be startled by the engine of a bus pulling up to the kerbside. This iconic scene became the basis for similar jump scares in classics of the horror genre, from Halloween to The Descent.




Read more:
A brief history of the haunted house in western cinema and literature


Centring on friendship between a group of industrious kids and the inherent creepiness of American small town suburbia, the film is also a nostalgic love letter and a gateway to the fiction of Stephen King. It is particularly inspired by IT, whose dilapidated “House on Neibolt Street” provides the scariest sections of King’s book and its 2017 film adaptation. King fans will also spot the cymbal clattering toy monkey as a reference to King’s short story The Monkey.

While some of the film’s eerie tension is lost once the house uproots itself and goes on a small-scale, Godzilla-like suburban rampage, it’s a film that is unafraid to try out fun ideas and follow through on its weird promise. Monster House is one of my favourite family films and, for its sheer love and enthusiasm for the genre, one of my favourite haunted house films full stop.

Monster House is suitable for children 7+


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.


The Conversation

Matt Jacobsen 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.

ref. Scary stories for kids: Monster House is a kid’s film for serious and budding horror buffs alike – https://theconversation.com/scary-stories-for-kids-monster-house-is-a-kids-film-for-serious-and-budding-horror-buffs-alike-268518

Why are so few environmental criminals on Interpol’s ‘most wanted’ list?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Diogo Veríssimo, Research Fellow in Conservation Marketing, University of Oxford

Environmental crime is big business, often listed among the world’s top five criminal activities, just behind counterfeiting and drug crime. So it would be reasonable to think it is a big priority for global law enforcement.

But our new research suggests this is not the case. For each country using a global list to track down wanted individuals, less than 2% of the crimes they were wanted for were environmental, on average.

Interpol’s red notices are one of the few ways to understand international law enforcement priorities. When nations submit a red notice, these alert Interpol’s 196 member nations of the details of a wanted person, including physical characteristics and a description of the crime.

Once approved, Interpol publishes this on its list of red notices, and requests that law enforcement agencies including police forces assist in locating the named person – then provisionally arrest them pending extradition or other legal action.

Red notices do help. Recently, Simon Leviev, an alleged fraudster dubbed the “Tinder Swindler”, was arrested after a red notice was issued for allegations of defrauding multiple women he met on the dating app of large sums of money. The notice flagged him as a wanted person when making an international border crossing, promoting cross-border cooperation between police and border forces. He was arrested at the Georgian border for crimes committed predominantly in Norway.

Our research examined how frequently this is used to combat environmental crime, compared with other crimes such as fraud or murder. By analysing red notices, we wanted to know if environmental crime is a global priority.

Our results showed that this tool is rarely used for environmental offences. Of more than 4,400 active Interpol red notices when we did the study in December 2023, just 21 were categorised as environmental crimes. That’s less than 0.5% of the total.




Read more:
Explainer: what is an Interpol red notice and how does it work?


figure by Sally Sinclair, based on Interpol Red List data
Figure by Sally Sinclair, based on Interpol red list data.
CC BY

If you’re thinking maybe this tool only works for high-profile individuals, that isn’t the case. Earlier this year, Interpol coordinated a global operation involving 138 countries and regions to arrest 365 suspects and seize 20,000 endangered animals.

And in 2023, Tanzania requested the publication of two red notices which led to cooperation between Tanzania, Thailand and Egypt to track down a wanted individual for tortoise trafficking. The publication of the red notice flagged their wanted status as they crossed an international border, leading to their arrest.

Red notices can evidently be a useful tool in the fight against growing environmental crime.

Why this matters

Environmental crime is vast, including illegal logging, mining, waste trafficking, and the poaching and smuggling of wildlife. Together, these activities generate billions of dollars each year, often ranking just behind the global trade in drugs and arms.

They drive deforestation, pollution and biodiversity loss, while fuelling corruption and violence as they converge with other violent, organised crimes.
They can be incredibly harmful not just to the environment but people too.

There is a growing recognition of the impact of pollution on people’s health, for example. Without tackling this crime, growing global commitments to protecting biodiversity, such as through the 30×30 target – where nations commit to protecting and conserving a minimum of 30% of land and sea for biodiversity by 2030 – risk becoming symbolic.

The near-absence of environmental criminals from Interpol’s red notice list matters because it reflects how low environmental enforcement still ranks in global policing priorities. As long as these crimes are treated as less important, they will continue to thrive in the shadows, with enormous social and ecological costs.

Strengthening cooperation between national police forces through means such as Interpol red notices could make a big difference, especially in the face of cuts to international development funding, which may leave some enforcement agencies under-resourced.

Environmental crime isn’t a niche issue, it’s a threat to global security, public health, and issues such as pollution and water quality that the public depend on. If governments truly consider it a crisis, why aren’t more of its perpetrators on the world’s most-wanted list?

The problem may not simply be that governments don’t care. Environmental crime often crosses borders and legal systems. It’s not always clear who is responsible, or even which laws apply.

A crime such as illegal fishing or waste dumping may affect multiple countries, making prosecution difficult. Some nations still treat environmental offences as minor, while others lack the capacity to investigate the crime enough to find out who is responsible.

It is important to understand why nations aren’t using Interpol’s red list more effectively to prosecute environmental crime. Finding out if it’s lack of will, resourcing, or understanding of how to prosecute the perpetrators could be key to tackling environmental crime more effectively.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

Diogo Veríssimo receives funding from the UK Government’s Illegal Wildlife Trade Challenge Fund.

Sally Sinclair receives funding from The Leverhulme Trust Space for Nature Doctoral Scholarships.

ref. Why are so few environmental criminals on Interpol’s ‘most wanted’ list? – https://theconversation.com/why-are-so-few-environmental-criminals-on-interpols-most-wanted-list-268346

The psychological toll of hurricanes – major storms leave more than wreckage behind

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gulnaz Anjum, Assistant Professor of Climate Psychology, Centre for Social Issues Research, Department of Psychology, University of Limerick

When a hurricane strikes, the first images we see are of roofs ripped off, trees uprooted and streets turned into rivers. But the psychological toll is just as real, and it often lasts far longer than the physical damage. In countries such as Jamaica, each storm hits communities that are already vulnerable, disrupting sleep, hope and mental health in ways that rarely make the headlines.

Once the winds fall silent, anxiety and grief settle in. In Jamaica, where Hurricane Melissa made landfall as a category 5 storm, these emotional effects are already visible. The fear, disconnection and exhaustion that follow a disaster of this scale are not fleeting. They can shape lives for years.

The damage is not only about what is lost, but about what is transformed. Familiar spaces become wreckage. This disorientation tears at a person’s sense of safety and belonging, creating what psychologists call “environmental grief”: the distress that comes from seeing a cherished environment damaged beyond recognition. Rebuilding is essential, but it rarely restores that sense of home.

Hurricanes create deep anticipatory anxiety, along with fear of recurrence. Being unable to reach loved ones in the aftermath can be one of the most distressing experiences. When power lines collapse, mobile phone towers fail and the internet disappears, silence itself becomes terrifying. Not knowing whether a loved one is safe brings panic and helplessness.

Studies show that when communication systems collapse, anxiety levels rise sharply and sleep problems become common. Nightmares and flashbacks can continue long after electricity is restored. For many survivors, this psychological isolation is worse than physical displacement.

Repeated exposure to hurricanes – through direct loss, evacuation or even media coverage – can heighten psychological sensitivity over time. Research shows that each subsequent storm compounds mental strain, leaving people more vulnerable to lasting emotional distress.

Long-term studies after Hurricane Katrina found that symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can persist for more than a decade. One in six low-income mothers were still experiencing symptoms consistent with PTSD 12 years later. Those who already had mental health challenges before the hurricane were even more likely to suffer long-term effects.

Life in limbo

Research on displacement and trauma describes recovery as “life in limbo” – a period when survivors are neither in crisis nor in full recovery, suspended between exhaustion and obligation. This state is increasingly common in communities recovering from climate-related disasters as they try to rebuild their homes, social networks and sense of stability.

As people pick up the pieces, the emotional cost grows. Many spend weeks clearing mud, repairing homes and navigating bureaucracy to access aid, often while caring for children or elderly relatives. These overlapping burdens deepen fatigue and despair.

Even the sounds of recovery – chainsaws, water pumps, cranes and bulldozers – can keep people on edge. Such noises may trigger fear or panic long after the winds have passed. Chronic uncertainty about jobs, shelter and safety drains both body and mind. A 2023 study found that people in hurricane-affected regions reported up to 14.5% more “poor mental health days” each month for years after the event.

For women, the psychological weight of climate disasters is often heavier. Research shows that women in climate-affected communities, particularly in the developing world, shoulder much of the emotional labour. They calm children, care for elders, manage scarce resources and suppress their own fear to hold families together. In low and middle-income settings, this invisible care work sustains households but takes a lasting toll on women’s mental health.

Beyond resilience

Hurricanes are not simply sources of “stress.” They are collective traumas. Across the Caribbean, emotional wreckage remains long after debris is cleared.

This is why the idea of resilience deserves scrutiny. Headlines that celebrate the “resilience” of island communities risk masking deeper psychological impacts. Endurance is not empowerment. It often reflects the necessity to survive amid weak infrastructure, limited aid and fragile mental health systems.

Calling people resilient can sound like praise, but it can also hide the reality that many are forced to endure impossible conditions. Survival is not proof of strength – it is often a response to inequality, neglect and the absence of real support.

The idea of resilience sounds positive, but it can be misleading. When communities are praised for being resilient, it implies they can cope without help. This framing risks excusing the inequality and neglect that make recovery so hard. People are surviving because they must, not because the conditions are acceptable.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports that warmer oceans are already making tropical cyclones stronger and rainfall heavier. As climate change drives more frequent and intense storms, adaptation must go beyond rebuilding homes and roads. It must also include psychological preparedness for recurring trauma and uncertainty.

True recovery is collective, not individual. Communities need trust, shared care and systems that protect mental health as much as physical safety.

For Jamaica, recovery will mean more than clearing mud or rebuilding homes. Fear and anxiety will linger long after the infrastructure is repaired. Markets, churches and neighbourhoods that once anchored communities may be gone. Families relocated inland may feel disconnected from the coasts that shaped their lives.

Images of people “picking up the pieces” may look like resilience, yet beneath them lies deep exhaustion. Survival should never be mistaken for wellbeing. The winds of Hurricane Melissa have passed, but their echo will live on in the minds of those who endured them. These communities – and their mental health – must not be forgotten.

The Conversation

Dr Gulnaz Anjum is a climate and community psychologist. She works as an Assistant Professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Limerick, Ireland. Dr Anjum also leads Global North–South research and educational collaborations at the Solidarity Hub, University of Oslo (Norway), and the Karachi Urban Lab (Pakistan).

Dr Mudassar Aziz is a climate psychologist and a researcher at University of Oslo.

ref. The psychological toll of hurricanes – major storms leave more than wreckage behind – https://theconversation.com/the-psychological-toll-of-hurricanes-major-storms-leave-more-than-wreckage-behind-268617

Home vs office working: why it doesn’t have to be a battle

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Wood, Professor of Management, University of Leicester

William Perugini/Shutterstock

More than five years into the homeworking revolution, a narrative seems to have emerged – of employees being hauled back to the office against their will. This contrasts with what COVID taught us: that people can work flexibly, benefit from not commuting, and even work for employers based far from their home – expanding the labour pool for employers.

In fact, both of these arguments are oversimplifications.

There is nothing inherent to working from home that makes it inefficient or efficient. It may not be particularly flexible, and may lead to people working longer hours (though this is variable). Even if employees welcome it, they may still experience downsides like missing in-person relationships.

The one pre-COVID study which used objective data to compare homeworking and onsite working, from Stanford University in the US, found that productivity of homeworkers was higher. But later studies, using objective and subjective measures, have produced mixed results.

The pre-COVID study later found no difference in average productivity levels between hybrid and full-time on-site working. Hybrid workers did nonetheless have higher levels of job satisfaction and lower quit rates.

But these studies do not delve behind the figures, implying that productivity simply reflects employees’ effort. In contrast, my recently published research, using professional workers from two universities in the last phase of COVID lockdowns, reveals a more complex picture.

The employees I interviewed reported that homeworking enhanced their ability to focus, particularly through having fewer interruptions from colleagues. They were saying they were more effective but not necessarily more efficient. Their emphasis was on getting tasks done, rather than the working hours or effort this required.

The majority did not report a significant increase in hours worked. If their working day was longer, it often reflected a change in when work was done – for example, to accommodate home-schooling.

Fewer interruptions and better focus may lead to workers achieving more in less time. But it may equally mean employees take more care over their work, or delve into issues in more detail – both of which may actually reduce the number of tasks achieved.

Of course, better quality of work can sometimes translate into greater productivity. If a worker is more focused when writing reports, for example, this could result in fewer drafts and less time spent proof-reading.

The paradoxes of homeworking

Homeworking is characterised by paradoxes. In my study, many employees missed the social side – yet the lack of interruptions was a positive consequence of this. One employee called homeworking “a two-sided coin. Yeah, I really enjoy the ability to concentrate better and focus, [but] I miss being able to engage with people [in] daily contact.”

A second paradox emerged: remote working allows people to spend more time at home, but it also makes it harder for them to detach from work. Again, the positive and negative sides of homeworking are interdependent.

Consequently, homeworking has similar effects on performance. The lack of social interaction diminishes people’s ability to do their job, yet the lack of interruptions increases it. More time with family and for domestic duties is good for wellbeing, yet struggling to switch off is detrimental to it.

How well employees perform in their jobs (and domestic tasks) will reflect how well they manage these tensions – and deal with questions such as: “Should I complete a task, or attend to my family?”

These challenges are managed in various ways, using substitutes for face-to-face interactions and strategies to detach from work. Methods used within my sample include having a separate office or asking family members not to interrupt them during work hours.

More subtle strategies to separate work from home life include people dressing in work clothes before logging on, then changing when finishing work. One man used a towel to cover his PC after logging off, to hide his work equipment and signal the end of his working day.

homeworking man wearing a suit on his top half and pyjamas on his bottom half.
Dress for the role you want.
Elnur/Shutterstock

What employees want

How successful people felt in managing these homeworking conflicts had a big influence on how they judged their performance – and their view of homeworking and its role in their future lives.

Hybrid working – where an employee combines working at home with working on-site – is a way of managing these contradictions so employees achieve a more integrated life. Most participants in my study preferred it – even though they had learned to manage working at home during their forced experimentation with it during COVID lockdowns.

I found that attitudes to homeworking changed over the course of the pandemic. At first, many people were wary. For example, a personal assistant believed she could not possibly do her work at home, as it depended on a close relationship with her boss – but later began to realise that she could.

Most participants said they would not want to go back to a full-time on-site role, because they did not want to lose this improved work–life balance. But the majority were particularly attracted to hybrid working, which they said helps to manage the paradoxes of homeworking.

There was widespread recognition that some aspects of work are best done on-site and others at home. Strikingly, avoiding commuting or wanting to spend more time at home were not key considerations for most of my interviewees.

However, my findings suggest that reversing the trend towards homeworking, or attempting to limit hybrid working patterns, may be at odds with the preferences of workers. Reports of conflicts over hybrid working are commonplace – for example, the dispute at the UK’s Office for National Statistics.

I believe there is no need to pit the benefits of on-site working and homeworking against each other. Rather, the aim should be to make both options function optimally. Employers should encourage line managers and employees to review what can – and cannot – be done at home.

As for employers who really want on-site working as the default, they should begin by ensuring they provide an attractive work environment and opportunities for employees to feel involved.

The Conversation

Stephen Wood’s research was part-supported by a grant from the University of Leicester’s ESRC Impact Acceleration Account (GrantES/T501967/1).

ref. Home vs office working: why it doesn’t have to be a battle – https://theconversation.com/home-vs-office-working-why-it-doesnt-have-to-be-a-battle-267084

Why men need more exercise than women to see the same heart benefits

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jack McNamara, Senior Lecturer in Clinical Exercise Physiology, University of East London

Oestrogen levels may partly help explain these differences. PeopleImages/ Shutterstock

Exercise is like medicine for the heart, and just like with medication, you need the right “dose” for it to be effective. But a recent study suggests that the dose might not be the same for everyone. Researchers found that men need roughly twice as much exercise as women to see the same reduction in their heart disease risk.

This recent study asked over 85,000 UK adults aged 37-73 to wear an accelerometer (a device that measures body movement and activity levels) on their wrist for seven days. They then tracked each participant’s health outcomes for just under eight years.

The results are eye-opening.

Women who did roughly four hours of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week – activities, such as brisk walking, jogging, cycling or dancing, which raise your breathing and heart rate – had around a 30% lower risk of coronary heart disease. Men needed to do roughly nine hours of the same types of physical activity to see a similar reduction.

This was also true for people already living with heart disease. The paper estimated that women diagnosed with coronary heart disease needed to do around 51 minutes of physical activity each week to reduce their risk of death from any cause by 30% – while men needed to do around 85 minutes of exercise.

Although these findings might sound shocking to the average person, they confirm something that exercise scientists have suspected for years. There is also a clear biological reason that can partly help explain why women and men see such different results from physical activity.

Biological differences

Women typically have higher oestrogen levels than men. This hormone has important effects on how the body responds to exercise.

Oestrogen can help the body burn more fat for fuel during endurance exercise and helps keep the blood vessels healthy – partly by supporting their energy-producing mitochondria (the tiny powerhouses inside cells that generate energy for vital functions).

Women also tend to have more slow-twitch muscle fibres, which are efficient and fatigue-resistant. These muscles suit the kinds of steady, sustained physical activity most exercise guidelines recommend.

So the gap in “minutes needed” for similar heart benefits between women and men isn’t as shocking as the findings might suggest.

Since the study used device-measured activity, instead of asking people to recall from memory the amount of activity they did, this means the data on physical activity was accurate.

It’s also important to note the study still showed a graded benefit. More total weekly activity was linked to lower risk of coronary heart disease in both women and men. Everyone gains from moving more. The difference is just in how much activity buys the same reduction in risk.

The study does not claim that women should do less exercise – nor that men can’t reach similar benefits. It only shows that men may need more weekly activity to get there.

But there are limits to keep in mind. Activity was measured for only one week – then people were followed for about eight years.

And, as it’s an observational study, other factors that could have partly influenced the results were not taken into account – such as menopausal status (when oestrogen levels drop significantly) or whether a woman was using hormone replacement therapy (which can restore some oestrogen levels). These factors could influence how women’s bodies responded to exercise.

An older woman and man go for a run in a park.
These findings show why exercise guidelines for men and women need to change.
Master1305/ Shutterstock

It’s also worth noting that the volunteers came from the UK Biobank study. These volunteers tend to be healthier and less deprived than the general population – factors which can affect baseline heart health, access to safe places to exercise and time available for physical activity. This can affect how widely the results apply to everyone.

Still, these results make an important point about current exercise recommendations and whether they need to be revised.

Exercise recommendations

Current exercise guidelines from the World Health Organization, the American Heart Association and the NHS are sex-neutral. But this new study challenges these recommendations – showing they might not apply equally to everyone.

For decades, most exercise research was done predominantly in men and results were often assumed to apply equally to women. As better device-based data arrives, we’re learning that women and men may get different returns for the same number of active minutes.

This matters because women and men experience heart disease differently – from symptoms to outcomes. If the amount of exercise needed to reach the same benefit also differs, our advice should reflect that while still keeping things simple and practical.

This isn’t about telling women to exercise less. The 150-minute baseline remains a useful target – and many people don’t yet meet it. What these findings suggest is that women who meet current targets may see more heart health benefits per minute of exercise. That’s encouraging news for anyone who struggles to find time for longer workouts.

For men, the message isn’t “double your gym time”. It’s to keep building activity in ways that fit your week – with more total minutes bringing even greater heart health benefits. Whether different types or intensities of exercise might be more efficient for men remains a question for future research.

Both men and women clearly benefit from regular physical activity. That’s not in question. But what does need to be recognised is the clear biological differences that influence the returns men and women see from the same types of exercise.

Cardiac rehabilitation and exercise referral schemes often set identical targets for men and women. This new research suggests we may want to rethink schemes and tailor goals to each person’s starting point.

But until cardiac rehabilitation becomes more personalised, the core message for now is: move more, sit less. Aim for the baseline 150 minutes of exercise each week if you can. More helps if you’re able to.

The Conversation

Jack McNamara 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.

ref. Why men need more exercise than women to see the same heart benefits – https://theconversation.com/why-men-need-more-exercise-than-women-to-see-the-same-heart-benefits-268624

How the Day of the Dead is being used to protest violence against women

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jane Lavery, Associate Professor in Latin American Studies, University of Southampton

Known in Spanish as Día de Muertos, the Day of the Dead is celebrated every year on November 1 and 2. Blending Mesoamerican, Roman Catholic and pagan roots, this celebration sees families gather in many parts of Mexico and around the world to honour and commemorate their departed loved ones.

Enjoying a festive atmosphere, people build altars or visit cemeteries where they bring flowers and picnics, light candles and celebrate cherished relatives with storytelling and song.

The ritual is celebrated globally by many migrant Mexican and non-Mexican communities, and is in a process of continual reinvention responding to different social and cultural needs.

For example, during the COVID pandemic, women leaders from Mexican migrant communities in the UK and Ireland organised Day of the Dead events to celebrate their heritage and remember those who had succumbed to the virus. Elsewhere, a youth group in the US reimagined Día de Muertos as an expression for healing in their community following the killing of George Floyd.

The celebration has also been co-opted by Mexican grassroots feminist organisations protesting against gender-based violence, as our new book, Changing Configurations of Día de Muertos During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Mexico and Beyond, explores.

With a focus on the tumultuous pandemic years of 2020-21, the book charts how the Day of the Dead evolved and changed in that period. These adaptations were also shaped by global anxieties surrounding the so-called “shadow pandemic” – a term used to describe the surge in gender violence over the same period.

La Catrina

The Day of the Dead is associated with the iconic image of the Catrina, depicted in the world-famous illustration La Calavera Garbancera (1910) by artist José Guadalupe Posada. Inspired by Mictēcacihuātl, the Aztec goddess of death, today the Catrina is probably Mexico’s most commodified visual emblem.

Since 2016, Mexico City’s spectacular Mega Desfiles de Catrinas y Catrines parade has also drawn millions of people, with women dressed in traditional Catrina costumes and men wearing skeleton-themed formal attire.

The Catrina has proved an appealing inspiration for women seeking to protest against the unacceptably high levels of gender-based violence in Mexico. The country has one of the highest rates of femicide in the world – a term used to denote deadly violence against women because of their gender.

Alongside the glitzy parade is an alternative event called the Marcha de las Catrinas. In Mexico City, this march follows a route between two monuments dedicated to female victims of violence, starting at the Glorieta de las Mujeres que Luchan on Avenida Reforma and ending at the Anti-monumenta on Avenida Juárez.

There, protesters erect marigold-adorned altars and crosses bearing victims’ names, and post messages of solidarity. But unlike the traditional marigold and monarch butterfly-decorated Catrina costumes, many marchers wear dresses covered in photographs of murdered or missing women and girls.

Día de Muertos and the missing voices

Such was the momentum to channel the Day of the Dead to protest against gender-based violence in Mexico that a specific Día de Muertas (day of the dead women) was proposed by the NGO Voces de la Ausencia (the missing voices), led by journalist Frida Guerrera and held since 2018.

During the COVID pandemic, social distancing measures intended to protect public health inadvertently created conditions that increased the vulnerability of women and girls by sometimes isolating them with abusers and limiting access to support services.

Feminist protests held during these years were both national and international in scope, signalling global anger at the explosion in violence triggered by lockdown policies and social isolation. A strong intergenerational dimension characterises the collective resistance, as was attested by activist Norma García Andrade during the Marcha de las Catrinas in 2020:

I rejoice in the fact that young people have joined our struggle because before, the majority was just us mothers shouting. Now we are accompanied by all these young women who help us to scream for justice.

The practice of taking up public space with one’s own body to protest gender-based violence – known as acuerpamiento – has increased in intensity in Mexico, and is best showcased during International Women’s Day marches every March. Channelling an intergenerational rage, in 2020 and 2021 women dressed as Catrinas adorned themselves with feminist fist symbols and slogans such as #TruthAndJustice, #Niunamás (not one more) and #Nuncamas (never again).

Some wore green scarves around their necks, advocating for the decriminalisation of abortion – an increasingly prominent symbol of international feminist activism across Latin America. Many Catrinas lay on the ground emulating dead corpses, surrounded by marigolds and with photos of the victims placed on altars.

These interventions use what Hispanic studies scholar Francesca Dennstedt calls tactics of feminist disappropriation, and resonate with feminist anthropologist Rita Segato’s ideas around performative disobedience.

With this takeover of public space by protesting Catrinas, these feminist groups re-imagine Mexico’s most visually alluring representation of death for a 21st-century global audience.

The Conversation

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.

ref. How the Day of the Dead is being used to protest violence against women – https://theconversation.com/how-the-day-of-the-dead-is-being-used-to-protest-violence-against-women-267559

Bugonia: a brilliant abduction thriller with Yorgos Lanthimos’s distinct absurdist stamp

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matt Jacobsen, Senior Lecturer in Film History in the School of Society and Environment, Queen Mary University of London

Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos’s fourth film with actress Emma Stone finds the pair once again galvanising one another to extraordinary work. The partnership has produced two of the finest films of the last decade – The Favourite (2018) and Poor Things (2023) – as well as the less successful but still fascinating Kinds of Kindness (2024).

Like Alfred Hitchcock with Ingrid Bergman, or Ingmar Bergman with Liv Ullmann, this has emerged into a true creative partnership where director and actress are equals in the artistic process. This latest collaboration is a hugely funny, horrifying and intense experience that defies expectations even for audiences who are prepared for the unique absurdism, visionary style and flouting of narrative logic that marks Lanthimos’s film.




Read more:
Bugonia: why some people’s brains cling to the idea that aliens are real


Teddy (Jesse Plemons) is a paranoid, suggestible conspiracy nut who, fuelled by internet diatribes, abducts corporate CEO Michelle (Emma Stone). He is convinced Michelle belongs to an alien race planning to enslave and oppress humanity. What ensues in the confines of a grim suburban basement is a tense, close quarters negotiation between slickly posed, disingenuous corporate figurehead Michelle and delusional warped fantasist Teddy.

The core of the film and its greatest asset is Stone’s nimble, pivoting performance as her character tries any number of strategies to break Teddy’s resolve and make him reflect on the folly of his actions. “I think you’re in an echo chamber,” she says becoming increasingly desperate. She is driven to rationalising with a man clearly in no mental state to accept the accusation.

Plemons returns brilliantly to the toxic narcissism that he played so well in his standout Black Mirror episode “USS Callister” and its sequel. As in those superb pieces of satirical TV, he may be tragic and ridiculous, a man who feels the world has failed him utterly. But he is still frightening and dangerous, despite a surface of goofy comic ineptitude.

While Bugonia pointedly evokes contemporary ideological conflict, neither character espouses either left- or right-wing political leanings. It’s neither a satire of the woke debate or the culture wars. Nor does it jab at Trump and his voters.

Teddy’s feelings of abuse by the “system” (whatever that might comprise in the mind of this tragically paranoid and traumatised man) are scattershot and unfocused. His only recourse in the overwhelming noise of internet chatter is to assume that the situation is so dire it simply has to be aliens manipulating events to their own obscure purpose.

This deeply uncanny film keeps itself strange through tonal shifts between the silly and the shocking. The offbeat editing, full of sudden jarring cuts scored with orchestral stabs, keeps the audience in an uncomfortably uncertain position. Surely we should recognise Teddy as a deluded lunatic. But might he actually be right about Michelle’s origins? Her cool, collected corporate ease certainly seems so fluid and precise as to be jarringly alien.

Despite Lanthimos’s visionary style and absurdist tone, the film still sits firmly within the conventions of the subgenre of abduction horror films. These are sometimes called “bottle thrillers” for their confined locations (The Black Phone, 10 Cloverfield Lane, Green Room all mine effective scares from this setup). It is absurd and comic, but it still works well as a gripping if offbeat thriller.

Bugonia is a remake, fairly closely following the broader plot of South Korean film Save the Green Planet! (Jigureul Jikyeora!, 2003). Director Jang Joon-hwan was inspired by the film of Stephen King’s Misery, one of the most celebrated bottle thrillers, whose antagonist Annie Wilkes (Kathy Bates) he felt lacked complexity. To counter this, in Save the Green Planet! it turns out that the kidnapped CEO runs a pharmaceutical company that the kidnapper blames for personal tragedy – a narrative turn Bugonia preserves.

The often profoundly uncomfortable intensity of Bugonia ratchets up as the film progresses, pivoting the audience wildly between brash comedy and abject horror. This remake plays differently to the original in its casting of a woman as the CEO. From the moment when Teddy instructs cousin Don, his gullible and impressionable accomplice, to shave off Michelle’s hair – “to prevent her contacting her alien mothership” – the audience is clear on the possibility of shocking violence.

What the film’s title means is not really elucidated during its two-hour run. But knowing that bugonia is a ritual based on the ancient Mediterranean myth that bees spontaneously generate from the carcasses of cattle helps a little when it comes to the film’s central message.

Teddy keeps bees, a mindful activity that appears to offer some comfort to an otherwise cluttered mind, oversaturated and baffled by the cacophony of internet polemics. Falling somewhere between cynical nihilism and reflective mourning, Bugonia is clearly telling us that the world might be better off if we left it to the bees.


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.


The Conversation

Matt Jacobsen 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.

ref. Bugonia: a brilliant abduction thriller with Yorgos Lanthimos’s distinct absurdist stamp – https://theconversation.com/bugonia-a-brilliant-abduction-thriller-with-yorgos-lanthimoss-distinct-absurdist-stamp-268819

A landfill tax could halt the vast amounts of healthy soil that are needlessly thrown away

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jess Davies, Chair Professor in Sustainability, Lancaster University

ungvar/Shutterstock

UK government proposals to increase the cost of sending soil to landfill have received strong pushback from the construction industry. But there is a strong environmental case for protecting healthy soils in this way.

The Treasury plans to up the cost of sending rock, soil and other “inert” materials to landfill. Charges could rise from £4.05 to up to £125 per tonne of soil landfilled by 2030. Concerns have been raised that this tax increase will be damaging for the construction industry and a major hindrance to meeting the UK government’s targets on new homes.

But as soil scientists working with practitioners across the planning and construction industry in England, we see many benefits to increasing the cost of sending soil to landfill.

The amount of soil going to landfill in the UK is staggering. Soil is one of the largest components of our waste streams: in 2020, it made up almost 60% of the material received by UK landfills.

In England alone in 2021, around 25 million tonnes of soil went to landfill. That’s about eight times more than the total amount of soil thought to be eroded across all farmland in England and Wales annually.

Since most of this soil comes from construction sites, it’s easy to assume this is contaminated. But that doesn’t appear to be the case. Only 1.5% of soils arriving at waste facilities in England in 2021 were classed as hazardous, suggesting we are throwing away mostly healthy, usable soil.

woman's hand holding earthworms, healthy dark soil
Soil is not inert. It plays vital roles in reducing flood risk, boosting biodiversity and storing carbon.
New Africa/Shutterstock

This is a massive loss of a vital natural resource. Soil isn’t easily replaced. It can take hundreds to thousands of years to form a single centimetre.

And soil is not just inert dirt: it is thought to be the biggest biodiversity reservoir on Earth, hosting more than half of the world’s species. Every truckload sent to landfill is an ecosystem destroyed – a piece of our natural heritage more or less gone for good.

While some degree of soil removal during building is inevitable, a lot more is being removed than is necessary, according to our research, to “get the muck away” and make sites easier to work on. When soils are excavated, damaged or removed from construction sites, the vital functions they provide are also being stripped away.

Different types of soil help regulate the flow and storage of water in the landscape, for example. A metre of healthy soil can hold up to 60cm of rainfall. Maintaining healthy soils in the built environment can help reduce flood risk, making our towns and cities better able to cope with extreme weather.

Removing soils during development can also make it harder and more expensive to establish and maintain gardens, trees and shared greenspaces that play an important role in our wellbeing and urban cooling.

Soil-smart building

In our experience, many people in the construction industry recognise there’s a huge opportunity to manage soils better through the planning and construction process, producing benefits for both industry and communities.

By reducing the amount of soil that’s unnecessarily excavated or sent offsite, projects can cut both the financial and carbon costs associated with moving and disposing of this material. Better soil management could also save money later on, reducing the need to buy new topsoil for landscaping or costly remediation work to fix drainage and plant establishment problems.




Read more:
How healthy soils make for a healthy life


Increasing the cost of sending soil to landfill could act as a powerful incentive for developers to think more carefully about how soil is managed during construction.

At present, the price of disposal in the UK is up to ten times cheaper than in much of Europe and the US. This low cost makes it far too easy to simply dump soil, discouraging industry innovation and good practice.

However, increasing landfill costs need to go hand-in-hand with better support for soil reuse. Encouragingly, the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) has committed to piloting a new soil reuse scheme across England, aimed at reducing the amount of soil that ends up being classed as waste – with a planned start date in 2026.

Ideally, this scheme would be rolled out alongside the landfill reforms. This could help the construction sector make better use of valuable soil resources, while preventing potential unintended consequences such as illegal dumping as landfill prices rise.

This is about establishing strong climate-resilient foundations for healthy green spaces which enhance our wellbeing and community connections. Sending soils to landfill is damaging to society and it should not be cheap and easy to do. It’s time we stop treating these amazing ecosystems like inert dirt.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

Jess Davies receives funding from UKRI research councils. She is affiliated with the Soils in Planning and Construction Task Force.

John Quinton receives funding from UKRI research council, the EU and Defra. He is affiliated with the Soils in Planning and Construction Task Force (soilstaskforce.com).

ref. A landfill tax could halt the vast amounts of healthy soil that are needlessly thrown away – https://theconversation.com/a-landfill-tax-could-halt-the-vast-amounts-of-healthy-soil-that-are-needlessly-thrown-away-268687

‘You can’t eat electricity’: how rural solar farms became the latest battlefront in Britain’s culture war

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Heffron, PhD Candidate in Geography, Lancaster University

Sean Matthews, the Reform UK leader of Lincolnshire County Council, has said he’ll “lie down in front of bulldozers” to stop Britain’s largest solar farm being built in the county. He’s taking sides in a new rural culture war that pits green energy against the countryside’s traditional image of food and farming.

Reform’s opposition to renewables isn’t surprising. Fossil fuel interests have provided around 92% of the party’s funding according to research by DeSmog (when contacted by DeSmog, Reform did not comment on that finding). But solar farms have become a way for the party to mask these interests by presenting itself as a defender of farms, fields and “common sense” against what Matthews called the “nonsense” of net zero.

Meanwhile, the protest group Farmers to Action has urged supporters to “keep the land growing, not glowing”. Its leader, Justin Rogers, has called climate change “one of the biggest scams that has ever been told”, and the group now operates in lockstep with the Together Declaration, a rightwing campaign group with an explicit anti-net zero agenda.

Yet a recent protest organised by these groups in Liverpool, at the Labour party conference, suggests there is limited enthusiasm in the farming community for these culture wars. While most of the speakers were farmers, very few working farmers showed up. (One of us, Tom, who has been to around 15 of these protests, was there in person and estimates about 50 out of around 300 people present were farmers.)

Those mobilising the culture wars are trying to turn localised rural resentments against solar panels into a wedge issue, and in the process win over rural voters to Reform as the party of anti-net zero. If Reform wins the election, it will seek to impede necessary renewable energy projects.

However, this conflicts with the majority of farmer sentiment, which shows they are concerned by climate change. So, while Reform UK is positioning itself as anti-climate, is the party, despite the rhetoric, actually anti-farmer?

‘You can’t eat electricity’

Research by the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit (ECIU) found 80% of UK farmers are “concerned about the impact of climate change on their ability to make a living”, while 87% have experienced reduced productivity due to heatwaves, floods or other climate change-induced extreme weather.

For farmers, productivity isn’t just about profit – it’s a central pillar of what sociologists have called the “good farmer” identity. This is the idea that being a successful food producer is central to how many farmers see themselves and their role.

Since the second world war, agricultural innovations have largely been aimed at producing more food, as a way to improve domestic food security.

Now, in essence, they are being asked to shift their identity to embrace energy production along with food production. But planting fields with solar panels clashes with the productivity aspect of what it means to be a good farmer. The truism that “you can’t eat electricity”, as Farmers to Action put it, is trying to speak to this sentiment.

The accusation is that taking land out of production threatens food security. In fact, only around 0.5% of UK farmland needs to be converted to solar to achieve the government’s target figure.

At the same time, as the research by ECIU has found, the very productivity of farming is being threatened by climate change. This presents an apparent tension.

Without urgent climate action, British farms will continue to bear the costs and consequences. Environmentalists and climate activists might wish to take advantage of this tension between what farmers need and what Reform is offering. While Nigel Farage, Richard Tice and co shake their fists at the sun, farmers suffer in the heat.

Corporate profits or community interest?

Many objections to large solar farms are driven by a sense of fairness. For example, a tenant farming family in Yorkshire is about to lose 110 acres of their best arable land – half their farm – to solar panels, without any compensation. This will have a devastating impact on their business – where they have lived and farmed for many decades.

For the landowner, the switch will probably be very lucrative, with energy companies reportedly offering rents as high as £1,000 per acre per year, on long-term contracts.

In this scenario, the landowner wins and the tenant loses, which goes against the principle of a just transition, the idea that those affected by the shift to net zero should not lose out. This is despite the prime minister, Keir Starmer, making a pre-election pledge that tenant farmers would be protected.

Effective green policy must ensure that green transitions benefit those doing the work or opposition will grow. Perhaps if the profits were recouped by local communities, not far-off corporations and large absentee landowners, nimbyism wouldn’t fester so easily.

There are fairer ways to deploy renewables, via initiatives which involve and benefit local communities. An example of this is Cwm Arian Renewable Energy, near to where one of us, Alex, lives. It has used the income from wind energy to support the local community in various ways, such as offering good employment, putting on community events and teaching land skills.




Read more:
Family farmers say their way of life is an impossible dream when ‘the bread of life is worth less than rusty metal’


Farmers, like the rest of society, are paying the price of high energy costs. Recent research has shown that wind energy alone has reduced British energy costs by at least £104 billion. Making clear that renewable energy developments can help with lowering energy bills could go some way to overcoming opposition.

Ultimately, farmers still want to farm and produce food. At the same time, agriculture must fit into broader green transitions. The challenge is to take on board the voices and concerns of farmers and see them as part of the transition – not treat them as obstacles to it. If not, there are plentiful voices on the right who are eager to offer them an alternative.


Don’t have time to read about climate change as much as you’d like?

Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who’ve subscribed so far.


The Conversation

Tom Carter-Brookes receives funding from Leverhulme Trust.

Tom Carter-Brookes is a member of the Green Party.

Alex Heffron 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.

ref. ‘You can’t eat electricity’: how rural solar farms became the latest battlefront in Britain’s culture war – https://theconversation.com/you-cant-eat-electricity-how-rural-solar-farms-became-the-latest-battlefront-in-britains-culture-war-268128