Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Tom Brownlee, Associate Professor, Sport and Exercise Science, University of Birmingham

It can look almost too easy: athletes gliding along on a bike, runners shuffling at a pace slower than most people’s warm-up, or someone strolling so gently it barely seems like exercise at all. Yet this kind of effortless movement is at the heart of what’s becoming known as zone zero exercise.

The idea runs counter to the “push yourself” culture of gyms and fitness apps. Instead of breathless effort, zone zero exercise is all about moving slowly enough that you could chat very comfortably the whole time. For some people, it might mean a gentle stroll. For others, it could be easy yoga, a few stretches while the kettle boils, or even pottering about the garden. The point is that your heart rate stays low; lower even than what many fitness trackers label as zone 1.

In the language of endurance training, zone 1 usually means about 50-60% of your maximum heart rate. Zone zero dips beneath that. In fact, not all scientists agree on what to call it, or whether it should be counted as a separate training zone at all. But in recent years, the term has gained traction outside research circles, where it has become shorthand for very light activity, with surprising benefits.

One of those benefits is accessibility. Exercise advice often leans towards intensity: the sprint intervals, the high-intensity classes, the motivational “no pain, no gain”. For anyone older, unwell, or returning to movement after injury, this can feel impossible. Zone zero exercise offers an alternative starting point.

The quiet power of easy effort

Studies have found that even very light activity can improve several health markers including circulation, help regulate blood sugar, and support mental wellbeing. A daily walk at a gentle pace, for example, can lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.

There’s also the question of recovery. High-level athletes discovered long ago that they couldn’t train hard every day. Their bodies needed space to repair. That’s where easy sessions came in. They aren’t wasted time, but essential recovery tools.

The same applies to people juggling work, family and stress. A zone zero session can reduce tension without draining energy. Instead of collapsing on the sofa after work, a quiet half-hour walk can actually restore it.

Mental health researchers have pointed to another benefit: consistency. Many people give up on exercise plans because they set the bar too high. A routine based on zone zero activities is easier to sustain. That’s why the gains – better sleep, a brighter mood, and lower risk of chronic illness – keep adding up over months and years.

There are limits, of course. If your goal is to run a marathon or significantly increase fitness levels, gentle movement alone won’t get you there. The body needs higher-intensity challenges to grow stronger. But the “all or nothing” mindset, either training hard or not at all, risks missing the point. Zone zero can be the base on which other activity is built, or it can simply stand on its own as a health-boosting habit.

The fact that researchers are still debating its definition is interesting in itself. In sports science, some prefer to talk about “below zone 1” or “active recovery” instead of zone zero. But the popular name seems to have stuck, perhaps because it captures the spirit of effortlessness. The idea of a “zero zone” strips away pressure. You don’t need fancy equipment or the latest wearable. If you can move without strain, you’re doing it.

That simplicity may explain its appeal. Public health messages about exercise can sometimes feel overwhelming: how many minutes per week, what heart rate, how many steps. Zone zero cuts through that noise. The message is: do something, even if it’s gentle. It still counts.

And in a world where many people sit for long stretches at screens, it might be more powerful than it sounds. Evidence shows that long sedentary periods raise health risks even in people who exercise vigorously at other times. Building more light, frequent movement into the day may matter just as much as the occasional intense workout.

Zone zero exercise, then, isn’t about chasing personal bests. It’s about redefining what exercise can look like. It’s not a test of willpower but a way to keep moving, to stay connected to your body, and to build habits that last. Whether you’re an elite cyclist winding down after a race or someone looking for a manageable way back into movement, the same principle applies: sometimes, the gentlest pace is the one that gets you furthest.

Tom Brownlee 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. Zone zero: the rise of effortless exercise – https://theconversation.com/zone-zero-the-rise-of-effortless-exercise-263365

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Elizabeth Simon, Postdoctoral Researcher in British Politics, Queen Mary University of London

In 1998, British prime minister Tony Blair was bullish about his government’s vision for local democracy in London. A city-wide referendum had just firmly endorsed New Labour’s plan to give London a mayor. Though only a third of the electorate turned out, 72% of them were in favour – much healthier than the 50% of Welsh voters who ensured, by a hair’s breadth, the creation of their devolved assembly the year before.

Blair held up the UK’s capital city as a trailblazer. “Once they see how much London is benefiting from having a mayor,” he predicted, “I am confident that people in many other cities and towns of Britain will want to follow.”

Two years later, and a quarter of a century ago this year, Blair’s government created the London mayoralty, the Greater London Authority (GLA) and the London Assembly. Since then, the mayoralty has become, in the words of local government expert Tony Travers, one of the “biggest prizes in British politics”. Former prime minister Boris Johnson, who was mayor from 2008 to 2016, embodies the career-boosting potential of the office.

Coming alongside a sweep of constitutional reforms, the mayoralty, authority and assembly were supposed to address a perceived democratic deficit.

True, through Westminster, London was unquestionably the geographical centre of British political power – and dominant economically too. But after the 1986 abolition of the Greater London Council by Margaret Thatcher’s government (a council led, not coincidentally, by outspoken socialist and future inaugural mayor Ken Livingstone), one of the world’s great cities lacked its own democratically elected authority. This was a running sore. New Labour’s reforms were supposed to address it.

But 25 years on, the evidence that these institutions adequately represent the capital’s 9 million citizens is, at best, mixed.

Admittedly, as Blair predicted, more mayors have been added to the UK’s political landscape since London first took the plunge. But the UK capital’s particular institutional setup has not proven popular.

Our poll of a representative sample of adults in London shows, shockingly, that just 30% of people living in the capital feel they have “some” or “a lot” of influence over decision-making in the UK. Even when asked how much control they felt they had over decisions in London, only 31% of Londoners said “some” or “a lot”. The same figure emerged when we asked how much control they had over decisions in their constituency.

Admittedly, Londoners are slightly more trusting of local than national government to act in their interests. We found that 32% trust the mayor and nearly four in ten trust their borough council, compared with only a quarter who trust the national government. But those numbers are hardly ringing endorsements.

And it is striking that Londoners do not feel they have more influence over local than national decision-making. On existing evidence, that is not the case elsewhere in the country.

Some are particularly dissatisfied. White Londoners and those on lower social grades, with lower incomes and lower levels of educational attainment, are all less trusting than average that the government – at both local and national levels – will act in the best interests of Londoners.

We should be cautious when drawing conclusions. We cannot compare our findings with polling conducted prior to devolution, because no polls in that period asked Londoners comparable questions to those we used. And much of the dissatisfaction we pick up clearly reflects wider alienation from, and volatility in, British politics – patterns which have begun to manifest themselves in London, just as they have in other parts of the country.

Bizarre contradictions

In cities outside London, the mayor plays a “convenor” or “team captain” role for clusters of councils. But London’s unusual 32-borough structure – a reflection of its size and population density – makes this difficult. In contrast, Greater Manchester’s mayor, Andy Burnham, only has to convene ten councils.

Yet London borough leaders have recently demanded decentralising reform so the London mayoralty looks more like its counterparts. These calls may not be entirely motivated by governance concerns: frustration with perceived GLA incompetence and animosity towards the current mayor, Sadiq Khan, are also probably at play. But some advocates genuinely believe that City Hall is overpowered.

Others take a different position. Though the mayor and the GLA can make significant decisions in areas like transport (think, for example, of the congestion charge), they lack the chunky institutional and taxation powers of comparable cities such as New York and Paris.

This leads to bizarre situations. Formally, the mayor is responsible for the critical service of policing, yet cannot even appoint the commissioner for the Metropolitan Police. City Hall is caught between borough councils delivering core services and successive national governments determining budgets – including the Met’s. As declassified government papers reveal, such a situation was a worry even before the role existed: a young Pat McFadden, then political adviser to Blair, privately expressed such concerns about the draft plans in 1997.

Unfinished business

It does not appear, then, that devolution has made Londoners feel empowered over their capital’s politics. Add this to the frequent attacks on “Sadiq Khan’s London” from prominent national and international politicians, especially from the right, and it seems the future of London’s democratic institutions is as contentious as it has ever been.

A quarter of a century since the capital got its first mayor, Londoners still don’t feel as though they are adequately represented, and that they can trust their politicians to deliver for them.

---

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

---

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. It’s 25 years since London got a mayor – and our polling reveals discontent – https://theconversation.com/its-25-years-since-london-got-a-mayor-and-our-polling-reveals-discontent-263359

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Andrew Dix, Senior Lecturer in American Literature and Film, Loughborough University

“I’m still excited when somebody makes a movie out of something that I’ve done,” Stephen King recently told The Guardian. This openness to exhilaration on King’s part is remarkable, given that he is such a widely adapted writer. To date, more than 90 of his novels and short stories have been adapted for cinema and television (and more adaptations are currently in production).

Variations in the scale of his works have proved no barrier for potential adaptors of King. The 1,100 pages of The Stand (1978) have been processed for the screen. But so too have been the 110 of Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption (1982). Genre shifts across the long arc of King’s work have also been accommodated by adaptors. While early ventures in horror such as Carrie (1974) and Misery (1987) were rapidly taken up by Hollywood, equal haste has been expended recently to bring to American TV King’s crime novels featuring the likeable sleuth Holly Gibney from the Holly series.

In all of this furious adaptive activity, differences in quality are only to be expected. For every screen treatment with the lustre of Kubrick’s The Shining (1980), there is a dull or clumsy transposition such as John Power’s two-part miniseries of The Tommyknockers (1993).

Even King’s involvement in a project is not a guarantor of success. His role as executive producer failed to prevent Salem’s Lot (1975), his horrifying tale of vampires in Maine, from being defanged when it was adapted for cinema in 2024.

---

Read more:
Salem’s Lot: a faithful but shallow adaptation of Stephen King’s classic vampire novel

---

Now King is back as an executive producer, this time attached to The Life of Chuck, a film adapting one of the novellas included in his 2020 collection, If It Bleeds. Here, however, he is working alongside something of a King specialist (if not a King obsessive), the screenwriter and director Mike Flanagan. He has already adapted two novels by the author: Gerald’s Game (1992) and Doctor Sleep (2013).

Happily, The Life of Chuck proves to be a thoughtful adaptation, shot through with King’s sensibility while augmenting the original novella through its own cinematic choices.

The Life of Chuck showcases King’s continuing interest in narrative experimentation, even in this late phase of a long writing life. Three acts, structured in reverse chronology, consider moments in the seemingly unremarkable life of Chuck Krantz (Tom Hiddleston), a New England everyman. Flanagan’s adaptation sensibly preserves this design.

There are a few instances in the film where the director appears inhibited by his source material. In his Guardian interview, King reveals himself to be pleasingly without any sense of proprietorship about the adaptative process, saying he thinks of his novels and short stories and the films made from them as “two different things, like oranges and apples”. But where Flanagan draws verbatim on the novella for sustained passages of voice-over, especially in act one, he is in danger of not sufficiently differentiating his apple from King’s orange.

Elsewhere in the film, however, Flanagan frees himself from King’s storytelling. More is done on screen than on the page to weave together the three acts, as when characters restricted in the novella to one segment only appear in other places in the film (a roller-skating girl, for example, or high school English teacher Marty Anderson, played by Chiwetel Ejiofor).

New motifs are included in one strand by Flanagan so as to prepare us, subtly, for another part of the story. Most notably, an allusion in act three to the 19th-century poet Walt Whitman, great celebrator of everyday American experience, who is an animating presence in act one.

In praise of ordinariness

Film is a mixed or “composite” medium, having at its disposal not only the visuals of photography but the resources of other forms such as architecture, dance, music and theatre. All are mobilised effectively in Life of Chuck.

A low-key score by the Newton Brothers is heard throughout, further endowing the several sections of the film with narrative continuity and atmospheric unity. The drumming that figures prominently in the middle section is echoed in act one when Chuck’s rock‘n’roll-loving grandmother bangs the rim of a saucepan.

Dance, too, is central to The Life of Chuck as a screen experience. This is not an especially kinetic film: the camera tends to move smoothly, while editing transitions are generally stately (rationing the terrifying jump cuts common elsewhere in King adaptation). But there is vivid movement in the film’s middle section.

Recalling the extended set-pieces of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers musicals that we catch glimpses of when characters are watching TV, the adult Chuck frees himself from the constraints of life as a be-suited accountant and spontaneously dances.

The dance is one of many moments in which The Life of Chuck celebrates the ordinary, uncovering its richness. Ordinariness has a long tradition in American writing (a field in which King, as a former English teacher, is expert). Consider John Williams’s novel Stoner (1965), perhaps, or Raymond Carver’s short story A Small, Good Thing (1983). But Flanagan has succeeded in the challenge he sets himself to bring ordinariness to a cinema screen that often, these days, is populated instead by images of the super-heroic and fantastical.

---

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.

---

Andrew Dix 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. The Life of Chuck: Stephen King adaptation celebrates the richness of ordinary life – https://theconversation.com/the-life-of-chuck-stephen-king-adaptation-celebrates-the-richness-of-ordinary-life-263691

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Sam Phelps, Commissioning Editor, International Affairs, The Conversation

This article was first published in The Conversation UK’s World Affairs Briefing email newsletter. Sign up to receive weekly analysis of the latest developments in international relations, direct to your inbox.

---

The next phase of the war in Gaza has begun. Israel’s military is carrying out the early stages of an assault to capture Gaza City, with 60,000 reserve troops expected to be called up for the offensive. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians will evacuate south.

World leaders have condemned the assault. The French president, Emmanuel Macron, said it “risks plunging the entire region into a cycle of permanent war”. Belgium’s foreign ministry added it would “lead to more death, destruction and mass displacement”.

These developments come days after Hamas officials accepted a new ceasefire proposal to pause the war. The offensive scuppers any hopes of such a deal moving forward, says Julie Norman of University College London.

Norman, associate professor in politics and international relations, sees this as an all-too familiar situation. Hamas has responded positively to various ceasefire proposals over the past year that have subsequently broken down.

Beyond a ceasefire, the two warring parties also remain far apart on what “ending the war” actually includes. There are major sticking points around the disarmament of Hamas and Israel’s intention to maintain “security control” in Gaza after the war.

So don’t expect the violence to end anytime soon, writes Norman. As one Israeli reservist told her during a recent trip to the region: “Last year at this time, I didn’t imagine there could possibly be another year of war. Now, it’s hard to imagine there not still being a war in another year from now.”

---

Read more:
No end to the violence as Israel launches its assault on Gaza City

---

The Israeli government has meanwhile approved the construction of a new settlement in the West Bank, comprised of about 3,500 new dwellings. Leonie Fleischmann, senior lecturer in international politics at City St George’s, University of London, lays out why the plan is particularly controversial.

She writes that the settlement’s construction, deemed illegal under international law, “would cut the West Bank into two separate parts, rendering it impossible to establish a contiguous Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital”.

This certainly seems to be the intention of the Israeli government. Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s hard-line finance minister, declared that the approval of construction plans “buries the idea of a Palestinian state”. He added: “Every town, every neighbourhood, every housing unit is another nail in the coffin of this dangerous idea”.

---

Read more:
Israel’s plan for massive new West Bank settlement would make a Palestinian state impossible

---

Trump the peacemaker?

Elsewhere, we have interrogated Donald Trump’s claim that he resolved six conflicts in a matter of months. We interviewed six experts on those regions to find out what Trump actually did, and whether it made a difference.

Some of Trump’s claims hold up, to an extent. In the case of Thailand and Cambodia, for example, his threat to suspend trade talks with both countries was the breakthrough that paused hostilities.

His mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan has also resulted in the warring countries coming together to agree a possible pathway to peace after decades of conflict. But our experts were unanimous in their verdict that, ultimately, Trump’s claim doesn’t fully stand up.

---

Read more:
Did Trump really resolve six conflicts in a matter of months? We spoke to the experts to find out

---

One war Trump cannot claim to have solved is in Ukraine, which was the focus of two high-stakes summits over the past week. The first saw Trump roll out the red carpet for Vladimir Putin in Alaska. He signalled afterwards that the pair had discussed Ukraine ceding land to Russia in order to end the war.

Trump then met with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky and the leaders of some of Ukraine’s European allies at the White House a few days later. Zelensky will have left this hurriedly arranged meeting feeling a sense of relief.

There seems to have been no real pressure put on Ukraine to give land to Russia, and Trump even appeared to accept the European position that security guarantees for Kyiv will be vital if any peace deal is to stick. But the results of this meeting were still far from perfect, says Stefan Wolff.

Wolff, professor of international security at the University of Birmingham and a regular contributor to this newsletter, explains that Trump is hailing the fact that a direct meeting between Putin and Zelensky has not been ruled out as a major success of the past week’s diplomatic efforts.

However, as Wolff notes, a peace process remaining somewhat intact is a far cry from an actual peace agreement. Even then, he says, any further progress towards peace is likely to happen at a snail’s pace. Russia already looks to be dragging its feet.

Putin reportedly suggested to Trump that Zelensky could travel to Moscow for talks. This is an option Kyiv could not possibly have agreed to. Meanwhile, Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has watered down hopes of any such meeting taking place, saying it would have to be prepared “gradually”.

---

Read more:
Transatlantic unity at the White House disguises lack of progress towards just peace for Ukraine

---

Security guarantees

Equally unclear are the details of security guarantees for Ukraine. Zelensky has praised Trump’s indication that the US is ready to be part of that guarantee, and says he hopes it will be “formalised in some way in the next week or ten days”. But what are the options?

One proposal includes western allies offering Ukraine what Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni, has called an “article 5-style” protection. We spoke to Mark Webber, professor of international politics also at the University of Birmingham, about what that means.

As Webber writes, Meloni was alluding to Nato’s collective defence pledge that treats an attack on one member as an attack on all. However, the route to an article 5 security guarantee through Ukrainian membership of Nato has been expressly ruled out by the Trump administration, he says.

A much more likely option is that Europeans will be “the first line of defence”, with the US instead offering intelligence, weapons and air support of some kind. Trump was clear there would be no US “boots on the ground”, writes Webber.

In any case, it remains doubtful whether a security guarantee for Ukraine can be reached. Lavrov has said discussing security guarantees without Russia’s involvement “is a road to nowhere”. He has since said proposals to deploy European troops in Ukraine would be unacceptable for Russia. In the meantime, Russia’s advance in eastern Ukraine continues to gather momentum.

---

Read more:
Ukraine war: what an ‘article 5-style’ security guarantee might look like

---

It’s from eastern Ukraine that Frank Ledwidge, a military strategist at the University of Portsmouth, has just returned from a week-long trip. He has provided this account of daily life in Ukraine’s eastern capital, Kharkiv, where air-raid sirens sound at all hours but shopping malls remain busy and bars lively.

Despite all this, Ledwidge notes, there was an abiding sense of emptiness in what has come to be known as Ukraine’s “unbreakable city”. No official figures are available, but Ledwidge estimates that more than half of Kharkiv’s pre-war population of 1.5 million have left since the war began in 2022. Many of these people may never return.

---

Read more:
Kharkiv: what I saw in Ukraine’s ‘unbreakable’ eastern capital

---

---

Sign up to receive our weekly World Affairs Briefing newsletter from The Conversation UK. Every Thursday we’ll bring you expert analysis of the big stories in international relations.

---

– ref. Israel opens new front in Gaza war – https://theconversation.com/israel-opens-new-front-in-gaza-war-263484

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Kevin Anderson, Professor of Energy and Climate Change, University of Manchester

We’re now halfway through the UK government’s critical decade for tackling climate change – and 2025 is fast becoming a year of climate U-turns.

Airport expansions have been approved, the phaseout of gas-fired boilers shelved and, under the government’s latest industrial strategy, green levies on industrial energy bills that support renewables have been slashed. All while key indicators of global climate stability are deteriorating.

As carbon budget and energy policy researchers, we believe the UK’s official climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), are failing to hold the government accountable for backsliding on climate action.

Worse still, the CCC’s recommendation that the UK reach net zero emissions by 2050 does not align with international commitments to limit global warming to 1.5°C and “well below 2°C”. It also fails to reflect the UN principle of fairness and equity whereby wealthier nations like the UK cut emissions earlier and faster than poorer countries.

In fact, it systematically undermines these promises, with the CCC’s 2025 seventh carbon budget (a landmark report that advises the UK government how to tackle its emissions for the period 2025-2050) a case in point.

Hiding carbon colonialism

As a signatory to UN climate agreements, the UK is obligated to “take precautionary measures” based on “best available scientific knowledge” to prevent “threats of serious or irreversible damage” to the climate. This includes setting carbon budgets rooted in the principles of equity and with a high chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Yet, scientists warn this window is closing fast.

Recent research concludes that from 2025, the world can emit no more than 160 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) for a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5°C. Despite this, the CCC uses a global carbon budget almost 50% higher, at 235GtCO₂.

Internationally, the UK ranks tenth in wealth, fourth in historical cumulative emissions, and has per capita historical emissions four times the global average. Yet, the CCC disregards the UN principle that wealthy nations, whose prosperity was built on fossil fuels, must shoulder greater responsibility to rapidly cut emissions.

With just 0.84% of the global population, the UK’s equal share of the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget (160 GtCO₂) would be 1.34 GtCO₂. The CCC allocates it 3.7 GtCO₂ – nearly three times its equal per person share. However, even an equal share allocation would fall far short of the UN’s equity framework. Past CCC analyses have likewise embedded significant inequities.

Such misappropriation of the carbon budget shifts the burdens of climate change on to more vulnerable communities globally, prioritising the UK’s high-carbon norms over the right of low-income nations to sustainable development. The CCC’s departure from the UN’s core equity principle reveals how colonial norms remain deeply embedded in climate policy.

Carbon removal roulette

Major societal transformations, such as moving from private car to public transport, are largely absent from the CCC’s recommendations. In contrast, large-scale engineered removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and fossil fuel carbon capture and storage are assumed to be technically and socio-economically feasible.

The CCC definition of “feasible” prioritises near-term political convenience over scientific integrity and climate stability.

Despite a 4% decline in car travel over the past decade, the CCC estimates a per person increase of 10% by 2050. By avoiding pathways that challenge consumption norms, the CCC sidelines proven approaches like reducing car dependence or enforcing robust energy efficiency standards.

This highly cautious approach to behavioural change contrasts sharply with its assumptions on the future deployment of CDR, projecting UK engineered removals to increase from 0-13MtCO₂ by 2035, and 36MtCO₂ by 2050 – or nine and 26 times the total global level in 2024.

This scale of expansion contradicts historical trends. Similar heroic assumptions underpin CCS projections in electricity and blue hydrogen production (from natural gas). The CCC proposes the UK capture and store 33 MtCO₂ annually by 2050, triple the current global rate – for a technology that has barely advanced despite decades of promises and investment.

While some carbon removal is necessary to offset “impossible to mitigate” emissions from agriculture – for example, nitrous oxide from fertiliser use – using CDR to justify ongoing fossil fuel use is a high-risk approach that undermines the Paris climate commitments.

---

Read more:
Climate tipping points are nearer than you think – our new report warns of catastrophic risk

---

Nature-based carbon removal options are also overstated. The CCC projects removing 30 MtCO₂ per year by 2050 but insufficiently addresses the impacts on food security and land conflicts. Though reforesting offers ecological benefits, climate-driven wildfires, droughts and pests can rapidly re-release stored carbon. Such insecure carbon storage cannot offset guaranteed emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Ultimately, the CCC is deeply conservative on near-term changes to consumption norms, while embracing dangerously optimistic projections of future carbon removal technologies. It accepts temperatures will overshoot global targets significantly, and banks on future correction – despite the risk of triggering irreversible climate tipping points.

Hard truth

The allure of the CCC’s net zero 2050 advice is that it claims to offer a pathway to avoid both major social transformation and a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, yet still meet the UK’s fair share of the 1.5°C commitment.

This politically appealing interpretation is scientifically flawed, downplays the gravity of climate risks and disregards principles of international justice. The CCC and others must stop being silent on these critical issues and end the carbon colonialism at the heart of the climate agenda.

The UK’s net zero 2050 framing isn’t just delaying urgent action, it normalises ecological breakdown while maintaining the illusion of responsible stewardship. It worsens climate impacts and undermines preparedness by presenting inadequate measures as 1.5°C compatible. A fundamental rethink of the UK’s climate policy requires a consensus that is grounded in equity, scientific integrity and transformative ambition.

---

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.

---

Kevin Anderson is presenting views here that belong to the named authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of researchers within the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

Chris Jones has received funding from UKRI. The views in this article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.

Gaurav Gharde 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. The UK’s year of climate U-turns exposes a deeper failure – https://theconversation.com/the-uks-year-of-climate-u-turns-exposes-a-deeper-failure-254499

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Heba Ghazal, Senior Lecturer, Pharmacy, Kingston University

Around 25% of hay fever sufferers in the UK are allergic to birch tree pollen. This means that for a good chunk of the population, the arrival of spring and summer means sneezing, itchy eyes, blocked sinuses and days spent indoors avoiding pollen. But the recent approval of a new drug could mean relief from these symptoms for thousands living in England with severe allergies to birch pollen.

Birch pollen is the most common allergy-causing tree pollen across most parts of Europe and the UK. Pollen from birch-related trees including alder, hazel, oak, hornbeam and beech trees can also trigger symptoms – ranging from coughing, congestion and sneezing to itchy, watery eyes.

Symptoms are usually at their peak in April and May, but can sometimes last up to six months – from January to June. Research investigating UK pollen trends has also found that climate change – specifically rising temperatures – is making the UK birch pollen season longer and more severe.

Birch pollen allergies are triggered when the immune system mistakes pollen proteins for harmful pathogens. This causes the immune system to make immunoglobin E (IgE) antibodies – a type of immune defender that attaches itself to immune cells.

This means that the next time the body is exposed to the allergen, the IgE antibody will tell the immune cells to release the immune chemicals histamine, leukotrienes and prostaglandins to destroy the perceived pathogen. Histamine acts within seconds to cause itching, sneezing, swelling of blood vessels and mucus production.

New treatment

The standard treatment for birch pollen allergies include oral antihistamine and corticosteroid nasal sprays. However, a UK study found that even with both, only 38% reported good symptom control. That means up to 62% of people spend birch pollen allergy season fighting to control their symptoms.

But the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) has just approved a new oral treatment for adults with severe allergies to birch tree pollen. The tablet, called Itulazax (betula verrucosa), is a type of immunotherapy.

Immunotherapy differs from standard allergy medications by targeting the root cause. The idea is simple: treat the allergy with the allergen that causes it – in this case birch pollen extract. Repeated exposure to tiny, controlled doses of the allergen then trains the immune system to build tolerance over time. The goal with immunotherapy is to change how the body reacts to the allergen entirely rather than just ease the symptoms.

Itulazax raises immune tolerance to birch pollen by reducing the number of IgE antibodies the immune system makes when exposed to birch pollen and increasing the number of protective antibodies the body makes. This significantly reduces major pollen allergy symptoms and prevents the body from mounting an immune response against birch pollen in the future.

The treatment is specifically approved for adults with severe birch pollen allergies who have not responded to regular allergy treatments. To qualify for treatment, a confirmed diagnosis is required through a skin prick or blood test showing a reaction to birch-related trees.

Clinical studies show the treatment is generally safe, with the most common side-effects being mild to moderate itching in the mouth and throat irritation – both linked to how it is taken under the tongue. As such, the first tablet must be taken under medical supervision – with at least 30 minutes of monitoring for immediate side-effects.

Though the treatment is effective, it’s not a quick fix. To see results treatment should start at least 16 weeks before the birch pollen season begins and continue through the season. So for people with severe symptoms, this means they may need to start taking the treatment in November. The course also lasts around three years.

Still, for the thousands of people in the UK who experience birch pollen allergies, this new treatment offers a solution for symptoms that can range from annoying to debilitating. The approval of this immunotherapy also offers hope that immunotherapies to treat other types of hay fever will someday be approved.

Heba Ghazal 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. Hay fever: new immunotherapy approved in England for people with severe birch pollen allergies – https://theconversation.com/hay-fever-new-immunotherapy-approved-in-england-for-people-with-severe-birch-pollen-allergies-263286

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Bleddyn Bowen, Associate Professor in Astropolitics and Space Warfare, School of Government and International Affairs (SGIA), Durham University

The UK Space Agency (UKSA) has become part of the government’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT). The announcement was made on August 20 2025 by Chris Bryant MP, minister of state for data protection and telecoms.

Cutting red tape and duplicative bureaucracy within DSIT and UKSA seems to be the main rationale in the press release – that and bringing “together the people who shape space policy and those who deliver it”.

Though it sounds like a demotion for UKSA, what the changes mean in practice for the crafting of UK space policy, and the direction of UK space policy itself, remain uncertain. More importantly, rearranging the deckchairs of DSIT and UKSA will not resolve the chronic problems facing British space policy.

The first problem is that UKSA has lacked a clear identity and responsibility over policy, regulation and research within civil space activities. It is not like Nasa or the European Space Agency (Esa) – UKSA does not operate satellites, nor conduct major research and development projects by itself.

UKSA has competed with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) over licensing and regulatory powers for satellite launches from the UK, which the CAA has possessed since the mid-2010s.

On research, UKSA acted mostly as a research council, rivalling the work traditionally performed by the UK Research and Innovation’s and Science and Technology Funding Council (STFC).

STFC apportions funding for space science and research for universities and industry. UKSA is also the main point of contact for distributing Esa funding for British industry and university contributions to Europe-wide space projects.

UK space policymaking

UK space policy has always been an interdepartmental and Cabinet Office concern, and UKSA has traditionally only factored into consultations on the regulatory and civil space research dimensions of UK space policies. Since 2021, DSIT has taken on more space policy responsibilities regarding industrial strategy, further eroding a unique role for UKSA.

UKSA therefore has not carved out a clear niche that other departments or executive agencies cannot already claim competency within. The UK government’s position that duplication needs to be addressed is not an unreasonable one. The devil is in the details – which are missing at this time.

It is hard to say whether the bureaucratic changes will be better or worse for the creation and implementation of civil UK space policy and space science research.

The optics of this move can be easily seen and inaccurately spun as a negative in cancelling the UK space programme. No actual space projects are being cancelled.

The UK government has clearly recognised this, stressing that UKSA will retain a distinctive and recognisable branding in its new role, which has been effective at home and abroad in space science, industry promotion, and facilitating high-profile projects.

The second chronic problem that pre-dates UKSA – and will continue regardless of the musical chairs in Whitehall – is the lack of a coherent, joined-up national UK space programme with the funding to match. UKSA could never resolve these problems.

For example, the UK government has long pursued a policy of encouraging small satellite launch companies, yet has never allocated the funds necessary to deliver a tangible capability within any reasonable schedule, nor has it created a national UK satellite programme (civil or military) tailored to a high latitude launch profile, which could in turn create concrete demand for such a launcher.

After 15 years of drift, UK launch has gone from being ahead of the curve in Europe (with UK-based companies such as Skyrora and Orbex) to falling behind France, Sweden, or Spain as possibly the first new European small satellite launch providers.

This is a basic lesson in space programme design that seems lost on generations of British policymakers, but one that established satellite launching countries have taken to heart.

Modestly sized space powers have focused on crucial long-term national capability programmes and stumped up the cash for them, such as France’s Spot or India’s Insat programme. Such priorities are not evident in the UK across the civil and military space sectors.

As I explained to the UK House of Lords Select Committee’s UK Engagement with Space inquiry earlier this year, British space policy spreads out too little money in too many directions on small research projects rather than bold national infrastructural space programmes.

The government must also consider the security and military dimensions of space, which cannot exclude UKSA or the civil, industrial and research dimensions as they in turn provide the capability and know how to build British space systems.

The Boris Johnson government formed the National Space Council to drive and coordinate these partnerships, yet it was abolished by the Truss government and reinstated during the Sunak government. There have been no announcements from the Starmer government yet on any meetings of the council. This bureaucratic chaos has not helped efforts to cohere a strategic direction in space.

While the Ministry of Defence claims it wishes to invest in all manner of new space capabilities in the 2025 Strategic Defence Review, it cannot do so without a large injection of new funding, far beyond the billions already allocated for the military satellite Skynet 6 and defence satellite system ISTARI. More than funding, a clear decision on a specific capability is needed, rather than doing a little bit of everything.

Developing one kind of new satellite constellation, such as radar imagery for military operational needs – numbering in dozens of new satellites – would be the biggest undertaking for the MoD in space since the Skynet satellite communications system.

Doing the same for other capabilities at the same time, such as optical imagery, signals intelligence, or laser communications relays, would be as big a challenge again, and perhaps too much to take on at the same time.

For space policy wonks, academic researchers and the space industry, this rearrangement will not change much in the short term – for good and bad. UKSA was never fully independent to begin with, so the changes are likely to be more esoteric, subtle and bureaucratic.

That would require courageous policy decisions at the top of government to deliver a coherent, focused, joined-up and fully funded UK civil and defence space programmes.

These are the author’s own views and not that of any institution or organisation.

– ref. The UK Space Agency has been absorbed into the science department. The potential effects are still unclear – https://theconversation.com/the-uk-space-agency-has-been-absorbed-into-the-science-department-the-potential-effects-are-still-unclear-263563

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Jason Gilchrist, Lecturer in the School of Applied Sciences, Edinburgh Napier University

Most people imagine our early primate ancestors swinging through lush tropical forests. But new research shows that they were braving the cold.

As an ecologist who has studied chimpanzees and lemurs in the field in Uganda and Madagascar, I am fascinated by the environments that shaped our primate ancestors. These new findings overturn decades of assumptions about how – and where – our lineage began.

The question of our own evolution is of fundamental importance to understanding who we are. The same forces that shaped our ancestors also shape us, and will shape our future.

The climate has always been a major factor driving ecological and evolutionary change: which species survive, which adapt and which disappear. And as the planet warms, lessons from the past are more relevant than ever.

The cold truth

The new scientific study, by Jorge Avaria-Llautureo of the University of Reading and other researchers, maps the geographic origins of our primate ancestors and the historical climate at those locations. The results are surprising: rather than evolving in warm tropical environments as scientists previously thought, it seems early primates lived in cold and dry regions.

These environmental challenges are likely to have been crucial in pushing our ancestors to adapt, evolve and spread to other regions. It took millions of years before primates colonised the tropics, the study shows. Warmer global temperatures don’t seem to have sped up the spread or evolution of primates into new species. However, rapid changes between dry and wet climates did drive evolutionary change.

One of the earliest known primates was Teilhardina, a tiny tree dweller weighing just 28 grams – similar to the smallest primate alive today, Madame Berthae’s mouse lemur. Being so small, Teilhardina had to have a high-calorie diet of fruit, gum and insects.

Fossils suggest Teilhardina differed from other mammals of the time as it had fingernails rather than claws, which helped it grasp branches and handle food – a key characteristic of primates to this day. Teilhardina appeared around 56 million years ago (about 10 million years after the extinction of the dinosaurs) and species dispersed rapidly from their origin in North America across Europe and China.

It is easy to see why scientists had assumed primates evolved in warm and wet climates. Most primates today live in the tropics, and most primate fossils have been unearthed there too.

But when the scientists behind the new study used fossil spore and pollen data from early primate fossil environs to predict the climate, they discovered that the locations were not tropical at the time. Primates actually originated in North America (again, going against what scientists had once believed, partly as there are no primates in North America today).

Some primates even colonised Arctic regions. These early primates may have survived seasonally cold temperatures and a consequent lack of food by living much like species of mouse lemur and dwarf lemur do today: by slowing down their metabolism and even hibernating.

Challenging and changeable conditions are likely to have favoured primates that moved around a lot in search of food and better habitat. The primate species that are with us today are descended from these highly mobile ancestors. Those less able to move didn’t leave any descendants alive today.

From past to future

The study demonstrates the value of studying extinct animals and the environment they lived in. If we are to conserve primate species today, we need to know how they are threatened and how they will react to those threats. Understanding the evolutionary response to climate change is crucial to conserving the world’s primates, and other species beyond.

When their habitats are lost, often through deforestation, primates are prevented from moving freely. With smaller populations, restricted to smaller and less diverse areas, today’s primates lack the genetic diversity to adapt to changing environments.

But we need more than knowledge and understanding to save the world’s primate species, we need political action and individual behaviour change, to tackle bushmeat consumption – the main reason primates are hunted by humans – and reverse habitat loss and climate change. Otherwise, all primates are at risk of extinction, ourselves included.

---

To learn more about primate diversity, behaviour, and threats to their survival, see Monkeys: Our Primate Family, as the exhibition ends its international tour with a return to the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh.

Jason Gilchrist 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. Our primate ancestors evolved in the cold – not the tropics – https://theconversation.com/our-primate-ancestors-evolved-in-the-cold-not-the-tropics-263236

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachael Jolley, International Affairs Editor, The Conversation

The US president, Donald Trump, claims to have “solved six wars in six months”. To work out if there was any substance to his claims, The Conversation international affairs editors Sam Phelps and Rachael Jolley interviewed six academic experts on those regions to find out what Trump actually did, and whether it made a difference.

India-Pakistan armed conflict in May 2025

Natasha Lindstaedt, a professor in government at the University of Essex, said that Trump and his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, have both claimed that they were able to broker some kind of peace deal between India and Pakistan, and that the US got directly involved in delivering peace.

“But this has been denied by India and Pakistan. They’ve rejected it, and they claim that it was resolved between themselves. We don’t have any way of really verifying it.”

India and Pakistan don’t tend to agree on a lot, but they tend to agree on the idea that Trump was not the reason for some kind of end of hostilities on May 10, and that it was reached bilaterally with no third party intervention, she said.

They were very clear that they reached an agreement on May 7 with no third party intervention, she said.

She added: “Trump sees himself as a peacemaker, a deal maker. This is part of his identity, and he’s leaning into this, hoping that people are going to believe it.”

Verdict: Trump’s claim doesn’t stand up

Thailand-Cambodia border dispute in July 2025

Petra Alderman, manager of the London School of Economics and Political Science’s Saw Swee Hock Southeast Asia Centre, said Trump’s intervention in the Thailand-Cambodia conflict helped push the two countries towards a ceasefire. But, in her view, long-term prospects for peace are by no means guaranteed.

“This is a multi-layered conflict that combines territorial, nationalist and dynastic grievances. At its heart is a colonial legacy of disputed border territories that have historical significance to both countries and have been used to stoke nationalist sentiments in Cambodia as well as Thailand.”

Alderman said Thailand was initially resistant to any mediation of the conflict that claimed more than 33 lives in four days and saw hundreds of thousands of people displaced. The breakthrough came when Trump phoned leaders of both countries, effectively threatening a suspension of trade talks.

“As both countries have export-dependent economies, neither could have afforded Trump’s ‘liberation day’ tariffs. Securing a trade deal with the US took precedence over the border conflict but did nothing to resolve its root causes. Future flare-ups are still possible.”

Verdict: Trump’s claim stands up (for now)

DRC and Rwanda’s long-running conflict

Jonathan Beloff, a postdoctoral researcher at the department of war studies at King’s College London, said the US-brokered peace agreement between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) ignores the history of the two countries.

Beloff argued Trump’s claim that the agreement ends 30 years of fighting is historically inaccurate. After the end of Rwanda’s 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, hundreds of thousands of Rwandans fled into eastern DRC. The refugees included elements of the genocide regime who wanted to finish their genocide.

This led to the first Congo war (1996-97) and second Congo war (1998-2003). And while these wars have now finished, the DRC remains fractured with over 120 rebel groups. “However, there have been periods of friendlier relations between the two countries. Thus, the Congolese situation should not be seen as a single war but instead as several conflicts.”

A lack of governance and proper economic strategies in the DRC, Beloff added, is also a breeding ground for rebel forces. The agreement provides scant details about how to address these issues, which led to a recent breakdown in the Congolese negotiations with the M23 rebel group.

“Fundamentally, Rwanda and the DRC were willing to have this relatively vague agreement to appease Trump, with at least the Rwandans sceptical of whether the Congolese will honour it. He did not end the war, but at best stalled the conflict for now.”

Verdict: Trump’s claim is overblown

Kosovo-Serbia conflict averted in summer 2025

Stefan Wolff, a professor of international security at the University of Birmingham, said there have long been regional tensions between Kosovo and Serbia. “Tensions have recently escalated again, so it’s far from a resolved situation.”

But, he said, there was no indication either now, or in 2020 when Trump or his envoy, Richard Grenell, brokered the so-called Washington agreement, of any real danger of violent escalation of the kind seen back in the 1990s when a war broke out between the former Yugoslav republics. But overall, he added, none of the underlying issues between the two countries had yet been resolved.

“Serbia still has a lot of domestic problems, which goes back to the collapse of the train station of Novi Sad and massive student protests and the heavy-handed crackdown by the Serbian government.” So, he added, there were still a lot of different moving pieces in the region.

Wolff felt that it was impossible to independently verify if Trump had done anything significant in 2025 to deescalate any kind of emerging conflict between Kosovo and Serbia. However, “it is true that he did get an agreement on the normalisation of economic relations between Kosovo and Serbia back in 2020”.

Trump signed bilateral agreements between the US and Kosovo and between the US and Serbia, which it was hoped to lead “economic normalisation” between the two Balkan states as well as increased religious freedoms and restitution of property.

Wolff added: “If there really was something significant [in 2025], there would be more evidence.”

Verdict: the significance of any intervention is unclear

Armenia and Azerbaijan’s 35-year conflict

Ayla Göl, a senior lecturer in international relations at York St. John University, said the US-brokered peace framework between Azerbaijan and Armenia in early August marks a historic milestone in this 35-year conflict.

“On paper, the draft deal offers a clear path to improved relations. But it has no concrete plan for the return of the over 100,000 Armenians who fled Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023.”

Göl added that demands by Azerbaijan’s president, Ilham Aliyev, for amendments to the Armenian constitution to “eliminate territorial claims against Azerbaijan” could strengthen the Armenian opposition and derail the peace process.

The peace framework also includes a pact to develop a transit corridor through Armenia, connecting Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan. The US will be given exclusive rights to develop the route, which will be known as the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity, for “up to 99 years”. This is a double-edged sword, says Göl.

“The Trump route could strengthen American security commitments in the region or create new geopolitical competition. It could, for instance, strain Armenia’s relations with neighbouring Iran, which views the transit corridor as a strategic threat.”

Verdict: peace deal not yet signed, but it’s a start

Israel-Iran conflict summer 2025

Scott Lucas, a professor of international politics at University College Dublin, said that the question of who ended the Iran-Israel conflict, which began in June 2025, should also be considered in terms of how it started.

“The fact of the matter is that when the Israelis attacked Iran, they effectively sidelined the US-Iran negotiations, which were ongoing. At that point, the Trump administration didn’t object to the fact that their attempt to deal with Iran’s nuclear programme had been completely undone by the Israeli assault. So to simply say that Trump ended the war between Israel and Iran ignores the whole 12 days and how that occurred.”

That Trump intervention, in which he told Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu to limit the strikes, came only after the Iranians and Qatar and the French had all been involved in trying to deescalate the conflict. “So you can’t claim credit for ending a war when you helped escalate that war in the first place,” said Lucas.

He added: “The Iranian regime didn’t want a war with Israel, and right now they certainly do not want to go into confrontation with Israel. They’re trying to regroup after a series of effective defeats for their position in the region, in Lebanon, in Syria, and to an extent in Iraq. So they’re not spoiling for a fight, and they’ve got serious domestic issues that are going to occupy them. The open question here is whether Netanyahu would go back and launch another attack on the Iranians.”

Verdict: An earlier Trump intervention could have avoided conflict

Overall, while clearly Donald Trump’s second administration has achieved some positive results on the international stage, the US president’s claim to have solved six conflicts in six months does not fully stand up.

– ref. Did Trump really resolve six conflicts in a matter of months? We spoke to the experts to find out – https://theconversation.com/did-trump-really-resolve-six-conflicts-in-a-matter-of-months-we-spoke-to-the-experts-to-find-out-262906

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Michael A. Lewis, Professor of Operations and Supply Management, University of Bath

About 100 new data centres, the large anonymous-looking buildings containing the complex computer systems which power the online world, are to be built in the UK. Vital for all of your digital needs – from Netflix and banking, to AI and social media – they are the heart of the modern digital economy.

They are also very expensive to build and operate, using up enormous amounts of energy and water (as a coolant). Ten years ago, a centre consuming 30 megawatts (MW) of power (enough to power 30,000 houses) was considered large. Today 200 MW is normal.

And the tech world is hungry for more capacity more quickly. It is expected that almost US$7 trillion (£5.2 trillion) will be spent on global data centre infrastructure by 2030.

The British government appears to see this kind of investment as a key part of the country’s economic future. As a result, the number of data centres in the UK looks likely to increase by one-fifth, from around 479 to around 580 within the next five years.

More than half of the new centres will be in the London area, including Google’s £740 million project in Hertfordshire. Others will be developed in South Wales, Greater Manchester and the north-east of England. All will require new infrastructure, including large amounts of cooling and power equipment.

But what are the economic benefits to being the home of so many data centres?

One clear advantage is for other tech companies operating in the UK. Being geographically close to a data centre improves digital performance. This is vital for British AI companies, which require rapid and reliable data processing, as well as sectors such as advanced manufacturing and financial services technology (fintech).

Having data centres in the UK also strengthens cyber resilience, supporting the country’s position as a secure hub for multinational operations.

More direct economic benefits from data centre construction include the thousands of contractors required to build them – as well as opportunities for local regeneration and subsidised skills training.

Operators will also pay business rates, corporation tax and energy levies which all contribute to government revenues. So overall, data centres can certainly do their bit to support the government’s industrial strategy and aims for economic growth.

Power to the processors

But data centres are by no means a golden ticket to prosperity – especially after they’ve been built. The permanent workforce at most data centres is small, with many able to operate with around 20 full-time staff.

Even Blackstone’s massive £10 billion project in Blyth, Northumberland, promises only hundreds of long-term jobs (compared to the 1,200 construction roles).

Data centres also bring considerable environmental costs. Concentrated data centre clusters, such as Slough in Berkshire, which has 14 new sites planned, risk overloading electricity grids. And data centres have so far been major users of non-renewable energy.

Cooling requirements can also be substantial, with some facilities using millions of litres of water every year.

Other environmental concerns include the production and disposal of servers and other IT equipment, the extraction of rare minerals and the generation of electronic waste. These are all factors which may undermine the UK’s ability to implement its net zero policies.

Public investment is likely to be required to reinforce grid capacity and water systems. Such costs will ultimately be paid from tax revenue as well as household utility bills, highlighting one of the economic difficulties that data centres represent – the complex knotting together of public and private investment.

So data centres pose plenty of tricky political and economic questions. How many should there be? What size and where? Who will pay for them?

For now though, the UK government appears to be largely in favour of welcoming more, classifying data centres as “critical national infrastructure”. But it cannot ignore concerns over their environmental impact.

To this end, some cities including London, Leeds and Bristol have begun to pilot schemes to recycle waste heat from data centres to warm homes, which is a promising development.

International intelligence

The UK can also learn from the experience of other countries. In 2022, for example, Ireland’s data centres were consuming 18% of the country’s electricity – a proportion forecast to rise to almost one-third by 2026.

As a result, Ireland has effectively imposed a moratorium on new data centres. The Netherlands now links new data centre approvals directly to clean energy generation.

But data centres have to be build somewhere to meet ever increasing demand. The question is whether the UK can build them fast enough, and on terms that serve its own interests for maximum economic benefit.

Moving too slowly also creates national security risks including a dependency on foreign AI infrastructure and the potential loss of control over sensitive data processing. Jensen Huang, the boss of Nvidia recently described the UK as having “the largest AI ecosystem in the world without its own infrastructure”.

The British government certainly seems keen to develop that infrastructure to strength the country’s digital ecosystem. But it needs to do so in a way which champions a sustainable approach that other nations will follow – and reduces its technological dependence on other countries.

Michael A. Lewis receives funding from the ESRC, AHRC and EPSRC.

Phil Tomlinson receives funding from the Innovation and Research Caucus (IRC).

– ref. The economic pros and cons of building more and more data centres in the UK – https://theconversation.com/the-economic-pros-and-cons-of-building-more-and-more-data-centres-in-the-uk-263302