Category: The Conversation – UK

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Paul Whiteley, Professor, Department of Government, University of Essex

Nigel Farage has accused YouGov of being “deceptive” after the polling company consistently showed Reform with less support than other surveys. He has claimed the company broke transparency rules set out by the British Polling Council over how it presents headline figures. As a result, YouGov has agreed to publish more data in future.

The chart below compares Britain’s monthly voting intentions for Reform in a poll of polls derived from 14 different agencies, with voting intentions for the party from YouGov. The comparison runs from the start of 2025 to March 2026. At first glance, it appears that Farage is right – the YouGov data is below the poll of polls data for most of the time.

However, if we calculate the difference between the two series, the poll of polls average for Reform over the last 15 months is about 28% in voting intentions – for YouGov it is about 26%. This 2% difference is well within the margin of error associated with polling; what statisticians describe as “not statistically significant”.

Vote intentions for Reform, poll of polls and YouGov

The margin of error arises because polls try to measure support for the party across Britain from a survey of only 1,500 to 2,000 respondents. A good survey tries to replicate the diversity of the country in voting intentions, but it may differ from the country-wide support for the party because of random chance.

There is no real difference between the two series in the chart once this chance element is taken into account. If the survey has a truly representative sample, this random element can be ignored. But if there are problems with the sample, it will be inaccurate.

One such problem is accurately representing ethnic minorities in the sample, because they are less likely to respond to requests to do a survey. If a particular group is underrepresented, this can bias the results. To compensate for this problem, pollsters like YouGov use weighting, which involves giving more weight to some respondents than to others.

For example, the 2021 census shows that 4% of the population in Britain identifies as ethnically black. If only 2% of survey respondents fit this description, pollsters deal with this by counting these respondents twice in the analysis, which produces 4% black respondents.

Different agencies use different weighting schemes, which gives rise to variations in the answers they get to surveys. This is acceptable, providing these differences are not too large (not statistically significant).

Another factor may be the questions asked. This is where YouGov’s discrepancy arises.

YouGov has said it asks respondents first about general voting intention, and then specific constituency-level voting. This, the company says, takes account of tactical voting and is a more accurate representation of how a general election would play out.

There are clear differences between responses to the national and constituency questions – notably, more “don’t knows” in the latter, which means more uncertainty in the constituency responses.

My explanation of this is that when people are thinking about their own neighbourhood, they realise that voting involves a serious decision which can change their lives. When they respond to the national question, they are more likely to use it as a protest against the government and other parties.

Is Reform losing ground?

One reason Farage may be upset is because there is clear evidence that Reform is losing ground in the polls since the start of the year. This can be seen in the chart below, which shows a poll of polls of weekly voting intentions for the five major national parties in Britain since the July 2024 general election.

In the early weeks of 2025, Reform moved ahead of both Labour and the Conservatives – reaching 30% in vote intentions by May that year. The party’s support hovered around this figure until the start of 2026, when it began to decline. In October 2025, Reform was at 31% in voting intentions, but by March this year it was at 27%.

Vote intentions for the five major parties in Britain since the general election

Polling is important to all politicians, despite the fact that many criticise it if they appear to be losing ground. Farage is probably more attentive than most because Reform’s support has been so volatile over time – and what goes up can come down.

With its success in local government elections, Reform is now exposed to much closer scrutiny than it was in the past. Some news stories that may explain its now-declining popularity include Reform-controlled councils raising council tax after pledging to “reduce waste and cut your taxes”, and the party receiving the largest-ever political donation from a living individual in British history. Neither of these bode well for a party claiming to represent working-class voters.

Farage (along with Kemi Badenoch) may also be regretting his rush to support the US and Israel in their war against Iran. A recent poll showed that only 28% of UK respondents supported the war, while 49% opposed it.

In the past, Farage has claimed to be a close friend of Donald Trump, but he talks about this much less these days – the US president’s approval ratings are now very poor in the UK.

Both Reform and the Conservatives are on the wrong side of public opinion on this issue, something which is likely to haunt them in the May elections this year if the war continues to damage the economy.

Paul Whiteley has received funding from the British Academy and the ESRC.

– ref. Nigel Farage attacks YouGov over low polling figures – but Reform’s support is dropping across the board – https://theconversation.com/nigel-farage-attacks-yougov-over-low-polling-figures-but-reforms-support-is-dropping-across-the-board-278693

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Anders Ahlström, Associate Professor, Department of Physical Geography and Ecosystem Science, Lund University

Most of Europe’s original natural forests have been transformed for agriculture and managed forests producing energy, paper and timber. The few remaining “old-growth” natural forests are relics of the past that illustrate how forests would have looked in the absence of human management. They can, therefore, tell us how people have transformed forests.

Most Swedish forests are so-called boreal forests. This type of coniferous woodland ecosystem encompasses most of the northern regions of the planet. These relatively cold regions have historically had low populations. Here, large-scale use of forests began relatively late.

In Sweden, modern forest management emerged in the 20th century. It involves cutting most trees in an area – clear-cutting – followed by planting and sowing of new trees, cleaning and thinning until the trees are clear-cut again up to 120 years later. The soil is also disturbed. It is very common to plough the soil and excavate trenches and ditches to remove water from forests.

After mapping and measuring the most natural old-growth forests in Sweden, we found that they differ much more from managed forests than previously thought, even if some of those managed forests looked old.

We found that old-growth forests store 78-89% more carbon than managed forests do, a difference in carbon storage larger than Sweden’s cumulative emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels since 1834. Our new study underscores the much larger carbon storage benefits that flow from protecting forests than using them to produce bioenergy and wood products.

---

Read more:
Sweden has vast ‘old growth’ forests – but they are being chopped down faster than the Amazon

---

Eight years ago, we started mapping the most natural lowland old-growth forests across the country. We focused on old-growth forest remnants in the least attractive areas for agriculture and forest management. We excluded these because they are usually slow-growing mountain forests and store less carbon than they would in the broader landscapes used for wood production. We then spent three years collecting samples and measuring the carbon content of the old-growth forests and compared with that of managed forests.

Soils are difficult to study. They store vast amounts of carbon but measuring that is difficult. The main methods to measure soil carbon have not changed in the last century. We dug 220 pits up to one-metre deep and took samples at different depths from across the country.

We analysed those soil samples in a lab and calculated carbon content in trees and dead wood from our measurements. We used the vast Swedish national forest inventory (a database collating annual sample-based survey results) to estimate carbon storage in managed forests and could then compare their carbon storage.

Managed forests are losing carbon

We found a huge difference in carbon storage between old-growth and managed forests. Old-growth forests store 87% more carbon in the trees, 334% more in dead wood, and 68% more in the soils than managed forests do. Overall, this amounts to 83% more carbon in old-growth forests than managed forests in Sweden’s boreal forests.

Most of that carbon is stored in the soils. Old-growth forests store as much carbon in their soils as the managed forests do in trees, dead wood and soils combined.

Our methods of comparing old-growth to managed forests show the sum of the total carbon accumulated in forests over time. This means the differences can be due to the loss of carbon in managed forests or a larger carbon uptake in old-growth forests.

We also took into account how the wood extracted from managed forests was used as wood products (for example, to build a house), which might not reach the atmosphere and produce climate change for decades to come.

In Sweden, around half of the harvested wood (or biomass) is burnt for heating and electricity production, around 25% is used for paper, and only around 25% ends up in products with relatively long lifetimes, such as houses, where they can form a sizeable storage over time.

When including carbon in all these products, primary forests still stored about 70% more carbon than managed forests. Actually, there’s more carbon in dead wood in the old-growth forests than in these wood products and dead wood in managed forests combined.

Why losing old-growth forest matters

The losses of carbon from forest management in Sweden are much larger than previously estimated. The difference in carbon storage between old-growth and managed forests (including harvested wood products) is equivalent to 1.5 times all Swedish fossil fuel emissions since 1834, or 220 years of Sweden’s fossil fuel emissions at current levels.

Of course, if wood products had not been used, other materials would have been used instead, some of which may have high carbon intensity (such as steel). This makes it difficult to estimate the overall effect on atmospheric greenhouse gases. However, there are now plenty of non-wood alternatives for heat and electricity (heat pumps, solar and wind energy, for example).

There are also vast areas of natural forests where the largest trees were logged many decades to a century ago, and they are likely in a state much closer to an untouched old-growth forest than an average managed forest is. Protecting these forests will, therefore, lead to a carbon sink as the large trees grow back, and avoid soil carbon losses from management.

We have previously reported on the ongoing loss of these old-growth forests in Sweden – a loss that is five to seven times faster than the loss of the Brazilian Amazon forest.

EU regulation currently protects all remaining old-growth forests in Europe, but definitions of old-growth forests are left to the member countries. In Sweden, the proposed definition of old-growth forest is based only on tree ages. This definition is not well anchored in science and sets a very high bar: 180 years in the north of the country and 160 years in the south.

These proposed Swedish definitions have been heavily criticised by conservation organisations for undermining the ambition of the EU nature restoration regulation to protect all remaining old-growth forests. If the proposed definition stands, little of the remaining unprotected old-growth forest will be protected and their logging will likely continue.

Protecting and restoring old-growth forests for carbon storage and biodiversity benefits can significantly contribute to limiting climate change in countries like Sweden.

Anders Ahlström receives funding from the Crafoord Foundation (20200755 & 20241108), Swedish Research Council (2021-05344, 2024-01983), BECC, Carl-Tryggers Stiftelse, Stiftelsen Extensus, Stiftelsen Längmanska kulturfonden, the Royal Physiographic Society of Lund, P.O. Lundells stiftelse, Jan Hain stiftelse för vetenskaplig teknisk forskning inom miljö och klimat, EU H2020 Climb-Forest (101059888), Blaustein visiting professorship at Stanford University and The Sustainability Accelerator at Stanford University.

Pep Canadell receives funding from the Australian National Environmental Science Program (NESP2)-Climate Systems Hub.

Didac Pascual 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. Sweden’s ‘old-growth’ natural forests store 83% more carbon than managed woodlands – new study – https://theconversation.com/swedens-old-growth-natural-forests-store-83-more-carbon-than-managed-woodlands-new-study-277150

Source: The Conversation – UK – By April Rees, Lecturer, Biochemistry & Immunology, Swansea University

Endometriosis is a painful, debilitating condition affecting 10% of women worldwide. It occurs when tissue similar to the lining of the uterus (known as lesions) grows elsewhere in the body – usually within the pelvis.

Treating endometriosis can be difficult. Usually, treatment involves either preventing the growth of these lesions in the first place or removing lesions surgically. But even when lesions have been surgically removed, symptoms often don’t go away.

Traditionally, endometriosis has been thought of as a gynaecological condition. But mounting evidence suggests this characterisation downplays the disease’s complexity. Endometriosis appears to affect far more than just the reproductive system. According to a growing body of research, it influences immune function throughout the whole body.

Recognising it as a whole-body, immune-driven disease could help explain why symptoms range far beyond pelvic pain. It would also explain why treatment is so challenging and often does little to reduce symptoms.

A disease of the whole immune system

Inflammation – the body’s natural response to injury or illness – is a normal part of immune response. It also plays a key role in the menstrual cycle.

But if inflammation becomes chronic or uncontrolled, it can cause problems. This is seen in autoimmune conditions such as rheumatoid arthritis, where the immune system overreacts even when there is no threat.

Chronic inflammation is also known to play a central role in endometriosis. But the effects of this uncontrolled immune response may be far more widespread than previously thought. According to recent research, the immune response appears to extend into the bloodstream and other body systems. This may explain why endometriosis causes such far-reaching, whole-body symptoms.

---

Read more:
Endometriosis: how the condition may be linked to the immune system

---

In people with endometriosis, immune cells appear to be less able to clear lesions. Yet, at the same time, people with endometriosis have higher levels of immune proteins such as IL-6 and IL-1β in their blood. These immune proteins, known as cytokines, are a type of messenger released by cells to promote inflammation.

Together, these dysfunctional cells make it possible for lesions to grow and persist. This immune dysregulation also has ripple effects across the body, contributing to the wide range of symptoms sufferers experience.

For instance, many people with endometriosis experience debilitating fatigue, cognitive difficulties (such as “brain fog”) and widespread pain. These symptoms are rarely emphasised in clinical guidelines, yet they’re often as disruptive as pelvic pain itself.

Systemic inflammation offers a compelling explanation for these symptoms. Circulating cytokines, such as those mentioned earlier, are known to influence brain function and energy regulation. Higher levels of cytokines (including IL-6) have also been linked to poorer concentration, disrupted sleep and fatigue in some autoimmune and chronic pain disorders.

These same processes may be occurring in endometriosis. This suggests that invisible symptoms could be biological consequences of ongoing inflammation – not secondary effects of pain.

A dysfunctional immune system may also help to explain why emerging research hints at an overlap between endometriosis and autoimmune diseases.

In 2025, a large scale study looked at 330,000 patients with endometriosis and 1.2 million controls (people who didn’t have the condition). The study found that compared to the controls, people with endometriosis had roughly twice the odds of being diagnosed with an autoimmune condition – such as rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, multiple sclerosis or Hashimoto’s disease – within two years of their endometriosis diagnosis.

This doesn’t mean endometriosis is itself an autoimmune disease. But it does suggest shared mechanisms – including chronic inflammation, dysregulated immune cell activity, and problems with the immune system recognising the body’s own tissue properly.

These overlapping features strengthen the case for understanding endometriosis as a systemic immune disorder.

Reframing endometriosis

Viewing endometriosis in this way could transform how it’s diagnosed, treated and understood. It could also help us get closer to finding a solution for the condition.

---

Read more:
Endometriosis takes almost a decade to be diagnosed in the UK — our research has revealed some of the reasons why

---

Current treatments primarily target the reproductive system. But if endometriosis involves widespread immune dysfunction, then therapies that modulate immune pathways may offer more effective long-term relief.

Seeing endometriosis as a systemic condition can empower patients, as well. This reframing may help them understand that symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, cognitive difficulties and immune sensitivity are not imagined or unrelated. Rather, they’re part of the condition’s broader biology.

Seeing it this way may support patients in advocating for themselves in healthcare settings, where systemic symptoms are often dismissed or deprioritised.

A systemic framing also opens space for patients to explore complementary management strategies aimed at reducing inflammation or improving overall wellbeing. While not curative, some people find gentle movement, stress regulation techniques and heat–cold contrast therapy helpful for managing pain or inflammatory flares.

A growing body of research shows that endometriosis is not solely a reproductive condition or a “bad period”. It’s a multi-system, inflammatory disorder with far-reaching health effects throughout the body.

Understanding endometriosis as a systemic immune disease is a crucial step toward better treatments, better support and, ultimately, better health outcomes.

April Rees receives funding from The Royal Society, Saint David’s Medical Foundation, and the Iraqi Government.

Laura Cowley receives funding from Health and Care Research Wales, Welsh Crucible, and the Learned Society of Wales.

– ref. Why endometriosis should be classified as a whole-body inflammatory disorder – https://theconversation.com/why-endometriosis-should-be-classified-as-a-whole-body-inflammatory-disorder-277994

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Rachel Woods, Associate Professor, University of Nottingham; University of Lincoln

The trillions of microbes living in the human gut are increasingly recognised as important partners in human health. Scientists have linked the gut microbiome to several aspects of health, from metabolism and immunity to mental health.

A recent study suggests that these microbes may also influence an important aspect of fitness – muscle strength.

Muscle strength is a crucial feature of health for many reasons. It supports our joints and keeps our bones healthy, boosts athletic performance and even plays a role in metabolic health.

Muscle strength also helps us maintain independence later in life. As muscles gradually weaken as we get older, everyday tasks become harder and the risk of falls increases. Understanding what influences muscle strength is therefore an important part of healthy ageing research.

---

Read more:
Muscle is important for good health – here’s how to maintain it after middle age

---

A recent study explored whether specific gut bacteria might be linked to muscle strength. Researchers analysed the gut microbiomes of two groups of adults: 90 young adults aged 18 to 25 and 33 older adults aged 65 to 75.

Participants provided stool samples so researchers could identify the microbes living in their gut. The researchers used DNA sequencing to read genetic material from the microbes in each sample. By comparing these sequences with large reference databases, they could determine which bacterial species were present and how abundant they were.

Participants also completed several tests designed to measure muscle strength, including a handgrip test. This involves squeezing a handheld device as hard as possible. Grip strength is widely used in health research because it provides a snapshot of overall muscle strength. Lower grip strength has also been linked to a higher risk of premature death.

When the researchers compared participants’ muscle strength with the microbes in their gut, one species stood out. Higher levels of a bacterium called Roseburia inulinivorans were linked to stronger performance across muscle strength measures.

Finding a link like this is interesting, but it does not necessarily mean the microbe is responsible. Many things can be associated without one directly causing the other. Ice-cream sales and shark attacks both increase during summer, for example – but eating ice cream does not cause shark attacks.

So to investigate whether the bacterium might actually influence muscle strength, the researchers carried out additional experiments in mice. After reducing the animals’ existing gut microbes, they introduced Roseburia inulinivorans into the mice’s digestive systems.

Mice that received the bacterium developed noticeably stronger grip strength in their arms than those that did not. Their muscle fibres also became larger and shifted toward a type of fibre associated with more powerful movements (called type II muscle fibres).

Further analysis suggested Roseburia inulinivorans may influence how muscles use energy. In mice given R inulinivorans, several energy‑related pathways inside muscle cells became more active. At the same time, levels of certain amino acids (molecules used by all living things to make proteins) decreased in the gut and bloodstream.

The human data revealed another interesting pattern. Older adults in the study tended to have lower levels of Roseburia inulinivorans in their gut microbiome than the younger participants. This fits with the broader pattern of declining muscle strength that commonly occurs with age.

In humans, it’s still unclear whether gut bacteria influence muscle strength or whether stronger, more active people simply have different microbes in their gut. But the mouse experiments hint that this microbe can directly enhance muscle strength, so larger human studies will be needed to work out the direction of the relationship.

Muscle microbes

One possibility raised by this research is the future use of probiotics. These products contain live microbes intended to benefit health. If further studies confirm that Roseburia inulinivorans supports muscle strength in humans, it could be developed into a probiotic designed to help maintain muscle function as people age.

However, supplements are not the only way to encourage beneficial microbes in the gut. Diet plays a major role in shaping the microbiome.

Prebiotic fibres, which serve as food for gut bacteria, can also support their growth. This is because feeding these microbes allows them to become more established and active in the gut.

The name inulinivorans provides a clue about this bacterium’s preferred food source. It refers to inulin, a type of dietary fibre found naturally in foods such as onions, garlic, leeks, asparagus and chicory root. These fibres are known to support the growth of other beneficial gut bacteria, including members of the Roseburia group.

High‑fibre diets have long been associated with a range of health benefits. A large amount of research has linked higher fibre intake with lower risks of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and some cancers. These effects are probably driven by the complex activity of many different microbes rather than a single species. So at the moment, supplementation of any one individual bacterium is not a replacement for a diet high in fibre.

The study does have some limitations to note, however. The human groups were relatively small, and the experiments demonstrating cause and effect were conducted in mice rather than people. The older adults included in the study were also all male. Even so, the findings add to growing evidence that the gut microbiome may influence far more aspects of health than previously thought.

For now, the advice for supporting both muscle strength and a healthy microbiome remains reassuringly familiar: regular strength‑building exercise and a diet rich in fibre.

Rachel Woods 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. Could a gut microbe influence muscle strength? – https://theconversation.com/could-a-gut-microbe-influence-muscle-strength-278346

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Lucy Stone, Assistant Professor of Children’s Literature, Dublin City University

When Winnie-the-Pooh gets stuck in Rabbit’s doorway after eating too much for elevenses, he is anxious and gloomy at the thought of having to forgo food for a whole week to get out. He asks Christopher Robin to read him “a Sustaining Book, such as would help and comfort a Wedged Bear in Great Tightness”.

A.A. Milne’s first children’s novel, Winnie-the-Pooh, does not exactly explain what a “Sustaining Book” is. But E.H. Shepard’s illustration provides some clue. Christopher Robin is shown reading an alphabet book with the word JAM for J visible on the page.

Jam is not Pooh’s favourite food, of course, but the word is more than apt. Pooh is in a jam, but being read to sustains him in his difficult situation by bringing him comfort. The book acts as “an aid in the crisis”, as former teacher Ethel Newell noted in a study of bibliotherapy for children in 1957.

Dating back to the early 19th century, bibliotherapy is a therapeutic approach that fosters reading books and other forms of literature to support mental wellbeing and healing.

This year marks the centenary of the first Winnie-the-Pooh book. Milne based the timeless tales on the nursery toys and games of his son, Christopher Robin – the boy who lives in the fictional world of the Hundred Acre Wood. His adventures with his bear, Winnie-the-Pooh, and friends (Piglet, Eeyore, Kanga and Roo, Rabbit and Owl), are equally gentle, clever and funny – and above all, comforting.

The book was an overnight success when it was first published (as was its sequel, The House at Pooh Corner, in 1928), and continues to cheer readers world over.

Literary caregiving

When Winnie-the-Pooh was published, books had been used in hospital libraries to alleviate the suffering of ill and wounded soldiers from the first world war. This idea of books as a source of comfort was not new, but there had been an increasing need in this period for what authors Sara Halsam and Edmund G.C. King term “literary caregiving”.

It was at this time that American journalist Samuel McChord Crothers coined the term bibliotherapy, and reading for wellbeing began to be recognised in the medical sphere.

Milne had himself fought in the war and experienced the suffering and trauma firsthand. Winnie-the-Pooh has long been considered a response to war, particularly in terms of the book’s nostalgia and depiction of psychological damage. But as an example of bibliotherapy – and how this too is tied to the war – Winnie-the-Pooh has received scant critical attention.

It is, of course, not just soldiers – nor bears in rabbit burrows – who need good books. Children stuck in hospital need them too. Undergoing medical treatment, especially for serious illness, can be one of the greatest challenges a child can face, as highlighted by the Read for Good initiative.

This hospital reading programme has run in 31 hospitals across the UK over the past 15 years, and has found that books and storytelling can “have a significant impact on children’s health, wellbeing and education” – at a time when children are facing illness or injury, missing out on schooling, and feeling isolated.

While Winnie-the-Pooh is not currently among the books in the Read for Good hospitals programme in the UK, the benefits of this children’s novel in hospitals have long been evident in initiatives in the US.

In 1999, the University of Florida launched a reading programme for the waiting room at the University’s Pediatric Continuity Care Clinic. One report describes a four-year-old girl who, nervously awaiting treatment, was calmed when Winnie-the-Pooh was read to her. And, just like Pooh being taught his ABCs, the child also learned new vocabulary from the story.

This programme is part of the Reach Out and Read campaign, endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which serves 4.8 million children across the US each year. Continued research efforts evaluate and maximise the impact of this initiative, and have found that there are positive results for children, families and clinicians.

More recently, in 2024 there was study of the parent-led Little Bookworms bedside reading programme in a neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) in Nashville.

Winnie-the-Pooh was selected as a book from childhood recommended by study participants to read with their infants, to “reduce anxiety and improve attachment for parents and caregivers who have infants in the NICU”. Supporting the wellbeing and engagement of carers in this way can help reduce some of the risks NICU infants face, including interruptions to language development which can affect subsequent literacy development.

Books to grow up with

More broadly, the potential of rereading a childhood book cannot be underestimated. Books read in childhood do not disappear, but “continue to unfold and inform the way in which we interpret the world” in our minds, as children’s literature expert Kimberley Reynolds of Newcastle University has established.

Paula Byrne, founder of the ReLit Foundation – which promotes reading as a way to combat stress and anxiety through “the slow reading of great literature” – has described the rereading of Winnie-the-Pooh in adulthood as therapeutic. Byrne believes the book has the capacity to grow with the reader from childhood to adulthood, offering new insights that can be appreciated in later life.

It is this ability of a book to grow with the reader that is of most help to children in distress, Newell suggested, providing “real armour” to children over a sustained period, and not just “a shot of penicillin for a particular infection”.

Over the past 100 years, Winnie-the-Pooh has grown from a book containing an example of bibliotherapy to a book for bibliotherapy in hospitals. As we celebrate the centenary of its publication, these ties to books as therapy for children and adults are well worth remembering.

Lucy Stone 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. Winnie-the-Pooh at 100: this much-loved classic illustrates how books can boost our wellbeing – https://theconversation.com/winnie-the-pooh-at-100-this-much-loved-classic-illustrates-how-books-can-boost-our-wellbeing-277528

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Matthew Powell, Teaching Fellow in Strategic and Air Power Studies, University of Portsmouth

Iran targeted energy facilities across the Middle East on March 18, including the world’s largest liquefied natural gas hub in Qatar, in retaliation for Israeli strikes on an Iranian gas field hours earlier.

Iran has gone on to attack other energy facilities across the Gulf. This has included hitting a Saudi refinery on the Red Sea and setting two Kuwaiti oil refineries ablaze in an intensification of its campaign against energy infrastructure in the region.

As an expert on military strategy, I see the Iranian attacks on Gulf energy facilities as part of a broader strategic agenda the regime in Tehran has employed to try and ensure its survival.

Iran’s attacks on energy infrastructure since the start of the conflict have been accompanied with wider missile and drone strikes against US military bases and infrastructure in the region. Through these attacks, which have killed seven American service personnel so far, the regime has looked to demonstrate its capacity and capability not only to international audiences but also the Iranian population.

This includes, perhaps most importantly, those responsible for maintaining Iran’s internal security. If those tasked with this responsibility began to doubt the regime’s capacity to respond to attack, they might become less inclined to suppress rebellions and uprisings.

The ability to exercise force has long been central to maintaining the regime’s domestic political position in Iran. This has been demonstrated by the brutal repression of various protest movements over the past decade or so.

In its attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure, Iran has two main goals. The first is to hit the Gulf states economically in the hope that this will reduce their willingness to provide support to the US.

Gulf countries are heavily reliant on the export of energy for revenue. In Qatar, for example, earnings from the hydrocarbon sector accounted for 83% of total government revenues in 2023. These revenues help Gulf states maintain the low tax regime that is enjoyed by their populations.

If these revenues reduce substantially because energy cannot be processed, some of these nations may begin to question their alliances with the US. Such a scenario would reduce the ability of the US to conduct military operations in the Middle East and project its power and influence on the region.

The war is already having a significant impact on these countries. Goldman Sachs has estimated that Qatar and Kuwait could see their GDP drop by 14% if the war lasts until the end of April. Likewise, Capital Economics has suggested that GDP in the region could fall by between 10% to 15% if the conflict causes lasting damage to energy infrastructure.

Rifts do not yet appear to be emerging between the US and its Middle Eastern allies. But Tehran will be calculating that prolonged attacks – alongside continued disruption to the vital strait of Hormuz shipping lane – will add strain to relations.

Raising energy prices

Iran’s second, and wider, goal is to raise global energy prices. The Middle East is a key energy supplier globally, so disruption to supplies in this region can have an almost immediate impact on prices.

The price of a barrel of Brent crude, the global benchmark for oil pricing, has increased from around US$68 (£51) on February 27 to nearly US$100. This has so far largely been the result of disruption to the strait of Hormuz, which has prevented the Gulf states from supplying their energy to global markets.

But Tehran’s calculation appears to be that further efforts to reduce Gulf energy supplies will force nations worldwide, who are having to implement costly policies to reduce the impact of increased energy prices on their populations, to question the actions of the US in Iran.

In the Philippines, which is highly dependent on the Gulf oil, the government has told its agencies to cut electricity and fuel use by between 10% and 20%. Vietnam has introduced work-from-home policies for many public sector workers. And the UK government has announced a £53 million support package for people who rely on oil for central heating.

Iran’s final strategic consideration is that attacking energy facilities may help erode domestic support for Trump in the US. This could force a change in political direction. The price of petrol has already increased to an average of US$3.60 per gallon in the US – a level not seen since the opening days of Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

This price increase will be passed on to consumers, creating a headache for Trump ahead of midterm elections in November. Trump’s platform of reducing the inflation seen under the Biden administration was a key part of the election campaign that successfully returned him to the White House.

Iran’s attacks on energy infrastructure are likely to continue. This is because they enable the regime in Tehran to increase the costs of the war even to those who are not directly involved, ramping up global pressure on the US to draw the conflict to a close.

Matthew Powell 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 Iran is attacking Gulf energy infrastructure – https://theconversation.com/why-iran-is-attacking-gulf-energy-infrastructure-278815

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Gemma Ware, Host, The Conversation Weekly Podcast, The Conversation

As Pete Hegseth, the Fox News host turned Donald Trump’s defense secretary, stood on the front lawn of the Pentagon to record a promotional video in July 2025, a drone hovered above him.

Hegseth said that America’s adversaries had “produced millions of cheap drones” and it was time for the US to catch up. The Trump administration, he added, would arm combat units with “a variety of low-cost American-crafted drones” as part of a plan to secure US “drone dominance”.

A few days later, Hegseth toured a display of 18 American-made protype drones. One of those on display was a Low-Cost Uncrewed Combat Attack System (Lucas) drone. By December, a squadron of these kamikaze drones was already in the Middle East.

These Lucas drones may have been made in America, but they are a reverse-engineered copy of the kamikaze Iranian drone called a Shahed. Now, the US military has deployed them to attack Iran.

In this episode of The Conversation Weekly podcast,  we speak to Arun Dawson, a PhD researcher at King’s College London, about how the Iranians developed the Shahed drones, why the US decided to copy them, and what role these low-cost drones might play in the future of warfare.

“Each of these drones costs US$35,000 (£26,000),” says Dawson, compared with US$3.6 million for each Tomahawk cruise missile. “With an American style defence budget, you can buy enough of them that you completely saturate the capabilities of an adversary to respond.

“Once you’ve achieved that,” he explains, “you can then send in your high-expense equipment to do the dirty job of delivering pretty large, decisive payloads on particular targets. That’s what the American military is beginning to explore and pivot towards.”

Listen to the interview with Arun Dawson on The Conversation Weekly podcast and read an article he wrote for The Conversation. This episode was written and produced by Mend Mariwany and Gemma Ware. Mixing by Eleanor Brezzi and theme music by Neeta Sarl.

Newsclips in this episode from The WallStreet Journal, New York Post, 10 News and CBS News.

Listen to The Conversation Weekly via any of the apps listed above, download it directly via our RSS feed or find out how else to listen here. A transcript of this episode is available via the Apple Podcasts or Spotify apps.

Arun Dawson is affiliated with the Royal United Services Institute.

– ref. How the US copied a cheap Iranian kamikaze drone and used it to bomb Iran – https://theconversation.com/how-the-us-copied-a-cheap-iranian-kamikaze-drone-and-used-it-to-bomb-iran-278695

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Lezak, Programme Manager at the Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford

The Trump administration pulled the rug out from underneath US federal climate policy in February, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overturned the landmark 2009 “endangerment finding”. Now, the official policy of the US government holds that greenhouse gases do not pose a risk to human health.

The move has opened a new frontier for Donald Trump to govern without being constrained by evidence or in a manner that represents the majority of Americans, who support pro-climate policies. It also follows a year in which the US president and his allies have hollowed out American climate leadership.

Since taking office, Trump and his allies have rolled back clean air standards for almost anything with a tailpipe or smokestack. In January 2026, they even instructed the EPA to stop estimating the value of lives saved in the agency’s cost-benefit analyses for new pollution rules. This could lead to looser controls on pollutants from industrial sites across the country.

As US climate leadership recedes into the rearview mirror, one question remains: will any nation – and China in particular – rush in to fill the gap? I wish there were a simple answer. But enthusiasm for climate leadership is backsliding, and not just from the US government.

Even as renewable energy installation continues worldwide, there are some signs of retreat. Across the world, companies are quietly shedding their net-zero targets. US car manufacturers Ford and General Motors also recently wrote off more than US$25 billion (£18.5 billion) of investment in electric vehicles because consumer demand has failed to match their forecasts.

It is no coincidence that this breakdown in the global climate consensus comes at a time when tensions are rising worldwide. The global order is reeling over Trump’s war in Iran and sabre-rattling over Greenland. Meanwhile, Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine has dragged into its fifth year without any clear prospect of peace.

Climate collaboration requires a belief that everyone is pitching in. When global institutions and norms look weak, national leaders worry about being the last honest participant in a deal that everyone else has abandoned. This is as true for countries as for human beings: nobody wants to feel like they’ve been duped.

However, there are some signs of hope. Demand for clean energy isn’t going away overnight. Renewable energy is often cheaper than fossil power, even without subsidies. A July 2025 report by the International Renewable Energy Agency found that nine in ten new renewable projects are on track to generate cheaper power than fossil fuel alternatives.

Just as important is the fact that citizens around the world continue to suffer from the effects of breathing polluted air, which the World Health Organization estimates causes 7 million deaths worldwide each year.

Even as climate concern falters, some of the world’s most populous cities, such as New Delhi in India, are under growing pressure to protect their residents’ health. They are likely to continue reducing their use of fossil fuels to heat homes, generate electricity and move people around.

Meanwhile, China is on a glide path to fill part of the void opened by America’s climate retreat. It already dominates certain clean energy technologies, holding a near-monopoly on battery, solar panel and fuel cell production. Chinese companies now manufacture more electric vehicles than every other nation combined.

Cementing its position as the new global climate leader would also earn China diplomatic “soft power,” especially among developing nations where Beijing can offer clean energy infrastructure plus the loans to finance it.

But, at the same time, China has shown a steady unwillingness to back strong political leadership on climate action. China’s leaders are bullish on renewable energy when it serves their economic interests. However, they are broadly resistant to the sort of strong international pressures that could stabilise global temperature rise.

It wasn’t until 2025 that China promised to actually reduce its emissions. And its recent commitments, which include a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 10% below peak levels by 2035, fall well short of what analysts say will be necessary to keep global warming below 1.5°C.

---

Read more:
When China makes a climate pledge, the world should listen

---

With US credibility rapidly eroding, the 21st century seems poised to slide deeper into a style of governance that is characterised less by rigorous analysis than by the whims of its leaders.

The silver lining is that demagoguery has a shelf life. Trump’s approval rating has fallen to second-term lows, with polls showing him at -17 points. The demand for clean air, cheap energy and competent governance doesn’t go away because one administration decides to ignore it.

One day Trump will eventually fade from the political landscape. Climate change will not.

Stephen Lezak 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. Will the world fill the climate leadership void left by the US? – https://theconversation.com/will-the-world-fill-the-climate-leadership-void-left-by-the-us-276200

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Stephen Marsh, Reader in Politics, Cardiff University

Operation Epic Fury unleashed overwhelming firepower on Iran and a Trump broadside against Britain’s prime minister. The president belittled Keir Starmer as being no comparison to Winston Churchill, raged against caveated British support and placed Britain’s standing as America’s “greatest ally” firmly in the past tense.

Starmer refused the bait. His government is privately contemptuous of the Trump administration. But he still needs to deal with the US president and how he should do that following the recent vitriol is a very live question.

Winston Churchill appropriated the term special relationship after the second world war to refer to the myriad Anglo-American connections. Some were government-to-government, spanning privileged diplomatic, economic, military, nuclear and intelligence cooperation. Others were historical and cultural, from which evolved a sentimental myth of special relations based on uniquely entwined histories, a common language, similar values and so forth.

For 80 years, Britain and the US stood shoulder-to-shoulder in defence of a liberal international order they fashioned from the ruins of war. The US became a hyperpower. Post-imperial Britain settled as a leading medium-sized power. But the song remained the same – at least until the Trump administration’s discordant note.

Brexit made Britain even more dependent on US power. Starmer, therefore, followed almost every prime minister since the second world war in seeking close personal relations with US presidents and the preservation of Britain’s standing as America’s foremost ally.

In fairness, of all the national leaders aspiring to be a “Trump whisperer”, Starmer has been one of the more successful. Routine extensive government-to-government dialogue has been combined with carefully choreographed leveraging of cultural connections to massage the president’s ego. Particularly noteworthy has been recruitment of British royalty to the cause, including the president’s historic second state visit in September 2025.

Still, Trump’s personality and his administration’s policies remain challenging. Starmer risks association with Trump’s political toxicity if he gets too close and will be questioned about whether any rewards from such courtship outweigh the costs.

Fidelity above all else

The Trump administration is anomalous. Unlike previous administrations, it does not consistently work with the British government to put a positive face on Anglo-American relations. The feel-good sentiment generated by the second state visit, for example, dissipated rapidly once Trump carelessly attacked British policies shortly afterwards in the United Nations.

Meanwhile, Trump’s prioritises fidelity above competence and centralises power in his White House. These tendencies, and his suspicion of expertise within the “deep state” weaken Britain’s ability to feed into the American foreign policymaking process.

Trump’s inconsistency, preference for diplomacy by social media, and frequently provocative and erroneous statements often trap Starmer between trying to smooth consequent tensions (in which case he appears as a Trump apologist) or rebutting the president. This was clear when Trump threatened Canadian sovereignty, when he repeatedly implied he would invade Greenland and when he attacked the commitment of British troops in Afghanistan.

Finally, and most importantly, the Trump administration is undermining the liberal international order, casting its anti-liberal, anti-modernist and anti-globalist tendencies against Britain’s preferences for international law, multilateral institutions, collective security and international free trade.

What should Starmer do now?

On balance, Starmer’s best option for now is to hope, hedge and wait. In the short term, Downing Street will hope that US mid-terms return a Congress less pliant to Trump’s ambitions and that legal actions through American courts continue their disruption.

In the longer term, the next three years will constitute a damage-limitation exercise while the world waits for Trump’s successor to arrive. The hope will be that whoever the next president is, Anglo-American relations will improve simply from being liberated from the personal and organisational chaos wrought by Trump.

During this interim, Starmer will routinely align Britain with the US provided doing so neither overly compromises British interests nor further weakens the liberal international order. He will also probably swallow bile and continue to woo Trump. That will potentially include leveraging the 250th anniversary celebrations of American independence. Even this, however, will need balancing against the risk of inferred endorsement of Trump ahead of the midterms.

Meanwhile, the British government will de-emphasise the significance of personalities to the robustness of Anglo-American relations and hedge against over-reliance on the US. This means building ever closer relations with Europe, continuing cautious engagement with China and outreach to other centres of economic power.

Starmer should also seek stronger relations with Canada’s Mark Carney, who has emerged as the most capable leader of the world’s medium-ranking powers and who most shares Britain’s conundrum of needing close but not over-dependent relations with Washington.

One final cautionary note. Trump dominates headlines, but he is merely an awkward symptom of the biggest challenge to the special relationship since its inception. The international order is in flux. How it is reshaped will determine whether Britain and the US remain shoulder to shoulder or return to being the distant cousins of the interwar period.

The latter is a scenario that ought to cause British officials sleeplessness. A US retreat to a neo-isolationism that broadly embraces the Maga logic would pass the mantle of principal guardianship of the liberal international order to the European Union. Britannia would then face a not-so-splendid isolation, self-exiled from the union and powerless to prevent retreat of the Atlantic shoreland.

Stephen Marsh 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. What to expect next from the ‘special relationship’ as Trump again lashes out at Keir Starmer – https://theconversation.com/what-to-expect-next-from-the-special-relationship-as-trump-again-lashes-out-at-keir-starmer-278236

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Alex Lo, Professor, Climate | Policy | Sustainability, York St John University

Donald Trump has made it clear he has no intention of playing a global leadership role in green energy or a move towards net zero.

While the US president is stepping back and Washington is deregulating its fossil fuel industry, Beijing is stepping up.

China sees an opportunity to write a green rulebook for the global low-carbon economy. And who makes the rules tends to wield a fair amount of power.

Already China dominates global green energy supply chains, from solar panels, wind turbines, grid equipment and storage systems to electric vehicles.

The US’s recent rollback puts China in a strong position to drive a further shift in where the world looks for green products that meet global standards, and what those global standards are.

China’s most likely move is to scale up a credible monitoring, reporting and verification system across heavy industry, so carbon emissions can be priced, compared and audited.

The EU has just introduced new rules to address “carbon leakage” where companies move production and pollution out of the region. This means that companies will have to purchase certificates showing how much carbon has been produced when importing goods. The UK has plans to follow suit.

Market access is being rewritten around documentation. Exporters that can document carbon content gain an edge over those that cannot. Under other EU rules, a digital “battery passport” becomes mandatory from February 2027 for EV batteries and industrial batteries above 2kWh.

While China does not control access to the European market, it can make it easier for the rest of the world to comply with EU-style requirements. It can do so by standardising the infrastructure and tools that firms need to prove they meet in order to keep selling into Europe. Once a factory is plugged into a particular compliance system, switching is costly.

China can also leverage its supply chain dominance and digital infrastructure to sell traceability tools (which track which materials were used in a product), reporting templates, verification services and management platforms.

Another factor is that in the next few years firms will be expected to publish more consistent, investor-oriented sustainability and climate information, so that investors can compare climate exposure and performance across companies and countries.

From building factories to building rules

China has been strategically transforming into a clean energy superpower since the Paris agreement, where 195 countries agreed to tackle climate change. This part of China’s economy was worth US$ 2.1 trillion (£1.5 trillion), or 11.4% of GDP, in 2025.

China’s investment in renewable energy has increased from US$117 billion in 2015 to US$290 billion in 2024, which is three times that of the US.

However, these numbers do not show a simple divide between the US and China. Some US states are taking action, regardless of the Trump government’s position. US investment in renewable energy increased by 2.6 times from 2015 to 2024, slightly higher than China’s growth rate.

But the US-China divergence is most visible in each nation’s appetite for multilateral engagement. At the UN’s climate summit, COP30, in 2025, China presented itself as a global leader in renewable energy production. It does not treat renewables as just another sector, but as a core pillar of its strategy for economic growth and security. Renewables have been central to China’s economic transformation since the 2010s.

However, China has troubles of its own, so it will also be looking for new ways to boost its own weak economy. It is currently falling short its own emission reduction targets. Its solar panel industry is grappling with over-capacity and a price collapse, and regional competition with India is intensifying.

But as the US pulls back from the green economy, China can position itself as a broker of compatible green finance rules, especially for emerging markets that want capital without being trapped between competing standards, and hope that pays off.

Green rules are increasingly embedded in the global economy. Businesses and investors hate uncertainty, so any move by China to position itself as the international rule-maker for green products and green energy would position it well for the future.

Alex Lo 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. China is ready to drive leadership of a low-carbon world – by making the international rules – https://theconversation.com/china-is-ready-to-drive-leadership-of-a-low-carbon-world-by-making-the-international-rules-276564