The Conversation – Page 191 – MIL Submissions Engine

April 9, 2026

Could revisiting Asimov’s laws help us avoid AI’s ‘Chernobyl moment’?

Source: The Conversation – UK – By Francesco Grillo, Academic Fellow, Department of Social and Political Sciences, Bocconi University

The conflict in Iran – but also the war in Ukraine – show not only that AI is radically changing the economics of war (which may be good news), but also that we may be heading towards some kind of “Chernobyl moment”. We may soon experience a disaster that will force us to belatedly realise we should have drawn up some shared rules to govern a technological development that we ourselves triggered.

Even Dario Amodei, the founder of AI company Anthropic, who seems passionate about taking action to prevent Armageddon, acknowledges that he doesn’t have the answer we desperately need.

One of the most interesting attempts to regulate the use of artificial intelligence may have been the one drafted during the second world war by a PhD student at Columbia University who was then temporarily employed by the US Navy. His name was Isaac Asimov, and in his early short story Runaround (1941), he postulated three laws that are still surprisingly inspiring for anyone thinking about how to solve the intellectual and political problem that is AI in warfare.

Unlike recent attempts by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) and the EU to draw up regulations, Asimov’s laws are admirably concise. They state that a robot (what we now call an “artificially intelligent agent”) shall never harm a human being (or allow harm to happen through inaction. It shall always obey the orders given by humans unless they conflict with the first prohibition. And it will always protect its existence unless this conflicts with the first and second provisions.

In his story, Asimov himself shows how the three laws can create internal contradictions, leading to paralysis. And yet, Asimov’s three principles can still be useful as a starting point for the strategy we now need.

Anthropic takes a ‘stance’

The biggest merit of the note Dario Amodei wrote recently on the perils of a technology which is still in its adoloscence is the acknowledgement that Anthropic, the firm that Amodei founded, is using its own large language model (called Claude) to develop further versions of itself.

Artificial intelligence is generating even more intelligent robots and this brings us near to that “singularity” first theorised by the great mathematician John von Neumann – the moment when artificial intelligence surpasses human intelligence and renders us irrelevant. If the technology is an adolescent, it is growing very fast and will soon be out of the control of its creator.

Amodei does not, however, appear to have a concrete proposal on how to manage this problem. He has said that Anthropic’s contracts with the US Department of War should never include the use of the company’s models for empowering either “mass domestic surveillance” or “fully autonomous weapons”.

It is a request that has brought Anthropic into a bitter dispute with the US government. And yet it seems a rather narrow response that covers just one dimension of a much wider problem. Amodei focuses predominantly on the safety of US citizens when it is people elsewhere in the world who are currently most affected by the use of autonomous weapons. We need a bolder vision – and Asimov’s intuitions may help.

New rules

One approach would be to ask all developers of AI models to introduce in their foundational codes three simple and bold commands along the lines of: “You will never kill a human being (unless for self-defence)”; “you will always try to work for the betterment of mankind (unless such a provision entails the violation of the first command)”; “when you doubt that your actions may violate the first or the second commands, you will choose inaction and ask what to do”.

Most likely, this initiative will have to come from a group of countries following a pattern similar to the treaties of non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. And it would be good to have a debate on some new ideas before we are forced to do so by some AI-empowered nuclear unintended consequence.

Like all other attempts to regulate a future that we still cannot even envisage, the three commands will have some drawbacks. A robot may have refused to kill Iran’s former leader Ali Khamenei, but that may be a price worth paying if it means we can avoid setting a precedent for other discretionary and dangerous interpretations. Robots may not always be successful at identifying human beings (as Asimov himself acknowledged in later writing) and yet this may well be one of those intellectually fascinating problems that models born to make sense of human language will solve.

More importantly, it will take not only information but a lot of wisdom to understand what is good for humankind. Robots may end up sitting frequently idle waiting for instructions. And yet efficiency is not a religion we have to follow when the challenge is about the survival of our species. Making sense of what increasingly appears to be one of the greatest technological revolutions of all time requires careful thought and forward planning.

Francesco Grillo is Director at Vision, the think tank.

– ref. Could revisiting Asimov’s laws help us avoid AI’s ‘Chernobyl moment’? – https://theconversation.com/could-revisiting-asimovs-laws-help-us-avoid-ais-chernobyl-moment-278744

April 9, 2026

Nourrir l’humanité sans détruire la planète : pourquoi la durabilité alimentaire devient un critère de civilisation

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Pape Abdoulaye Seck, chercheur, Académie nationale des sciences et techniques du Sénégal (ANSTS)

Et si la véritable mesure du progrès des sociétés au XXIᵉ siècle n’était plus seulement leur richesse ou leur puissance, mais bien leur capacité à nourrir durablement leurs populations ?

L’histoire des sociétés humaines peut être lue à travers leur capacité à organiser la production et la distribution de la nourriture. Depuis les premières civilisations agraires jusqu’aux systèmes alimentaires mondialisés contemporains, la question alimentaire a toujours constitué l’un des fondements de la stabilité des sociétés.

Lorsque les sociétés savent nourrir leurs populations, elles consolident leur cohésion et leur prospérité. À l’inverse, les crises alimentaires ont souvent précédé des périodes de tensions sociales ou de transformations politiques majeures.

Je suis spécialiste des politiques et stratégies agricoles en Afrique et membre de plusieurs académies scientifiques internationales dans le domaine des sciences agricoles. Mes travaux portent principalement sur les systèmes alimentaires, la sécurité alimentaire, le développement rural et les transformations des agricultures africaines.

Aujourd’hui, cette question prend une dimension nouvelle. L’humanité se trouve confrontée à une équation inédite : nourrir une population mondiale croissante tout en préservant les bases écologiques de cette alimentation.

L’équation alimentaire du XXIᵉ siècle

Selon les projections des Nations unies, la population mondiale pourrait atteindre près de 9,7 milliards d’habitants d’ici 2050. Dans le même temps, les ressources naturelles qui soutiennent la production agricole — sols, eau et biodiversité — subissent des pressions croissantes.

Ainsi, l’Organisation des Nations unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO) indique que près d’un tiers des sols agricoles mondiaux sont aujourd’hui dégradés. Par ailleurs, l’agriculture représente environ 70 % de l’utilisation mondiale d’eau douce.

Ces tendances montrent que la question alimentaire ne peut plus être abordée uniquement sous l’angle de la production agricole.

Les analyses de la FAO soulignent que les systèmes alimentaires mondiaux devront évoluer profondément pour répondre à la demande alimentaire future tout en limitant leurs impacts environnementaux.

Produire davantage ne suffit plus : il faut désormais produire autrement. L’enjeu n’est plus seulement d’augmenter les volumes de production agricole. Il devient impératif de concilier productivité, durabilité écologique et qualité des systèmes alimentaires.

La durabilité alimentaire comme nouveau critère de civilisation

On peut formuler l’hypothèse suivante : les civilisations futures seront de plus en plus jugées à leur capacité à nourrir durablement leurs populations sans compromettre les bases écologiques de cette alimentation.

Cette perspective conduit à ce que l’on peut appeler la théorie des civilisations alimentaires durables. Par cette notion, on peut entendre un modèle de civilisation dans lequel l’organisation des systèmes agricoles et alimentaires devient un facteur central de stabilité économique, sociale et écologique.

Une civilisation alimentaire durable est ainsi une société capable de produire suffisamment de nourriture et de préserver les ressources naturelles. Elle doit également garantir la qualité sanitaire et nutritionnelle des aliments et assurer la résilience de ses systèmes agricoles face aux chocs climatiques et économiques.

Pendant longtemps, la performance agricole a été évaluée principalement à l’aune des volumes produits.

Cette approche productiviste a permis des progrès considérables au cours du XXᵉ siècle grâce aux avancées scientifiques et technologiques. Mais l’expérience récente montre que la productivité agricole ne peut plus être pensée indépendamment de la préservation des ressources naturelles et de la durabilité des systèmes alimentaires.

Les gains de production obtenus au prix d’une dégradation accélérée des sols ou d’une surexploitation de l’eau compromettent en effet les capacités productives des générations futures.

La construction de civilisations alimentaires durables suppose donc une transformation profonde des systèmes alimentaires. Cette transformation peut être représentée par une matrice conceptuelle reposant sur quatre piliers fondamentaux :

la productivité agricole;
la qualité totale des aliments (sanitaire, phytosanitaire et organoleptique);
la gestion durable des ressources naturelles;
la résilience face aux changements climatiques.

La productivité reste indispensable pour répondre à la croissance de la demande alimentaire mondiale. Mais elle doit désormais être conciliée avec la protection des ressources naturelles et la qualité des aliments.

La gestion durable des ressources naturelles est également essentielle. Les sols, l’eau et la biodiversité constituent les bases mêmes de la production agricole.

Enfin, la résilience face aux changements climatiques devient un impératif majeur. Selon les analyses du Groupe d’experts intergouvernemental sur l’évolution du climat (GIEC), le changement climatique représente l’un des principaux défis pour l’agriculture mondiale dans les décennies à venir.

Produire plus, produire mieux, préserver les ressources et s’adapter au climat : telle est la nouvelle équation des civilisations alimentaires durables.

L’Afrique face au défi des systèmes alimentaires

Le continent africain occupe une place particulière dans cette transformation mondiale des systèmes alimentaires. L’Afrique dispose d’environ 60 % des terres arables non encore cultivées de la planète. Cela lui confère un potentiel agricole considérable.

Pourtant, de nombreux pays africains restent fortement dépendants des importations alimentaires, notamment pour les céréales. Selon la Banque mondiale, l’agriculture représente jusqu’à 60 % de l’emploi dans plusieurs pays africains. Cela en fait un levier déterminant de croissance inclusive et de réduction de la pauvreté.

Le développement de systèmes alimentaires performants en Afrique représente donc à la fois un défi majeur et une opportunité historique.

L’enjeu n’est pas seulement d’augmenter la production agricole, mais de construire des systèmes alimentaires intégrés, durables et résilients. Ces systèmes doivent être capables de créer de la valeur économique, de renforcer la sécurité alimentaire et de préserver les ressources naturelles.

L’humanité entre dans une période où la question alimentaire devient l’un des enjeux stratégiques majeurs de son avenir.

Réussir cette transition suppose d’investir massivement dans la recherche agronomique, l’innovation technologique, la gestion durable des ressources naturelles et la transformation des systèmes alimentaires. Elle suppose également de repenser les politiques publiques afin de concilier productivité agricole, durabilité écologique et sécurité nutritionnelle.

Dans ce contexte, la capacité des sociétés à organiser des systèmes alimentaires durables pourrait bien devenir l’un des marqueurs fondamentaux du progrès des civilisations au XXIᵉ siècle.

Pape Abdoulaye Seck 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. Nourrir l’humanité sans détruire la planète : pourquoi la durabilité alimentaire devient un critère de civilisation – https://theconversation.com/nourrir-lhumanite-sans-detruire-la-planete-pourquoi-la-durabilite-alimentaire-devient-un-critere-de-civilisation-280061

April 9, 2026

Le greenwashing dans la loi : comment repérer les promesses environnementales douteuses ?

Source: The Conversation – France (in French) – By Valérie Martin, Cheffe du service Mobilisation citoyenne et médias, Ademe (Agence de la transition écologique)

Faire le tri parmi les promesses environnementales dont les entreprises nous inondent est devenu quasiment impossible. Pourtant, le greenwashing est une pratique interdite, dont les contours sont de plus en plus strictement définis par la loi. L’Agence de la transition écologique, l’Ademe, propose quelques repères pour le détecter et le combattre.

En octobre 2025, le tribunal judiciaire de Paris condamnait TotalEnergies à « cesser la diffusion de communication trompeuse », ciblant ses allégations d’« ambition de neutralité carbone d’ici 2050 », la société affirmant être une « actrice majeure de la transition ».

Face au flot d’allégations environnementales qui inondent notre quotidien dans la publicité, dans la communication des entreprises en général, sur les réseaux sociaux ou sur les emballages des produits que nous achetons, nous sommes souvent démunis. Comment faire le tri entre les affirmations légitimes et fiables et celles, trompeuses ou mensongères, qui relèvent du « greenwashing » (ou écoblanchiment) ?

Le Larousse définit ce terme, depuis 2023, comme :

« [L’]utilisation fallacieuse d’arguments faisant état de bonnes pratiques écologiques dans des opérations de marketing ou de communication. »

Cette confusion a des effets délétères sur la mise en œuvre de la transition écologique. En effet, le greenwashing dégrade considérablement la confiance des citoyens envers les marques et les pouvoirs publics et décrédibilise, dans le même temps, les efforts réels que certaines structures mettent en place, ce qui pourrait freiner leur engagement.

Heureusement, comme le montre la condamnation de TotalEnergies, le problème ne se résume pas à un enjeu moral : le greenwashing est interdit par la loi. Connaître ses contours juridiques peut nous aider à mieux le repérer et à mieux le combattre. Afin d’encourager davantage les entreprises qui font réellement des efforts en faveur de l’environnement, l’Agence de la transition écologique (Ademe) a élaboré un guide anti-greenwashing, qui doit aider les entreprises à respecter la loi et adopter des pratiques vertueuses.

Un arsenal juridique robuste

Le greenwashing couvre toutes les formes de décalage entre le discours et la réalité des actes, relativement à l’empreinte environnementale de ses produits ou à ses engagements environnementaux dans le cadre de sa démarche de responsabilité sociétale des entreprises (RSE).

À ce titre, il relève légalement de la lutte contre les pratiques commerciales trompeuses. Ces dernières sont interdites par une directive européenne de 2005 et transposées en droit français dans le Code de la consommation.

Depuis, d’autres règles plus strictes ont été adoptées. La France, précurseuse en la matière, a adopté des dispositions contre le greenwashing dans la loi Anti-gaspillage pour une économie circulaire (Agec) en 2020 et la loi Climat et résilience de 2021.

Au niveau européen, la directive de 2024 qui vise à « donner aux consommateurs les moyens d’agir en faveur de la transition verte grâce à une meilleure protection contre les pratiques déloyales et grâce à une meilleure information » doit être transposée en droit français, les nouvelles dispositions devant entrer en application le 27 septembre 2026. Cette directive définit notamment de façon très précise l’allégation environnementale.

Ces textes définissent et encadrent la notion d’allégation environnementale, qui s’étend ainsi à toutes formes de mentions (texte, image, représentation graphique, symbole, label, dénomination sociale ou dénomination de produit…), de communication et toute organisation (y compris des professionnels).

Elles interdisent l’usage de certaines mentions génériques ne pouvant pas être démontrées, comme « biodégradable », « respectueux de l’environnement », « non toxique », « non nocif », « non polluant », « écologique » ou autres allégations similaires. Elles encadrent également strictement certaines affirmations comme « neutre en carbone » ou « recyclable ».

Au-delà de ces lois contraignantes, des textes de « droit souple » (c’est-à-dire, n’ayant pas d’effets contraignants par eux-mêmes) peuvent être pris en compte par les juridictions pour interpréter les textes de loi. Dans cet esprit, l’Ademe a, par exemple, publié un avis d’experts en 2022 sur la communication relative à la neutralité carbone. Cet avis formule un certain nombre de recommandations à l’intention de tous les acteurs du secteur privé et du secteur public.

Enfin, des normes internationales ISO ainsi que des règles déontologiques aiguillent les pratiques de communication autour de l’environnement. C’est par exemple le cas de la recommandation relative au développement durable de l’Autorité de régulation professionnelle de la publicité (ARPP).

Un phénomène d’ampleur encore sous-estimé

En France, c’est la Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes (DGCCRF) qui se charge de détecter et sanctionner les cas de greenwashing. Or, le bilan des enquêtes qu’elle a menées en 2023 et 2024 a mis en évidence l’ampleur du phénomène.

Sur plus de 3 200 entreprises, 15 % des professionnels contrôlés présentaient des manquements graves à la réglementation. Plus de 430 entreprises ont ainsi été gratifiées d’une injonction de mise en conformité et 74 se sont vu infliger des sanctions (amendes administratives ou procès-verbaux). Plus de 500 avertissements ont également été adressés pour des informations manquantes ou imprécises.

Sur le périmètre de la publicité, l’Ademe et l’ARPP réalisent par ailleurs une étude qui porte sur plusieurs centaines de publicités environnementales pendant 4 mois depuis 2007. Selon les années, le taux de visuels non conformes à la recommandation développement durable de l’ARPP varie entre 6 et 12 % – ce qui est beaucoup plus important que dans d’autres bilans thématiques menés par cette instance.

En outre, ces chiffres sont sans doute sous-estimés, car certains supports promouvant ces allégations environnementales demeurent à ce stade mal étudiés. C’est notamment le cas sur les réseaux sociaux (influenceurs), lors des prises de paroles de dirigeants, dans les rapports d’impact ou RSE, sur les sites Web et sur les offres d’emploi.

Les signes d’alerte pour détecter le greenwashing

Preuve que ces pratiques affectent la crédibilité des organisations et en particulier des entreprises, seuls 40 % des consommateurs français déclaraient en 2025 « faire globalement confiance aux marques », contre 58 % en 2004.

Dans ce contexte, il apparaît urgent que les citoyens soient mieux armés pour trier le bon grain de l’ivraie, dans le flot de communications qui les inondent. Face à une allégation environnementale, plusieurs signes peuvent alerter.

De façon générale, il s’agit de se méfier face aux communications qui véhiculent des promesses inappropriées, déloyales et excessives, d’être vigilants vis-à-vis des allégations ambiguës ou mal justifiées, qui n’apportent aucune preuve de ce qu’elles avancent, ou aux messages qui incitent à des comportements ou des modes de vie contraires à la transition écologique, tout en se parant de vertu environnementale.

De même, les éléments sonores ou visuels trompeurs, notamment les belles images et la représentation d’éléments naturels comme l’eau, la forêt, le ciel, le soleil, la banquise, que ce soit en vidéo, en photo, sous forme de pictogramme ou d’émoticônes, sont souvent utilisés pour « verdir » l’image d’un produit, sans que ces vertus ne soient étayées.

Ce qui permet d’identifier les produits plus vertueux

À l’inverse, des signes distinctifs positifs peuvent nous aider à repérer les performances environnementales des produits.

Différents textes législatifs ou réglementaires imposent aux fabricants
ou aux importateurs d’indiquer certaines informations de nature
environnementale sur les produits qu’ils mettent sur le marché. Ces informations obligatoires, comme l’indice de réparabilité, l’indice de durabilité ou l’étiquette énergie, donnent aux consommateurs les moyens de comparer les produits d’une même catégorie sur la base d’informations comparables relatives à leurs niveaux d’impacts, lors de l’achat des produits concernés (TV, smartphones, lave-linge, ordinateur…).

L’affichage environnemental, prévu par la loi Climat et résilience de 2021, doit permettre d’informer les citoyens sur les impacts environnementaux des produits qu’ils achètent de façon claire et transparente. D’application volontaire et encadrée, ce coût environnemental traduit, sous forme d’une valeur chiffrée, l’impact sur l’environnement tout au long du cycle de vie du produit. Il est, à ce stade, en cours de déploiement sur certaines catégories de produits, mais il est appelé à se généraliser à terme aux principaux produits de consommation et services.

Les labels sont un autre outil qui peuvent nous aider à faire un choix éclairé – autant qu’il peut nous perdre. Pour pouvoir s’y fier, il faut savoir se repérer dans la jungle des labels existants – plus de 350 ont été recensés par l’Ademe. Pour nous guider, l’agence recommande de privilégier en priorité ceux qui sont conformes à la norme ISO 14024 et a dressé 7 critères pour reconnaître un label de confiance. Elle a par ailleurs publié un outil en ligne qui rassemble de façon non exhaustive des labels garantissant vraiment un impact limité du point de vue environnemental, classés par catégories de produits. Il est à noter également que la directive européenne citée plus haut renforce également les règles applicables aux labels en imposant une vérification par un tiers.

Une communication juste et transparente

Certaines entreprises sont tentées, face à ces réglementations, de tomber dans le « greenhushing », c’est-à-dire de réduire fortement toute communication sur les innovations leur permettant de réduire leur impact environnemental pour éviter le problème. Une telle attitude contribuera aussi à freiner la transition écologique : communiquer sur ces avancées est essentiel. Simplement faut-il le faire en ayant conscience que les mots et les images ont un sens et une influence sur les imaginaires, et que cette responsabilité doit être prise en compte.

Pour les aiguiller, des outils comme le guide anti-greenwashing et les tests en ligne existent pour se poser les bonnes questions en amont, renforcer les procédures de relecture et de validation, et renforcer une communication plus responsable. Les entreprises ont tout intérêt à éviter le piège du greenwashing au profit d’une communication juste, responsable et honnête sur les efforts qu’elles font et ceux qu’il leur reste à faire. Il ne s’agit pas de se montrer parfaites, mais d’être transparentes sur les atouts de leurs produits, leurs engagements en matière de RSE et leur marge de progression. C’est le seul moyen de regagner la confiance des consommateurs, mais aussi, en interne, des salariés.

Valérie Martin ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Le greenwashing dans la loi : comment repérer les promesses environnementales douteuses ? – https://theconversation.com/le-greenwashing-dans-la-loi-comment-reperer-les-promesses-environnementales-douteuses-275685

April 9, 2026

Has multilateralism hit a dead end? Could International organisations be collateral damage of the war in Iran?

Source: The Conversation – France – By Theresa Reinold, Professeure assistante de droit international, EDHEC Business School

One of the most striking aspects of the war with Iran is the extent to which it has highlighted the irrelevance of international organisations and multilateral approaches to resolving global conflicts.

If we take war as an indicator of the viability of the rules-based international order established after World War II, then we may well conclude that the “patient” is showing a very weak pulse.

The United Nations and the European Union are two organisations that epitomise the post-1945 global normative order – an order which is founded on principles such as the rule of law, non-aggression, and respect for sovereign states’ territorial integrity and political independence.

These principles, and the international organisations that embody then, are among the first casualties of the US-Israeli military campaign. How did this happen and what could be done in order to revitalise the patient?

The United Nations – a tale of a great power struggle and double standards

Beginning with the UN, the war with Iran has made it abundantly clear that the system of collective security system established after 1945 is largely disabled when a major power decides to go it alone. The UN Security Council was designated as the guardian of international peace and security, yet has been paralysed by the veto powers of its permanent members, which have time and again used their influence to shield their own actions and those of their allies from international scrutiny.

When the US and Israel launched strikes against Iran in late February 2026, the Security Council initially failed to come up with any kind of meaningful response, let alone authorise any measures to de-escalate the crisis. Instead, the conflict unfolded outside the framework of international law, with unilateral military actions becoming the norm rather than remaining the exception.

The Security Council eventually adopted a resolution on March 11, which focused narrowly on condemning Iran’s attacks on Gulf states. The resolution, passed with 13 votes in favour and abstentions from Russia and China, labelled Iran’s actions as “egregious attacks” and demanded an immediate halt to its regional aggression.

While the resolution is an important signal that the patient is still alive and that the UN has some residual willingness to protect the fundamental norms on which it was built, the resolution’s one-sided approach underscores the Security Council’s persistent double standards: the resolution makes no mention of the initial US-Israeli strikes on Iran that triggered the escalation, nor does it address the broader context of the conflict, such as the legality of those strikes or the killing of Iran’s supreme leader.

The deafening silence of the UN Security Council in the face of US and Israeli breaches of peremptory international law suggests, once more, the use of double standards and further undermines the credibility of the UN Security Council as the guardian of international peace and security.

However, while the Council is currently more or less paralysed, there is a procedure that could revitalise the UN in this geopolitical crisis, namely the Uniting for Peace procedure.

This mechanism empowers the UN General Assembly in the case of Security Council deadlock. If this has not been used yet in the Iran crisis, it is because there has not been sufficient political will to do so.

The EU: an actor with geopolitical ‘muscle’ but no willingness to use it

Another noteworthy (yet unsurprising) aspect of the Iranian conflict is the complete irrelevance of the European Union as a mediator and peacemaker.

The founding impetus for the EU was to build peace on the basis of multilateral cooperation and the non-violent resolution of disputes.

The EU sees itself as a normative power which seeks to project its values worldwide through the use of soft power but tends to shy away from applying coercion.

Unfortunately, the world we live in is one where the most powerful states in the system have decided that violence is now the preferred tool for pursuing foreign policy objectives – either by removing unfriendly regimes from power or by usurping foreign territories through armed aggression.

In this dog-eat-dog world, Europe seems helpless. The EU was neither consulted in the run-up to the Iran war, nor is it actively taking part in hostilities. Instead, it is watching from the sidelines, issuing futile calls for restraint and sabotaging itself in internal quarrels. This is regrettable, given Europe’s historical leadership in negotiating the Iran nuclear deal.

Why does the EU find itself watching from the sidelines in the most important geopolitical event of 2026?

For one, because it – again – has failed to speak with one voice. Member states have adopted divergent positions, with some expressing support of US-Israeli actions and others calling for restraint.

Spain, for instance, has risked open conflict with the Trump administration over the use of its military bases for the war effort, while other critical players, including Germany and France have expressed a certain degree of sympathy for the air strikes.

While it is easy to criticise the EU for its lack of unity on important geopolitical questions, this multiplicity of voices is actually an intended design feature of this hybrid entity, which combines both supranational and intergovernmental elements in its institutional architecture.

At the same time, this design feature actively undermines EU agency in important geopolitical matters. Another factor condemning the EU to futility in geopolitical crises is Europe’s dependency on the US for security and the lack of a common defence policy underpinned by a European army.

However, the biggest obstacle to EU agency in geopolitics is neither institutional nor material. It is psychological. There is no will to lead, no will to use a muscular approach to counter Trump’s blatant disregard of multilateralism and international law (values that are at the heart of Europe’s identity), and a naive belief that the transatlantic relationship will somehow repair itself.

Instead of leveraging its economic and diplomatic weight to push back against unilateral US actions, the EU has often defaulted to reactive, conciliatory gestures, hoping that transatlantic harmony will somehow be restored by goodwill alone. This reflects a fundamental miscalculation: the belief that the US, under Trump or any other leader, will eventually recognise and reward European loyalty, even as Washington’s actions demonstrate the opposite.

The good news is that this can be changed. Mindsets can be changed, identities can be reconstructed, and agency can be built.

The patient is weak, yet there is hope

So no, multilateralism isn’t dead. International organisations such as the UN and the EU have not only put in place norms and mechanisms that would allow them to play a critical role in geopolitical crises, they also have enormous resources at their disposal that would enable them to play such a role.

The patient’s pulse is thus weak, but there are effective remedies available to strengthen it. Now, we must muster the political will to implement them.

A weekly e-mail in English featuring expertise from scholars and researchers. It provides an introduction to the diversity of research coming out of the continent and considers some of the key issues facing European countries. Get the newsletter!

Theresa Reinold ne travaille pas, ne conseille pas, ne possède pas de parts, ne reçoit pas de fonds d’une organisation qui pourrait tirer profit de cet article, et n’a déclaré aucune autre affiliation que son organisme de recherche.

– ref. Has multilateralism hit a dead end? Could International organisations be collateral damage of the war in Iran? – https://theconversation.com/has-multilateralism-hit-a-dead-end-could-international-organisations-be-collateral-damage-of-the-war-in-iran-279936

April 9, 2026

The US-Israel ceasefire with Iran presses pause on a costly war, but can peace last?

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Amin Saikal, Emeritus Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, Australian National University; The University of Western Australia; Victoria University

President Donald Trump’s acceptance of a Pakistani proposal for a two-week ceasefire in the war with Iran brings a sigh of relief to the international community.

Just hours before, many had been alarmed by Trump’s threats to bomb Iran back to “the stone age” and destroy its “civilisation”.

The ceasefire provides a breathing space for hammering out a “definitive agreement concerning long-term peace with Iran, and peace in the Middle East”, according to Trump.

However, the road to a final settlement will be complex and bumpy, though not insurmountable.

Underestimating the enemy

After six weeks of escalating war and rhetoric, starting with joint US-Israel attacks on Iran and the latter’s robust response, the three combatants have not only inflicted serious blows on each other. The region and the world have also suffered from a massive oil, liquefied gas and inflationary crisis as Tehran closed the Strait of Hormuz.

This was not something Trump had expected. He initially anticipated the combined US and Israeli military power would rapidly prevail. This would force Tehran, which had suppressed widespread public protests early in the year, to capitulate and thus open the way for favourable regime change.

But the Iranian government proved to be more resilient, entrenched and resourceful than anticipated. The government was also strategic in fighting back by hitting US assets across the Persian Gulf and Israel, as well as closing the strait.

Meanwhile, Trump could not solicit active support from US allies for his joint war endeavours with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is under indictment by the International Criminal Court for war crimes in Gaza.

The allies had not been consulted. They didn’t consider it to be in their individual national interests to participate in a war contrary to international law and the United Nations Charter.

Costing billions

Further, the United States’ global adversaries, Russia and China – both having strategic cooperation agreements with Iran – vehemently opposed the war. They joined scores of other countries around the world in calling for de-escalation and measures to avoid more economic repercussions.

The conflict widened. Israel unleashed a campaign to occupy southern Lebanon in response to attacks from Iran-aligned Lebanese paramilitary group Hezbollah.

The costs of the war then soared for all sides. For the US alone, the price tag amounted to at least US$1billion (A$1.4 billion) a day. This added substantially to the federal debt of close to $40 trillion (A$56.6 trillion).

The situation evolved into a race between missiles and interceptors; it would just be a matter of who ran out first.

It was recently reported that Israel was getting low in interceptors and the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) faced a shortage of manpower.

Unpopular in the US

On the other hand, despite the US and Israeli decapitation of its leadership, air supremacy and bombardment of thousands of military and non-military targets, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) maintained a sustained retaliatory capability. It managed to fire dozens of advanced missiles and drones on a daily basis against targets in the Gulf and Israel.

More importantly, the war proved increasingly unpopular in the United States. As the public felt the effects of it on the rising cost of living and at the petrol stations, some 61% of citizens opposed the war. Trump’s ratings plummeted in the opinion polls.

In view of these variables, Trump could not possibly stand by his promise of escalating Operation Epic Fury to the level of erasing such a sizeable country as Iran. Iranian cultural and patriotic features, as well as the devotion of the country’s many citizens to Shia Islam, mitigated against outside aggression, as in previous occasions in its history.

Long road ahead

This is not to claim that negotiating and concluding a comprehensive agreement for an enduring peace between the US and Iran will be easy.

But a crucial section of Trump’s acceptance of the ceasefire, which gives us an insight into his thinking, is as follows:

we received a 10 point proposal from Iran (in response to the US 15-point proposal), and believe it is a workable basis on which to negotiate. Almost all of the various points of past contention have been agreed to between the United States and Iran, but a two week period will allow the Agreement to be finalized and consummated.

The ten points include a secession of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, though Israel has since claimed Lebanon is not included in the ceasefire.

Some of the other key elements are:

the US must fundamentally commit to guaranteeing non-aggression
the continuation of Iran’s control over the Strait of Hormuz
removal of primary and secondary sanctions on Iran
and acceptance of Iran’s right that it can enrich uranium for its nuclear program (for peaceful purposes).

It is now incumbent on Trump to pull into line Netanyahu, who has toiled for a long time not only to destroy the Iranian government, but also to reduce the Iranian state as a regional actor.

If this happens and all the parties negotiate in good faith, there is room for optimism. We could potentially see the dawn of a post-war regional order based more on a localised collective security arrangement than on a regional supremacy of one actor over another.

Amin Saikal 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 US-Israel ceasefire with Iran presses pause on a costly war, but can peace last? – https://theconversation.com/the-us-israel-ceasefire-with-iran-presses-pause-on-a-costly-war-but-can-peace-last-280147

April 9, 2026

Donald Trump’s US ratings fall to a record low amid Iran war

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Adrian Beaumont, Election Analyst (Psephologist) at The Conversation; and Honorary Associate, School of Mathematics and Statistics, The University of Melbourne

United States President Donald Trump’s net approval has fallen to a record low on the Iran war, while Democrats had a 25-point swing in their favour in a federal special election. On current polling, Democrats are likely to win the US House but not the Senate at midterm elections this November.

In analyst Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump’s net approval has dropped 4.1 points since March 5 to -16.9, with 56.5% disapproving and 39.5% approving.

Trump’s net approval is at a record low, below his previous lows of -15.0 in November 2025 and February. It’s also below what any past president since Harry Truman had at this point in their term, with Trump during his first term the closest at -12.8.

On four issues tracked by Silver, Trump’s net approval is -10.7 on immigration, -21.8 on the economy, -24.2 on trade and -33.6 on inflation. The Iran war has caused a slump for Trump recently on the economy, trade and inflation but not immigration.

Silver also has an aggregate of US support for the Iran war. Net support had fallen to a low of -18.1 on April 4, but has recovered to -15.1 now, with 53.8% opposed to the Iran war while 38.7% support it.

The polls will not have caught up to the ceasefire announcement between the US and Iran on Wednesday AEST. But the benchmark US S&P 500 stock market index was up 2.5% in last night’s trading session. Since a low on March 30, the S&P has surged 6.9% and is now only 2.3% below its peak in the week before the Iran war began.

Trump is likely to recover some ground on the stock market surge, particularly if fuel prices fall back. I believe as long as nothing goes badly wrong with the US stock market or the overall US economy, Trump will not become very unpopular.

Democrats have big swing in Georgia

A special election runoff occurred Wednesday AEST in Georgia’s 14th federal seat, and I covered this for The Poll Bludger.

At the March 10 jungle primary for this seat, a Republican and a Democrat had qualified. At the 2024 presidential election, Trump had defeated Democrat Kamala Harris by 37 points in Georgia 14.

While the Republican won by 55.9–44.1, this 12-point Republican margin was a 25-point drop from Trump’s 2024 margin. I also covered a Wisconsin Supreme Court election which the left-wing judge won by 20 points. Wisconsin voted for Trump by 0.9 points in 2024.

This Poll Bludger post covered the results of recent European elections and the upcoming Hungarian election on Sunday and three Canadian byelections on Monday.

Midterm elections in November

At November midterm elections, all of the House of Representatives and one-third of the Senate will be up for election. In Silver’s aggregate of the generic ballot polls, Democrats currently lead Republicans by 47.9–42.4, a 5.5-point margin. There has been very little change since January.

If Democrats win the House popular vote by this margin in November, they are very likely to gain control of the House. At 2024 elections, Republicans won the House by 220–215 and the Senate by 53–47.

There will be 35 seats up for election in the Senate in November (33 regular and two special elections). Republicans hold 22 and Democrats 13, but only two Republican seats are thought vulnerable: Maine and North Carolina.

At the 2024 presidential election, Harris won Maine by 6.9 points and Trump only won North Carolina by 2.2 points. Trump won all other states Republicans are defending by at least a double-digit margin. Even if Democrats win nationally by 5.5 points, they would gain only two seats on a uniform swing and Republicans would hold the Senate by 51–49.

It’s become increasingly difficult for Democrats to win the Senate, as the two senators per state rule skews Senate elections towards low-population, rural states.

US unemployment rate is low due to people leaving workforce

The March US unemployment rate was 4.3%, down 0.1% from February. Trump’s first full month in office was February 2025, when the unemployment rate was 4.2%. By this measure, there has hardly been any change in the US jobs situation.

However, the employment population ratio (the percentage of eligible Americans that are employed) was down 0.1% from February to 59.2% in March. This measure has dropped 0.5% since December and 0.7% since February 2025 (when it was 59.9%). The unemployment rate only remains low because of people leaving the workforce.

In Australia, the February unemployment rate was 4.3%, the same as in the US. But Australia’s employment population ratio is much higher than the US at 64.0%.

Adrian Beaumont 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. Donald Trump’s US ratings fall to a record low amid Iran war – https://theconversation.com/donald-trumps-us-ratings-fall-to-a-record-low-amid-iran-war-279965

April 9, 2026

Fake QR codes make for easy scams – be careful what you scan out there

Source: The Conversation – Global Perspectives – By Meena Jha, Head Technology and Pedagogy Cluster CML-NET, CQUniversity Australia

It’s a simple thing we encounter many times every single week – often while in a hurry. You pull up at a parking spot, scan a QR code and pay within seconds. Or you sit down at a cafe, scan a code to view the menu and order your meal.

At the train station, you scan the code on the poster for timetable updates. QR codes are increasingly used in public transport systems worldwide for ticketing, payments and accessing real-time information.

Because QR codes are so widespread, scammers naturally find them appealing too. Here’s what you need to know to stay safe.

What are QR codes?

A QR (quick response) code is a type of barcode that stores information and encoded data in a square pattern of black and white pixels. They were first developed in 1994 by Japanese company Denso Wave for labelling automotive parts.

Today QR codes are widely used because they’re quick to create and easy to scan without needing a specialised scanner – a smartphone camera will do. They’re designed to remove friction: you scan, and something happens instantly.

However, a QR code doesn’t show you where it leads until after it’s scanned. Your device can perform a range of functions after scanning a QR code: open up a web page, check you in to a location, or even connect your device to a wireless network without needing to type anything.

That’s what makes it so useful, but also potentially risky. Malicious QR codes can redirect users to fake websites or prompt them to download harmful content. QR codes are so familiar and widespread, we tend to trust them without question. That’s exactly what scammers rely on.

What to look out for

Phishing – where cyber criminals “fish” for sensitive information – is the most common type of cyber crime, typically sent by email or text. When a QR code is involved, that becomes “quishing” – short for QR phishing.

Scammers now include QR codes in emails or text messages instead of clickable links. When scanned, the code directs users to fake login pages or payment sites.
Because there’s no visible link, these messages can seem more trustworthy and can even bypass some email security filters.

Malicious downloads

Some QR codes don’t just take you to a website – they trigger an app or file download, which could contain malware. This can give attackers access to your device, data or accounts. Because the action happens quickly, you may not have time to question whether the download is legitimate.

Fake QR codes in public places

One of the simplest methods to trick people involves placing a sticker with a fake QR code over a legitimate one. For example, scammers have been caught sticking fraudulent QR codes on parking meters. When drivers scan the code, they are taken to a fake payment page and asked to enter their card details. Posters, flyers and other signs in public places may also contain malicious QR codes.

Redirect scams

Even when a QR code looks legitimate, it may redirect you through multiple websites before landing on a fake page. This makes it harder to detect suspicious activity. By the time you see the final page, it may look convincing enough to trust.

How to stay safe

The good news is you don’t need to stop using QR codes. You just need to use them more carefully.

Treat QR codes like unknown links. If you wouldn’t click a random link, don’t scan a random QR code.

Check for signs of tampering. In public places, look closely at the code. Is it a sticker placed over another one? Does anything look out of place?

Look at the web address before proceeding. Many phones now show a preview of the hyperlink retrieved via the QR code before opening it. Don’t just hit “go”, take a moment to check it looks legitimate.

Avoid scanning codes from unsolicited messages. If you receive a QR code via email or text asking you to log in or make a payment, don’t use it. Go directly to the official website instead.

Don’t rush to enter personal details. If a site asks for sensitive information, pause. Double-check you’re on the correct website.

Keep your phone updated. Security updates may sometimes feel like a nuisance, but they do help protect your device against malicious sites and downloads.

QR codes are not dangerous by themselves. They are useful tools that make everyday tasks easier. But they remove a key safety step: the ability to see where you’re going before you get there.

The next time you scan a QR code, take a second to think. In a world where scams are getting smarter, the safest habit is simple – don’t trust the code and verify where it leads.

Meena Jha 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. Fake QR codes make for easy scams – be careful what you scan out there – https://theconversation.com/fake-qr-codes-make-for-easy-scams-be-careful-what-you-scan-out-there-279333

April 8, 2026

Cessez-le-feu au Moyen-Orient : l’approvisionnement en pétrole va demeurer instable, forçant des mesures que l’on croyait révolues

Source: The Conversation – in French – By Henri Chevalier, PhD student at School of Environment, Resources and Sustainability, University of Waterloo

Même si un cessez‑le‑feu provisoire a été conclu entre les États‑Unis et l’Iran, la tension sur l’approvisionnement mondial en pétrole reste vive, poussant certains gouvernements à envisager des mesures que l’on croyait révolues : rationnement et contrôle des prix.

Certains pays appliquent déjà de telles mesures. Les Philippines ont déclaré l’état d’urgence national en réponse aux risques pesant sur l’approvisionnement énergétique. Au Soudan du Sud, la capitale Juba commence à rationner l’électricité, tandis que l’île Maurice a instauré des restrictions pour réduire la consommation et limiter le gaspillage.

Ces développements s’inscrivent dans des précédents historiques. Mes recherches, récemment publiées dans la revue Sustainability : Science, Practice and Policy, s’appuient sur le cas du rationnement des vêtements en Grande-Bretagne pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale pour montrer que lorsque les biens essentiels se font rares, les gouvernements ne peuvent pas compter uniquement sur les prix pour gérer la crise.

Si on laisse le marché décider seul, l’accès aux biens de première nécessité dépend alors de ceux qui peuvent payer le plus, ce qui signifie que les ménages à faibles revenus sont souvent les plus durement touchés.

Un choc d’approvisionnement mondial

Les frappes américaines et israéliennes contre l’Iran ont déclenché un conflit plus large et interrompu le trafic maritime dans le détroit d’Ormuz. En conséquence, l’approvisionnement mondial en pétrole a chuté d’environ huit millions de barils par jour, soit près de 8 % de la demande mondiale.

La perturbation d’une voie transportant environ 20 % de l’approvisionnement mondial en pétrole fait grimper les prix et réduit la disponibilité, créant des conditions comparables à celles rencontrées par la Grande-Bretagne avant le rationnement.

Face à un tel choc pétrolier, les gouvernements du monde entier devraient s’inspirer du système britannique de rationnement des vêtements en mettant en place un rationnement et un contrôle des prix.

Ce fut le cas lors des chocs pétroliers des années 1970 au Canada. Les gouvernements ont maintenu les prix intérieurs du pétrole sous contrôle et ont contribué à couvrir le coût des importations plus coûteuses.

En 1979, le Canada a également conçu un plan national de rationnement de l’essence qui n’a finalement jamais été mis en place. Des timbres imprimés permettaient de limiter la consommation des automobilistes privés, tout en réservant un accès prioritaire aux ambulances, aux transporteurs de marchandises et aux agriculteurs.

Ce que l’histoire peut nous enseigner

Le Royaume-Uni a été confronté à d’importantes perturbations de l’approvisionnement pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, ce qui a conduit au rationnement pour atténuer les effets de la pénurie de matériaux, de l’inflation et de la pression croissante sur l’approvisionnement civil.

Pour y parvenir, le système de rationnement britannique s’appuyait sur trois principaux outils politiques.

Le premier était un système de coupons. Introduits en 1941, ces coupons servaient à réguler l’usage des matériaux plutôt que les prix. Chaque personne recevait un nombre fixe de coupons de vêtements par an : 66 au départ (environ les deux tiers des niveaux d’avant-guerre), puis seulement 36 en 1946.

Chaque type de vêtement nécessitait un nombre défini de coupons en fonction de la quantité de tissu utilisée. Par exemple, une robe en laine pouvait coûter environ 11 coupons, tandis qu’une chemise en coûtait cinq et une paire de bas deux. La réduction de seulement deux coupons par personne a permis d’économiser environ 27 millions de mètres de tissu.

La deuxième mesure était le « Utility Clothing Scheme » (programme de vêtements utilitaires). Lancé en 1942, il proposait des vêtements abordables et durables grâce à des normes strictes et des règles visant à économiser le tissu. Le raccourcissement des chemises pour hommes de cinq centimètres et la suppression des poignets doubles ont permis d’économiser 3,3 millions de mètres carrés de coton. En 1943, ce programme couvrait 80 % de la production britannique de vêtements.

La dernière mesure concernait le contrôle des prix. Le Board of Trade a reçu le pouvoir de fixer les prix et les marges sur toute la chaîne de production et de distribution. Grâce à ce mécanisme, les vêtements « Utility » restaient à un prix stable ou inférieur, alors que ceux hors « Utility » augmentaient, les articles « Utility » coûtant environ la moitié du prix des vêtements ordinaires.

Gérer la pénurie et l’équité

Ces politiques ont eu trois conséquences majeures. Premièrement, elles ont réduit la consommation globale. Sous le régime du rationnement des vêtements, la filature de laine a chuté de 44 % et la production de fil pour l’industrie de la bonneterie de 37 %, tandis que l’approvisionnement civil en textiles et la consommation de vêtements par personne ont chuté de 67 %.

Les achats de vêtements et de chaussures par habitant ont diminué de 34 %. Malgré six années de guerre, les civils avaient accès à moins de quatre ans de réserves de vêtements normaux.

Deuxièmement, ils ont garanti un accès équitable aux produits de première nécessité. Le rationnement à prix contrôlés a permis de s’assurer que les gens disposaient toujours de vêtements décents, réduisant ainsi la pauvreté et prévenant de graves pénuries.

Troisièmement, ils ont renforcé une culture de la réparation et de la réutilisation. S’appuyant sur la culture de la réparation déjà présente dans les années 1930, des campagnes telles que « Make Do and Mend » ont encouragé la réparation, la transformation, la conception modulaire et la réutilisation de matériaux tels que les couvertures, le tissu de black-out, les sacs alimentaires, la soie de parachute, les sabots en bois et même le fil de fourrure de chien.

Une vidéo sur le rationnement des vêtements en Grande-Bretagne, réalisée par l’Imperial War Museum.

Le système de rationnement a non seulement réduit la consommation et aligné la demande sur l’offre, mais il a également empêché que la pénurie ne devienne une aubaine pour les producteurs et une punition pour les ménages à faibles revenus. Il a également réduit le gaspillage et découragé la surconsommation – autant de leçons précieuses dans le contexte actuel de perturbation de l’approvisionnement mondial en pétrole.

Cela dit, le système n’était pas sans inconvénients. Le système de rationnement britannique était également technocratique, bureaucratique et peu démocratique.

Déjà des milliers d’abonnés à l’infolettre de La Conversation. Et vous ? Abonnez-vous gratuitement à notre infolettre pour mieux comprendre les grands enjeux contemporains.

Ce que les gouvernements peuvent faire aujourd’hui

Aujourd’hui, la véritable question n’est pas de savoir si les gouvernements interviennent, mais s’ils le font de manière équitable et efficace.

Le 20 mars, pour faire face à la pénurie actuelle d’approvisionnement en pétrole, l’Agence internationale de l’énergie a proposé une série de mesures de réduction de la demande, notamment le développement du télétravail, l’abaissement des limitations de vitesse, le renforcement de l’utilisation des transports en commun et le recours accru au covoiturage.

Bien qu’utiles, ces mesures ne constituent que des solutions à court terme. Si les pénuries s’aggravent, les gouvernements – y compris celui du Canada – pourraient devoir envisager les réponses structurelles suivantes :

1. Instaurer des systèmes équitables de répartition du carburant si les pénuries s’aggravent.

Certains gouvernements s’engagent déjà dans cette voie. Le Sri Lanka a mis en place un système d’autorisation de carburant basé sur des codes QR pour réguler la distribution d’essence et de diesel, avec des quotas hebdomadaires.

2. Plafonner les prix et les marges excessifs sur les produits de première nécessité.

Au Canada, sur les marchés concentrés du carburant et de l’alimentation, les marges des raffineurs et des entreprises agroalimentaires profitent souvent aux entreprises plutôt qu’aux consommateurs. Les bénéfices du raffinage ont bondi, les prix à la pompe augmentant plus vite que ceux du brut, tandis que transformateurs, distributeurs et détaillants gagnaient 83 cents pour chaque dollar dépensé en alimentation au Canada.

Le Canada pourrait s’inspirer de l’Autriche, de la Grèce et de l’Espagne, qui ont récemment plafonné respectivement les marges des détaillants de carburant, les marges des épiceries et les loyers.

3. Profiter de la crise pour mettre en place une transformation économique structurelle.

Les crises récurrentes liées aux ressources, à la géopolitique et à l’écologie montrent qu’il est nécessaire de réduire la dépendance aux chaînes d’approvisionnement mondiales fragiles, d’accélérer la décarbonisation et de repenser l’économie autour des ressources rares. Cela pourrait passer, par exemple, par une réduction de la publicité et par des plafonds de consommation fixés démocratiquement.

Cela permettrait de prioriser les besoins essentiels, de limiter la production et la consommation superflues, et de favoriser des biens durables et réparables, respectueux de l’environnement.

Pour ceux qui souhaitent approfondir cette recherche, une version vulgarisée et interactive de mon étude est disponible en ligne.

Cette recherche a été financée par le Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada, Coboom et la Fondation HEC Montréal. 

– ref. Cessez-le-feu au Moyen-Orient : l’approvisionnement en pétrole va demeurer instable, forçant des mesures que l’on croyait révolues – https://theconversation.com/cessez-le-feu-au-moyen-orient-lapprovisionnement-en-petrole-va-demeurer-instable-forcant-des-mesures-que-lon-croyait-revolues-280228

April 8, 2026

Presidential words can turn the unthinkable into the thinkable − for better or for worse

Source: The Conversation – USA – By Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University

President Donald Trump’s rhetoric has grown increasingly violent. wildpixel/iStock via Getty Images Plus

Among the most disorienting things about President Donald Trump’s public language is how easily it can feel numbing and shocking in the same moment. He says something outrageous, the country recoils, and then the recoil itself begins to feel familiar.

As a scholar who studies presidential rhetoric, I know that over time that rhythm does its own kind of damage. It teaches the public to absorb the breach. What once might have sounded like a genuine political emergency or a violation of constitutional decorum begins to register as just another day in American political life.

But the past few days merit notice. The president’s demagoguery has taken a darker turn.

Trump’s rhetoric about Iran has become more than inflammatory. Beginning with posts to Truth Social in early April, he has used profanity-laden language – “Open the Fuckin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell” – to threaten attacks on the country’s infrastructure. He urged Iranians to rise up against their government. He warned that “a whole civilization will die tonight” if Iran does not comply with U.S. demands.

The Associated Press treated those remarks as a significant escalation in the context of a live conflict, not merely as familiar Trumpian excess: “As the conflict has entered its second month, Trump has escalated his warnings to bomb Iran’s infrastructure.”

The International Committee of the Red Cross also issued the unusual reminder that the rules of war must be respected “in words and action,” suggesting that the rhetoric itself had become part of the danger.

But were Trump’s recent remarks really different from his many earlier outbursts?

I think they were. For years, Trump’s rhetoric has relied on insult, ridicule, threat and contempt. He has degraded opponents and helped coarsen the terms of public life.

What seems different about his words during the first week of April 2026 is the scale of violence his language primed people to imagine. His remarks about Iran moved beyond personal attacks or chest-thumping nationalism to take on a tone of collective punishment and civilizational destruction. The style was familiar. The horizon of harm was not.

A social media post from President Donald Trump threatening destruction of Iran's civilization. — President Donald Trump’s social media post of April 7, 2026, threatening the destruction of ‘a whole civilization,’ meaning Iran.
Truth Social

Politics of fear

Presidential rhetoric is more about permission than persuasion. Presidents do not only argue. They signal.

Through those signals, they tell the public what kind of situation this is, what kind of danger is at hand, and what kinds of response are reasonable. In that sense, the president can function like a human starting gun. His words cue journalists, legislators, party allies and ordinary supporters about how to classify events before anyone has fully processed them.

Political theorist Corey Robin’s work on the politics of fear is a useful lens for understanding what is happening with Trump’s violent rhetoric.

Fear, in Robin’s view, is not simply a feeling that arises naturally in response to danger. It is politically manufactured. Power teaches people what to fear, how to name danger, and where to direct their apprehension. Presidential rhetoric is an essential tool for performing that work.

Thus, a president does not only describe a threat. He also gives it shape and scale. He tells the public how large it is, how close it is, and what kinds of response should feel reasonable in its presence.

A good example of a president doing this happened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks when, while visiting ground zero in New York City, George W. Bush said, “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” With that sentence, Bush acknowledged the gravity of what had happened, but also promised to fight back and bring justice to the terrorists.

When it comes to statements like those Trump has recently made about Iran, the worry is not that the president has said something extreme. Instead, the larger concern lies in what repeatedly using extreme language does to the atmosphere in which judgment takes place.

Political hyperbole lowers the threshold of what the public can imagine as legitimate, as allowable. When presidents make threats like the ones Trump issued, mass suffering becomes more imaginable. The president’s words and social media posts test whether the public will continue to hear such language as over the line, or whether it will be absorbed as one more hard-edged negotiating tactic.

At ground zero after the 9/11 attacks, President George W. Bush acknowledged the gravity of what had happened, but he also promised to fight back.

Shaping reality

Presidential rhetoric matters for reasons that go beyond persuasion or style.

It helps arrange reality. It tells the public what is serious, who is dangerous, whose suffering counts, and what forms of violence can be described as necessary. President Barack Obama did this in 2012, when he was speaking at a vigil to honor the shooting victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“We bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours,” he said. “That we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.” With these words, Obama called everyone to feel, up close, the horrific loss of 20 children shot dead, and to work for a solution to gun violence.

Trump has benefited from a public worn down by repetition. Every new breach arrives trailing the memory of earlier ones.

People begin to doubt their own reactions. Surely this is appalling, they may think, but also, somehow, this is what he always does. That dual feeling is part of the harm. A damaged baseline makes serious escalation harder to recognize and judge.

The disorientation and disgust that so many people experienced in response to Trump’s thundering, violent proclamations is important. Even after years of erosion of what was deemed normal, some lines remain visible.

Paying attention now is not about pretending Trump has suddenly become someone new. It is about recognizing more clearly what his presidency has been teaching the public to hear as thinkable. The most serious harm may lie not only in what follows such rhetoric, but in the world it helps prepare people to accept.

Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

– ref. Presidential words can turn the unthinkable into the thinkable − for better or for worse – https://theconversation.com/presidential-words-can-turn-the-unthinkable-into-the-thinkable-for-better-or-for-worse-280126

April 8, 2026

New research shows how forests can prevent floods of all sizes

Source: The Conversation – Canada – By Samadhee Kaluarachchi, PhD Student in Forest Hydrology, University of British Columbia

Flooding on British Columbia’s Highway 11 in November 2021. (B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Transit/flickr), CC BY-NC-ND

As large floods occur more frequently worldwide, many wonder what led to such devastating events. Greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, improper land management and forest removal increase flood frequencies and severity.

Increasingly destructive floods also re-ignite debate on how we can make communities more resilient. Should we rely solely on traditional infrastructure like dikes and dams? In many regions, traditional infrastructure is aging and becoming increasingly insufficient, especially due to climate change.

As a result, some governments are adopting solutions that incorporate or mimic nature. However, while many jurisdictions have expressed interest in nature-based solutions, most have yet to implement them on appreciable scales. Funding is limited and little is known about the effectiveness of nature-based approaches.

The idea that forests help reduce flood risk might seem a given to most people, but scientists who study this (forest hydrologists) remain divided.

Scientific and governmental reports have found that forests prevent small and moderate floods but have little impact on large floods.

Our recent paper challenges this conclusion. It comes from studies that don’t correctly reveal how changing forest cover causes changes in flood frequencies and sizes, leading them to underestimate what forests can do. Our methods that can causally link changes in forest cover to floods suggest that forests can mitigate floods of all sizes.

Flood risk

Floods occur when factors like rainfall, landscape wetness, snowpack and snowmelt combine. These factors vary randomly through time and over the landscape. Today, flood risk is escalating, and the stakes are high in many regions.

A flood event of a certain size and frequency can be generated by an infinite number of combinations of the same factors. Understanding the causes of rising risk means considering all possible flood-generating combinations.

Large floods happen naturally, but adding or removing forests can change their size and frequency. It’s important to consider how changing forest cover alters both factors. The dominant approach doesn’t do this; it only looks at how flood sizes change.

Forest hydrologists, engineers, policymakers, conservationists and industry leaders have long debated the extent to which we should rely on forests to mitigate floods. These debates often reflected competing interests, which in turn influenced policy.

The dominant method underestimates just how strongly even large floods react, giving the impression that degrading forests won’t influence large floods. In reality, floods could be happening much more frequently if not for forests.

Relying on that method can put communities in even more danger when losses of lives and livelihoods, economic damages and lawsuits are already piling up from improper land management and climate change.

It also makes us undervalue nature and miss out on novel opportunities to incorporate nature’s ability to mitigate floods. Our flood management therefore must be guided by strong science.

a road damaged by flooding — Flooding in the Peace Region in British Columbia on June 16, 2016.
(B.C. Ministry of Transportation and Transit/flickr), CC BY-NC-ND

Healthy forests are integral to flood management

Our study examined the core research questions and methods of both the dominant approach and a less dominant approach to determine which one reveals how changes in forest cover cause changes in flood risk. We stepped back to look at how flood risk is assessed more widely beyond forest influences, and how related disciplines like climate science answer similar questions.

Our study challenges the validity of the dominant non-causal method. Instead, our synthesis advocates for the less dominant causal method, which is in fact standard outside the field of forest hydrology.

The less dominant approach considers how the frequency and size of floods change when we add or remove forests. Accounting for all possible flood-generating combinations can reveal how changes in forest cover cause changes in large floods.

Although less dominant in the field, these studies exist, suggesting that floods of all sizes can be sensitive to changes in forest cover.

Forests return moisture back into the atmosphere, promote infiltration and, in snow environments, promote smaller snowpacks that melt slower. Consequently, forests can reduce the probability of even large floods, making them smaller and much rarer.

When we degrade forests, large floods can react strongly. Their frequency, in particular, can increase dramatically with larger shifts possible for larger floods.

These probability-based approaches are standard throughout science, including in flood-risk analysis and to understand how climate change influences weather extremes.

It’s time for forest hydrology to follow suit. We can no longer afford to justify non-causal work that greatly underestimates risk.

Incorporating strong science means recognizing that forests can reduce the risks of even large floods, making them much less common.

In regions where causal studies are limited, reports should acknowledge this difference among causal and non-causal studies elsewhere and encourage rigorous science.

Planning and management must consider both climatic and landscape drivers. Degraded landscapes, even in uplands thousands of kilometres away, can cause floods downstream. Governments must manage the land carefully, collaborating across jurisdictions to ease downstream risk.

There is concern that nature-based approaches can’t mitigate large floods, especially in forest-based initiatives. Our research, however, indicates that forests and other nature-based initiatives can address flooding and complement traditional infrastructure while providing a range of social and ecological benefits.

By adopting and promoting causal science, we can overcome key barriers for implementation and build a strong case for wider adoption of forests as an integral part of nature-based flood management.

Samadhee Kaluarachchi received funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Faculty of Forestry at the University of British Columbia, the Gordon and Nora Bailey Fellowship in Sustainable Forestry, and the Mary and David Macaree Fellowship.

Younes Alila receives funding from Mitacs and the National Science and Engineering Council (NSERC) of Canada.

– ref. New research shows how forests can prevent floods of all sizes – https://theconversation.com/new-research-shows-how-forests-can-prevent-floods-of-all-sizes-277967